HomeMy WebLinkAboutConifer Court SVSP Addendum_5-22-25
Conifer Court Self-Storage
Project
Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report No. 81-3
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, CA 92335
Project Applicant:
Conifer Court, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
CEQA Consultant:
3333 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
May 2025
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS) .......................................................................... 2
1.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES .............................................................................................................. 2
1.4. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ................................................................................ 3
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................... 5
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2. EXISTING LAND USE .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ............................................ 5
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES ..................................................................................................................... 5
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 23
3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... 23
3.2. PROJECT FEATURES .................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.4. CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 25
3.5. OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 25
3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST .................................................................................................. 26
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ..................................................................................................... 37
4.1. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..................................................................... 37
4.3. DETERMINATION ....................................................................................................................................... 38
4.4. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................... 40
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 42
5.1. AESTHETICS ................................................................................................................................................ 42
5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 48
5.3. AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................................................. 52
5.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES....................................................................................................................... 61
5.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 68
5.6. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................................... 73
5.7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................................................ 79
5.8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................ 88
5.9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................................................... 100
5.10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................ 109
5.11. LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................................. 118
5.12. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 126
5.13. NOISE ........................................................................................................................................................ 128
5.14. POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................................. 142
5.15. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................................................................................... 145
5.16. RECREATION ............................................................................................................................................ 151
5.17. TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................. 154
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................ 160
5.19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 163
5.20. WILDFIRE ................................................................................................................................................... 171
6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 177
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
ii
Tables
TABLE 2-1: SURROUNDING USES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, ZONING, AND SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS ...................... 6
TABLE 3-1: STORAGE UNIT SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN ........................................................................................... 23
TABLE AES-1: CONSISTENCY WITH SVSP DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.............................................................................. 44
TABLE AQ-12: SCAQMD REGIONAL DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS ............................................................................. 54
TABLE AQ-2: REGIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ......................................................................... 55
TABLE AQ-3: REGIONAL PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 56
TABLE AQ-4: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ....................................................................................... 57
TABLE AQ-5: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ........................................................................................................ 58
TABLE E-1: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT FUEL USAGE ........................................................................................................ 75
TABLE E-2: ESTIMATED PROJECT VEHICLE FUEL USAGE ....................................................................................................... 76
TABLE E-3: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUEL USAGE ................................................................................................................ 76
TABLE E-3: PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 77
TABLE GHG-1: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 90
TABLE GHG-2: PROJECT TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS............................................................................................................ 90
TABLE GHG-3: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN .............................................................................. 91
TABLE GHG-4: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN .......................................................... 94
TABLE GHG-5: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY OF FONTANA GENERAL PLAN .......................................................... 95
TABLE LU-1: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH SVSP POLICIES ............................................................................................ 120
TABLE LU-2: PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES .............................................................................. 120
TABLE N-1: LONG TERM 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS .................................................................. 129
TABLE N-2: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................................................. 133
TABLE N-3: DETAILED ASSESSMENT DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA ............................................................... 134
TABLE N-4: INTERPRETATION OF VIBRATION CRITERIA FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................... 134
TABLE N-5: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA ............................................................................................ 134
TABLE N-6: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ............................................................. 135
TABLE N-7: DAYTIME EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................................. 136
TABLE N-8: NIGHTTIME EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS ............................................................................................................... 136
TABLE N-9: CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION REFERENCE LEVELS ............................................................................................. 137
TABLE N-10: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANNOYANCE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS ............................. 137
TABLE N-11: POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE LEVELS AT NEAREST RECEPTORS.................................... 138
TABLE T-1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ............................................................................................................................ 156
TABLE UT-1: FONTANA WATER COMPANY PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY (AF) ................................................................. 167
FIGURES
FIGURE 2-1: REGIONAL LOCATION........................................................................................................................................ 7
FIGURE 2-2: LOCAL VICINITY ................................................................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 2-3: AERIAL VIEW................................................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 2-4A: SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 13
FIGURE 2-4B: SITE PHOTOS ................................................................................................................................................ 15
FIGURE 2-5: EXISTING LAND USE ........................................................................................................................................ 17
FIGURE 2-6: EXISTING ZONING .......................................................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 2-7: EXISTING SVSP DESIGNATION ...................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 3-1: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 3-2: CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS ............................................................................................................................ 29
FIGURE 3-3: LANDSCAPE PLAN ........................................................................................................................................... 31
FIGURE 3-4: OFF-SITE DISTURBANCE AREA ......................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 3-5: PHASING PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 5-1: LIMITED PHASE II SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS ................................................................................................. 103
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
iii
FIGURE 5-2: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .............................................................................................................. 131
FIGURE 5-3: FUEL MODIFICATION EXHIBIT ........................................................................................................................ 173
Appendices
APPENDIX A AIR QUALITY, ENERGY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX B CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C GENERAL BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX D CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX F ROCKFALL INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX G PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX H PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND LIMITED PHASE II METALS SOIL RESIDUE SURVEY
APPENDIX I EXCAVATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND DISPOSAL COMPLETION REPORT
APPENDIX J HYDROLOGY REPORT
APPENDIX K WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX L NOISE AND VIBRATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
APPENDIX M VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED SCREENING MEMO
APPENDIX N LEVEL OF SERVICES SCREENING ANALYSIS
APPENDIX O FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
iv
Acronym List
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily trips
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean seal level
ANFO ammonium nitrate fuel oil
A-P Alquist-Priolo (Earthquake Fault Zoning Act)
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMP best management practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Foresty and Fire Protection
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CBC California Building Code
CBMWD Chino Basin Municipal Water District
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
C-G General Commercial
CGP Construction General Permit
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CY cubic yards
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control
ESS Electric Storage System
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFPD Fontana Fire Protection District
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FPD Fontana Police Department
FPP Fire Protection Plan
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FUSD Fontana Unified School District
FWC Fontana Water Company
GBA General Biological Assessment
GHG greenhouse gas
gpad gallons per acre per day
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HPLV high pressure low volume
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
v
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-10 Interstate 10
I-15 Interstate 15
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU thousand British thermal units
kWh kilowatt-hour
Leq equivalent continuous sound level
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
LST localized significant threshold
Lv velocity in decibels
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System
MTCO2e metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NOI Notice of Intent
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
ONT Ontario International Airport
ONTLUCP Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
OS Open Space
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
P-PF Public Facility
PPP Plan, Programs, or Policies
PPV peak particle velocity
QSD Qualified SWPPP Preparer
REC Recognized Environmental Concern
R-M Medium Density Residential
ROG reactive organic gases
RP Regional Plant
R-PC Residential Planned Community
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards
RSA Regional Statistical Area
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
RV recreational vehicle
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SBCFCD San Bernardino County Flood Control District
SBCFD San Bernardino County Fire Department
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
vi
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transit Authority
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SF square foot
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SL Screening Level
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SP service population
SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad
SR-60 State Route 60
SRA source receptor area
STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration
SVSP Southridge Village Specific Plan
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPH-d Diesel Range Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH-g Gasoline Range Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPH-mo Motor Oil Range Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TPZ Timberland Production Zone
TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFW United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration velocity decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSBCWD West San Bernardino County Water District
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document is an Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 81-
3, which was certified by the City of Fontana (City) in December 1981, and which has subsequently been
amended and supplemented 19 times (collectively, the “SVSP Final EIR”). The SVSP Final EIR in conjunction
with this Addendum serve as the environmental review for the proposed Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
(“proposed Project,” or “Project”).
The proposed Project evaluated herein involves a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review for
construction and operation of a 136,863 SF self-storage facility, landscaping, site improvements, and a
public trail on an approximately 13.16-acre site located southeast of the intersection of Conifer Court and
Village Drive within the City of Fontana.
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 66B of the SVSP.
The SVSP designates Planning Area 66B as Mini-storage overlay which allows for self-storage uses
(designated by SVSP Amendment No. 15).
SVSP Amendment No. 15 was approved on December 19, 1995, through the adoption of Ordinance No.
1173. SVSP Amendment No. 15 established a Mini-storage overlay on Planning Area 66B and established
site development standards for the use.
SVSP Amendment No. 19 was approved on July 25, 2023, through the adopted of Resolution No. 2023-
085. An EIR Addendum was prepared for SVSP Amendment No. 19 which included analysis of a General
Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the current Project site. As part of Resolution No.
2023-085, the General Plan land use of the Project site was changed from Open Space (OS) to General
Commercial (C-G).
Development within the SVSP area is subject to mitigation measures identified in the SVSP Final EIR and
subsequent EIR Addendums, 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
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
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.)
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
2
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.
1.2. EXISTING PLANS, PROGRAMS, OR POLICIES (PPPS)
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. Additionally, applicable Mitigation Measures from the SVSP Final EIR, SVSP
Amendment No. 15, and SVSP Amendment No. 19 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.
1.3. 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
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
3
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.
1.4. 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 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, 19 amendments to the SVSP have been processed and a total of 7,999
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. These include: topography, geology and soils,
hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources, onsite and surrounding land uses, transportation and
circulation, air resources, acoustic environment, and public services and utilities.
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 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 )
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
4
• Southridge Village Specific Plan 5 Draft Environmental Impact Report 81-3
(https://www.fontana.org/1296/Southridge-Village-Specific-Plan)
• Southridge Village Specific Plan 5 Addendum Final Environmental Impact Report No. 81-3
(https://www.fontana.org/1296/Southridge-Village-Specific-Plan)
• City of Fontana Municipal Code
(https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances)
• City of Fontana General Plan (https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---
2035)
• Southridge Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 15 Focused EIR
• Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR for the Heights at Southridge Project (2023)
(Southridge Village Specific Plan Amendment No. 19)
• 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
5
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1. PROJECT LOCATION
The 13.16-acre Project site is located within the southern portion of the City of Fontana in the County of San
Bernardino. The Project site is located southeast of the intersection of Conifer Court and Village Drive.
Regional access to the Project site is provided via Interstate 10 (I-10), located approximately 1.5 miles north,
Interstate 15 (I-15), located approximately 4 miles west, and State Route 60 (SR-60), located approximately
1.6 miles south, as depicted on Figure 2-1, Regional Location. Local access is provided by Village Drive as
shown in Figure 2-2, Local Vicinity.
2.2. EXISTING LAND USE
The Project site is comprised of two parcels identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0237-411-28
(5.67 acres) and 0237-411-29 (7.49 acres) [until 2024 the two parcels were a single parcel APN: 0237-
411-27]. The 7.49-acre parcel is owned by the Applicant and the 5.67-acre parcel is owned by the City of
Fontana. The site was previously part of the Declez Quarry which produced tonalite rock for building
purposes and ceased operation in 1980s. The Project site is currently undeveloped but heavily disturbed.
Vegetation on the Project site consists primarily of non-native weeds and grasses interrupted by pockets of
chapparal community plants. Additionally, the site includes several dirt access roads and various refuse piles
containing soil, blasted rock, boulders, building materials, and trash. On-site elevations range from 938 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) to 975 feet amsl. The Project site’s existing conditions are shown in Figure 2-3,
Aerial View, and Figure 2-4a-b, Site Photos.
2.3. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C-G). The C-G designation
is intended to serve uses such as retail, malls, wholesale, auto dealerships and offices, including medical
offices and clinics, that can serve a broader, regional population at a floor area ratio (FAR) between 0.1
and 1. The Project site is zoned Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP). Within the SVSP, the site is identified
as Planning Area 66B. The SVSP designates Planning Area 66B as Mini-storage overlay which allows for
self-storage uses but does not establish minimum or maximum development allowances such as FAR or
maximum lot coverage. Sec 5.8.7 of SVSP requires that any Mini-storage project shall not have a net lot
area of less than five (5) acres. The site’s existing General Plan land use, zoning and SVSP designations are
shown in Figure 2-5, Existing Land Use, Figure 2-6, Existing Zoning, and Figure 2-7, Existing SVSP Designation.
2.4. SURROUNDING LAND USES
The surrounding land uses are shown on Figure 2-3, Aerial View, and described below. The General Plan
land use designation, zoning designation, and SVSP designation of the surrounding land uses are listed in
Table 2-1.
• North: Declez Channel alignment followed by water storage basins and Village Drive followed by
single-family residences.
• East: Undeveloped, open space land.
• South: Undeveloped, open space land.
• West: Undeveloped land followed by Live Oak Avenue (area is approved for residential development
and a new City park).
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
6
Table 2-1: Surrounding Uses General Plan Land Use, Zoning, and Specific Plan Designations
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation SVSP Designation
North
Residential Planned
Community (R-PC), Open
Space (OS), Public Facility
(P-PF)
Southridge Village Specific
Plan (SVSP)
Flood Control, Southern
Pacific Railroad, Single-
Family Overlay
East Open Space (OS) Southridge Village Specific
Plan (SVSP)
Flood Control, Open
Space
South Open Space (OS) Southridge Village Specific
Plan (SVSP) “Open Space” Overlay
West Medium Density Residential
(R-M) Southridge Village Specific
Plan (SVSP) Entry Estates/Duplex
Figure 2-1Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Regional Location
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
8
This page intentionally left blank.
Local Vicinity
Figure 2-2Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
10
This page intentionally left blank.
Aerial View
Figure 2-3Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Existing Site Photos
Figure 2-4a
View from Village Drive at the northwest corner of the Project site, looking south.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
14
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Existing Site Photos
Figure 2-4b
View from Village Drive at the northwest corner of the Project site, looking south.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
16
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Existing General Plan Land Use
Figure 2-5
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
18
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Existing Zoning Designation
Figure 2-6
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
20
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Existing SVSP Designation
Figure 2-7
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
22
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
23
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Conifer Court LLC (Applicant) is requesting approval from the City of Fontana for a Conditional Use Permit
and Design Review to construct and operate a self-storage facility on Parcel 1 (APN 0237-411-29). The
self-storage facility would be 136,863 SF, resulting in an FAR of 0.4. Site improvements would include
landscaping, community trails, sidewalks, utility connections, implementation of stormwater facilities, and
pavement of parking areas and driveways. Additionally, as part of the Project, the Applicant would construct
a 20-foot-wide public trail on the City-owned Parcel 2 (APN 0237-411-28). Figure 3-1, Conceptual Site
Plan, illustrates the proposed site plan.
3.2. PROJECT FEATURES
Development Summary
The proposed self-storage facility includes 18 buildings for self-storage uses (135,014 SF) and one office
building (1,338 SF) totaling 136,863 SF. The facility proposes a total of 688 storage units including 594
self-storage units and 94 recreational vehicle (RV) storage units. The office building would have a maximum
height of 25 feet while the storage units have a maximum height of 14 feet and 2 inches. The storage units
would range in size from 10-foot by 5-foot (50 SF) to 16-foot by 42-foot (672 SF). Table 3-1 provides a
breakdown of each storage building.
Table 3-1: Storage Unit Square Footage Breakdown
Building Storage Type Unit SF No. of Units Total Building SF
Office Office 1,338 1 1,338
B-1.1 Self 100 41 4,100
B-1.2 Self 100 14 1,400
B-2.1 Self 150 12 1,800
B-2.2 Self 150 21 3,150
B-3.1 Self 200 31 6,200
B-3.2 Self 200 6 1,200
B-3.3 Self 200 3 600
B-3.4 Self 200 3 600
B-4.1 Self 300 11 3,300
B-5 Self 50 - 200 157 19,080
B-6 Self 50 - 200 132 16,072
B-7 Self 50 - 200 107 13,064
B-8.1 & B-8.2 Self 50 - 200 56 6,911
B-9.1 RV 640 20 12,800
B-9.2 RV 320 - 640 40 24,320
B-9.3 RV 320 - 640 19 11,680
B-9.4 RV 560 - 672 7 4,464
B-9.5 RV 320 - 672 8 4,784
Total
1 Office
688 Storage
Units
136,863
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
24
As shown in Figure 3-2, Conceptual Rendering, the proposed Project would include various building finish
materials such as stucco, masonry block, and metal roofs, doors, and trim, and a consistent color scheme of
blues, greys, and sand finishes.
Circulation and Parking
Access to the self-storage facility would be provided via a 30-foot-wide driveway from Village Drive.
Internal access to the self-storage portion of the Project would be provided via 26-foot-wide drive aisles
while access to the RV storage portion of the Project would be provided via 50-feet-wide drive aisles. The
drive aisles would double as fire department access lanes to serve the self-storage facility and the City’s
open space south of the Project.
The Project includes a total of seven standard parking stalls, one ADA van stall, two motorbike parking stalls
and bicycle parking rack located in the northern portion of the site near the office building.
Pedestrian access to the public trail would be provided via Village Drive and a connection to the adjacent
Southridge Park. Parking for the public trail would be available via the adjacent Southridge Park or on
Village Drive.
Landscaping and Fencing
The proposed Project includes 111,999 SF (2.57 acres) of new drought tolerant landscaping that would
include 24- and 36-inch box trees, 5-gallon trees, various shrubs, and groundcovers around the perimeter
of the site, including along the public trail, as shown in Figure 3-3, Landscape Plan.
A 6-foot-tall concrete block wall is incorporated into the exterior building walls. Additionally, where the
building walls end, standalone 6-foot-tall concrete block walls are continued between the buildings around
the perimeter of the site. Additionally, 6-foot-tall sliding gates are proposed at the entrances of the self-
storage portion of the facility and the RV storage portion of the facility.
Community Trail
The Project includes a 20-foot-wide community trail around the east, west and southern perimeters of the
site. The trail would provide a connection to the Southridge Village Park adjacent to the west of the Project
site as well as connection to Village Drive on the east side of the Project site. The community trail is designed
to double as fire truck access and would serve as a buffer between the self-storage facility and the open
space to the south. Additionally, the trail includes 830 linear feet of compacted earthen berm at the base
of the adjacent slope along the site's southern property line to stop or control potential rockfalls. A 600-foot
portion of berm on the west side would be 8 feet tall while the remaining 230-foot portion along the eastern
section of the berm would be 6 feet tall. The berm would be combined with a three-foot deep catchment
ditch along the property line at the base of the berm. The berm would catch rocks that may fall in the event
of seismic ground shaking and prevent rockfall from impacting any structures or persons within the Project
site.
Solar
Consistent with the 2022 CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6), the Project would include
photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the building rooftops and meet all other Title 24 Part 6 requirements
related to energy efficiency and low impact development (LID) standards.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
25
Infrastructure Improvements
Water
The Project would install new on-site connections to the existing 8-inch water line in Village Drive.
Sewer
The Project would install new on-site connections to the existing 15-inch diameter sewer line in Village Drive.
Drainage
The Project proposes to construct a combination detention/infiltration basin in the northern portion of the site.
Stormwater would be conveyed to the detention/infiltration basin via a proposed storm drain system
consisting of pipes and gutters. The Project's proposed drainage facilities would capture stormwater runoff
for the 2-year storm event. For larger storm events up to 100-year, the flow will be drained out of the basin
via a proposed drainage line which is proposed to connect to the existing drainage system in Village Drive.
Water would then drain to the Declez Channel via the existing storm drain system.
3.3. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
In addition to the on-site improvements discussed above, the proposed Project may include 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 the adjacent quarry slope on
Planning Area 66C in order to remove unstable and/or dangerous boulders. Blasting would only be
implemented when particular rocks cannot be removed via scaling, which is the process of removing/prying
loose rock from a rockface to prevent future rockfalls. Potential areas of off-site disturbance are shown in
Figure 3-4, Off-site Disturbance Area.
3.4. CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities would occur over two phases and last approximately 17 months, beginning in April
2025. Phase 1 would include construction of the self-storage buildings, public trail, and water quality basin.
During Phase 1, a portion of the self-storage area would be reserved for RV storage. Phase 2 would include
the construction of the RV storage area and the remaining landscaping. The proposed phasing plan is shown
in Figure 3-5, Phasing Plan. Construction would occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading
(including rock crushing and blasting), building construction, paving, and architectural coatings.
Grading work of soils is expected to result in approximately 48,342 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 44,709 CY
of fill soils for a net export of 3,633 CY of soil. Construction would occur within the hours allowable by the
City of Fontana Municipal Code Section 18-63, which states that construction shall occur only between the
hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on
Saturdays.
3.5. OPERATIONS
The Project is analyzed as a self-storage and RV storage facility. No cold storage is proposed. Typical
operational characteristics include employees and customers traveling to and from the site. The facility would
operate between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, seven days a week. There would be two employees on-site during
operation.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
26
3.6. DISCRETIONARY ACTION CHECKLIST
The following discretionary approval, permits, and studies are anticipated to be necessary for
implementation of the proposed Project:
City of Fontana
• Adoption of this Addendum
• Conditional Use Permit
• Design Review
• Ministerial approvals and permits necessary to execute the proposed Project, including but not limited
to, grading permit, building permit, etc.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Conceptual Site Plan
Figure 3-1
RV ENTRY/EXIT
ENTRY EXIT
EXIT ENTRY
EXITONLY
EXITONLY
EXIT ENTRY
ENTRY EXIT
EXIT ENTRY
ENTRY EXIT
EXIT ENTRY
ENTRY EXIT
ENTRY/EXIT
SS
APN 0237-411-14
NAP
APN 0237-411-15
NAP
APN 0237-411-09
NAPTRACT NO. 16120
NAP
LIVE OAK AVENUE
CO
N
I
F
E
R
C
O
U
R
T
D R I V E
V I L L A G E
DECLEZ CHANNEL
C
O
N
I
F
E
R
C
O
U
R
T
APN 0237-411-28
APN 0237-411-28
O F FIC E
STORAGE BUILDING 7
STORAGE BUILDING 6
STORAGE BUILDING 5
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
3
.
1
STORAGE BUILDING 1.1
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
3
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
2
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
1
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 9 .4
STORAGE BUILDING 8.1
STORAGE BUILDING 9.5
STORAGE BUILDING 3.2
STORAGE BUILDING 3.4
STORAGE BUILDING 3.3
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 2 .2
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 2 .1
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 4 .1
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 1 .2
STORAGEBLDG. 8.2
STO.
STO.
STO.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
28
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Conceptual Rendering
Figure 3-2
AERIAL VIEW
ENTRY DRIVE VIEW
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
30
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Landscape Plan
Figure 3-3
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
32
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Figure 3-4
&RQLIHU&RXUW6HOI6WRUDJH3URMHFW
&LW\RI)RQWDQD
&RQFHSWXDO6LWH3ODQ
Figure
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Villag
e
D
r
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Villag
e
D
r
FIGURE 4
FEET
2001000
LEGEND
Potential Blasting Location Potential Rock Crushing Staging Location
Off-site Disturbance Area
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
34
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Phasing Plan
Figure 3-5
APN 0237-411-15NAP
APN 0237-411-09NAPTRACT NO. 16120NAP
LIVEOAKAVENUE
CO
N
IF
ER
C
O
U
R
T
D R I VE
V I L L A G E
DECLEZCHANNEL
C
O
N
IF
E
R
C
O
U
R
T
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
O FFIC E
RV ENTRY/EXIT
ENTRYEXIT
EXIT ENTRY
EXITONLY
EXITONLY
EXITENTRY
ENTRYEXIT
EXIT ENTRY
ENTRY EXIT
EXIT ENTRY
ENTRY EXIT
ENTRY/EXIT
SS
STORAGEBUILDING7
STORAGE BUILDIN
G
6
STORAGE BUILDIN
G
5
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
3
.
1
STORAGE BUILDING 1.1
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
3
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
2
ST
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
9
.
1
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G
9
.4
STORAGEBUILDING8.1
STORAGE BUILDING 9.5
STORAGE BUILDING 3.2
STORAGE BUILDING 3.4
STORAGE BUILDING 3.3
S T O R A G E B U I L D I N G 2 .2
S T OR A G E B U I L D I N G 2 .1
S T OR A G E B U I L D I N G 4 .1
S T OR A G E B U I L D I N G 1 .2
STORAGEBLDG.8.2
STO.
STO.
STO.
Phase 1
Phase 2
Legend
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
37
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
4.1. BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Lead Agency:
City of Fontana
Lead Agency Contact:
Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner
squintanilla@fontanaca.gov
(909) 350-6656
Project Location:
The Project site is located southeast of the intersection of Conifer Court and Village Drive within the City
of Fontana in the County of San Bernardino.
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Conifer Court, LLC
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
General Plan and Zoning Designation:
The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C-G) and is zoned
Southridge Village Specific Plan (SVSP). Within the SVSP, the site is designated as Mini-storage overlay.
Project Description:
Conifer Court LLC (Applicant) is requesting approval from the City of Fontana for a Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review to construct and operate a self-storage facility on Parcel 1. The self-storage
facility would be 136,863 SF, resulting in an FAR of 0.4. Site improvements would include landscaping,
community trail, sidewalks, utility connections, implementation of stormwater facilities, and pavement of
parking areas and driveways. Additionally, as part of the Project, the Applicants would construct a 20-
foot-wide public trail on the City-owned Parcel 2.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
North: Declez Channel alignment followed by water storage basins and Village Drive followed by single-
family residences.
West: Undeveloped, open space land.
South: Undeveloped, open space land.
East: Undeveloped land followed by Live Oak Avenue (area is under construction for residential
development and a new City park).
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
None.
4.2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The subject areas checked 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,
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
38
change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and
discussion on the following pages.
None
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems Wildfire
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
39
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
Name and Title Lead Agency
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
40
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 Project. This
addendum includes mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
adopted as part of the SVSP Final EIR and focused EIR for Amendment No. 15.
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 1.3, 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 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.1F
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.2F
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 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.3F
4
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
41
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.4F
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 New Impact/No Impact. A designation of "no impact" (or "no new impact") is applied when the proposed
Project would result in no changes to the environment compared to the original project analyzed in the SVSP
Final EIR. While certain environmental topic areas were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
checklist at the time the SVSP Final EIR was prepared, these topics have since been evaluated, and none of
the potential impacts associated with them constitute new information that was unknown or could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the EIR’s certification. Therefore, the
previously omitted topic areas do not result in new impacts, and no further analysis is required.
5 CEQA Guidelines. § 15163.
6 CEQA Guidelines. § 15164.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
42
5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist.
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not analyze impacts related to aesthetics. However, the SVSP Draft 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.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to aesthetics are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
43
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No New Impact.
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 two 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 a proposed project would block 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 developed area of Fontana
with residential uses, public utility uses, and recreational uses. The Fontana General Plan describes that in
addition to scenic corridors, scenic resources include natural landmarks and prominent or unusual features of
the landscape. Additionally, the General Plan considers views of the San Gabriel Mountains and the Jurupa
Hills important scenic resources within the City. The SVSP considers the Jurupa Hills an important scenic
resource within the plan area.
The Project would develop the site with a 136,863 SF self-storage facility and a public trail. The Project site
abuts a large rock formation as shown in Figures 2-4a-b, Site Photos. The office building would have a
maximum height of 25 feet while the storage units have a maximum height of 14 feet and 2 inches.
Additionally, the Project would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from Village Drive. Thus, the Project would
not hinder the ability of the public to view the Jurupa Hills from public vantage points on Village Drive.
Additionally, the Project includes a public trail that would allow for uninterrupted views of the Jurupa Hills
consistent with Goal 3 of the SVSP which states “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.” The Project is consistent with the SVSP development standards for the site, as described under
Threshold 5.1(c), and therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts on scenic vistas.
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) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
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 a segment of State Route 91, located approximately 15.3 miles southwest of the Project site
(Caltrans, 2018). The closest eligible scenic highway is a different segment of State Route 91 located
approximately 11.8 miles southwest of the Project site (Caltrans, 2018). The Project would not be visible
from either of these roadway segments, therefore, 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
44
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?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the Project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of Fontana and is
surrounded by roadways, residences, recreational uses, and water quality basins. 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 the site with a 136,863 SF self-storage facility and a public trail.
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. During
construction, equipment and staging areas would be set up within the Project site which would temporarily
alter the visual character of the site. However, construction-related visual impacts would be short-term and
temporary, lasting only as long as the 17-month construction period. Additionally, construction equipment
and materials would be confined to the Project site and would not obstruct public view corridors or scenic
vistas. The Project site is located in an area that is fully developed, and the temporary changes would be
consistent with the type of visual disruption typically associated with urban development. Standard
construction practices, such as proper fencing, dust control, and material storage, would help minimize visual
clutter during construction. Upon completion of the Project, all construction-related materials and equipment
would be removed, and the site would be restored in accordance with approved landscaping and design
plans. Therefore, changes to local visual character and quality associated with construction of the proposed
Project would be temporary, and impacts 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, the Project would be consistent with the SVSP standards for the Mini-storage designation.
Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Table AES-1: Consistency with SVSP Development Standards
Development Feature SVSP Standard Project Consistency
Lot Area The net lot area shall not be less than five
acres (217,800 SF)
Consistent. The net lot area of the Project
site is 7.49 acres.
Setbacks Front setback: minimum of 20 feet from any
public street right-of-way.
Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 35
feet from all interior property lines with the
exception that the Planning Commission
may approve single story buildings to be
constructed at a property line not adjacent
to residentially designated property.
Consistent. The project includes a minimum
setback of 20 feet from Village Drive. The
buildings on the east, west and south sides
of Parcel 1 are designed at the property
line. However, Section 5.8.7(3)(b) of the
SVSP, allows for the siting of single-story
buildings at a property line, as long as the
buildings are not adjacent to residentially
designated property. Parcel 1 is not
adjacent to residentially designated
property, and the buildings are single-
story, therefore, with Planning Commission
approval, the building siting would be
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
45
Development Feature SVSP Standard Project Consistency
consistent with the SVSP development
standards.
Parking requirements Off-street parking as required by the
Planning Commission.
Per Municipal Code Section Table 30-
685A, the Project is required to provide 5
parking spaces for the office, two spaces
for a caretaker unit, and one parking space
for each 25 storage units that are not
provided with direct vehicular access. These
parking spaces shall be located near the
entrance of the office building.
Consistent. The Project includes a total of
eight parking spaces, two motorbike
parking stalls and two bicycle parking stalls
located in the northern portion of the site
near the office building.
Landscaping The front set back shall be landscaped. A
minimum of 15 percent of the unbuilt area
shall be landscaped. All landscaping shall
be pursuant to the City Landscape
Standards.
Consistent. The Project includes 111,999 SF
(19 percent of site area) of landscaping
throughout the site.
Walls A solid masonry wall may be required an
all interior property lines. Said wall shall be
a minimum of 6 feet in height from the
highest adjacent grade.
Consistent. A minimum 6-foot-tall concrete
block wall is incorporated in the exterior
building walls and standalone 6-foot-tall
block walls are continued around the
perimeter of the facility where the building
walls end.
Lighting Exterior lighting shall be placed and
adjusted so as to create a safe and
pleasant environment on the site and shall
be subject to City Police Department
approval. All lighting devices shall be
equipped with weather and vandal
resistant covers. Lighting fixtures shall be so
situated and shielded so as not to direct or
reflect lighting glare on adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way.
Consistent. All Project lighting would be
shielded and would abide by lighting
standards contained within the SVSP and
Fontana Municipal Code Article VI,
Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts,
Division 7, Design Guidelines, Section 30-
508(f) which states all exterior lighting shall
be adequately controlled and shielded to
prevent glare and undesirable illumination
to adjacent properties or streets.
Outside Storage Ministorage facilities shall be designed so
that all storage, with the exception of
recreational vehicle storage, is within
completely enclosed buildings. No outdoor
storage of materials (household goods and
the like) shall be permitted.
Consistent. All storage activities associated
with the Project, including RV storage,
would occur within enclosed storage units.
Hours of operation Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00
AM to 10:00 PM.
Consistent. The proposed Project would
operate between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM,
seven days a week.
Architectural treatment Building elevations adjacent to or visible
from public street rights-of-way shall
incorporate a roof treatment (e.g.,
mansard, hip, gable, etc.) reflecting the
residential character of Southridge Village.
Consistent. The proposed office would be
visible from public vantage points along
Village Drive and would include
architectural treatments such as a low-
pitched gable roof, doors and windows
wrapped with trim, stone wainscot, shutters,
and board and batten siding. The self-
storage buildings would include various
building finish materials such as stucco,
masonry block, and metal roofs, doors, and
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
46
Development Feature SVSP Standard Project Consistency
trim; and a consistent color scheme of blues,
greys, and sand finishes.
As shown in Table AES-1, the Project would be consistent with the SVSP development standards for the Mini-
storage designation and would not conflict with an applicable zoning regulation related to scenic quality. In
addition, the Project would install approximately 111,999 SF (19 percent of site area) of drought tolerant
landscaping including 1-gallon, 5-gallon, and 15-gallon trees; and a variety of shrubs and groundcovers.
The Project would develop the site with a self-storage facility and a public trail, which is consistent with the
land uses designations for 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.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No New Impact.
As described above, the Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and is surrounded by existing
residential development to the north and open space to the south. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the
Project vicinity includes illumination from vehicle headlights along Village Drive, security lighting from
adjacent uses and parking lots, and from interior illumination from nearby buildings passing through windows.
Sensitive receptors relative to lighting and glare include motorists, pedestrians, and residential land uses.
The proposed Project would develop a self-storage facility which would require the installation of new on-
site lighting sources for security around and within the proposed facility, which would result in an increase in
on-site lighting compared to existing conditions. However, light emanating from the proposed Project would
be required to abide by lighting standards contained within the SVSP and Fontana Municipal Code Article
VI, Commercial and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts, Division 7, Design Guidelines, Section 30-508(f), which states
all exterior lighting shall be adequately controlled and shielded to prevent glare and undesirable
illumination to adjacent properties or streets. Compliance with the SVSP design standards and Municipal
Code standards would be implemented through the construction permitting and plan check process.
Therefore, impacts associated with new lighting would be less than significant.
Glare can emanate from many different sources, some of which include direct sunlight, sunlight reflecting
from cars or buildings, and bright outdoor or indoor lighting. Glare in the Project vicinity is generated by
the windows of nearby buildings and vehicle windows reflecting light. The building materials for the
proposed Project do not consist of highly reflective materials and proposed lighting would be shielded
consistent with SVSP and Municipal Code requirements as described above, and the proposed landscaping
along the Project boundaries would screen sources of light and reduce the potential for glare. Therefore,
while the proposed Project would create limited new sources of light and glare from security and site lighting,
all lighting would be shielded and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts
related to light and glare would be less than significant and no new 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
47
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
48
5.2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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?
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
49
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not analyze impacts related to agriculture and forest resources.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to agriculture and forestry resources are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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?
No New Impact.
The State of California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program is
charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s
agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. For CEQA purposes, the following
categories qualify as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. Per Section 21060.1 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land are not considered Farmland.
The Project site is currently heavily disturbed and unimproved, with a portion formerly used for quarry
activities. According to the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Important Farmland Finder
program, the Project site is designated as Grazing Land and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (CDOC, 2022). 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.
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) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
50
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No New Impact.
“Forest land” is defined as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including
hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources,
including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits.” “Timberland” is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land
designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a
crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas
trees.” “Timberland Production Zone” (TPZ) is defined as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section
51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and
harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
The Project site is currently heavily disturbed and 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.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No New Impact.
As previously stated, 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.
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?
No New Impact.
As previously stated, the Project site is currently heavily disturbed and 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 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
51
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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
52
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed programmatic impacts from buildout of the SVSP related to air quality in
Section 6.2.8. The SVSP Draft 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. Additionally, the SVSP Draft EIR determined buildout of the SVSP
would be consistent with the growth forecasts included in the 1978 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
However, buildout of the SVSP combined with other projects in the surrounding communities may result in a
cumulative impact related to consistency with the AQMP. At the time the SVSP Draft EIR was adopted, the
AQMP was undergoing revisions which called for substantially higher growth than was forecasted in the
1978 AQMP.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from page 62 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
53
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.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following reports:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Conifer Self Storage Project. Prepared by
EPD Solutions, Inc., February 28, 2025. (Appendix A)
• Conifer Self Storage Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prepared by EPD Solutions, Inc., February 28,
2025. (Appendix B)
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) are responsible for preparing the 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. The SVSP Final EIR used the 1978 AQMP which has since been updated. The current AQMP is the
2022 AQMP, adopted in December 2022. For purposes of analyzing consistency with the AQMP, if a
proposed project would result in growth that is substantially greater than what was anticipated, then the
proposed project would conflict with the AQMP. On the other hand, if a project’s resulting growth is within
the anticipated growth of a jurisdiction, its emissions would be consistent with the assumptions in the AQMP,
and the project would not conflict with SCAQMD’s attainment plans (Consistency Criterion No. 1). In addition,
the SCAQMD considers a project 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 (Consistency Criterion No.
2).
The 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. 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.
The proposed Project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site. Additionally, as
described further in Section 5.14, Population and Housing, using employment generation information
provided by the Project Applicants, the Project is anticipated to generate the need for two employees.
According to SCAG’s 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) population and household growth forecast for Fontana, between 2019 and 2050, SCAG
anticipates an employment increase of 15,500 additional jobs (from 65,100 to 80,600), yielding a 23.8
percent growth rate (SCAG, 2024). The proposed Project's employment growth would represent
approximately 0.01 percent of the forecasted employment growth between 2019 and 2050 for the City.
Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed the growth assumptions for the Project site.
As a result, the proposed Project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
54
As discussed below, the emissions generated by the construction and operation of the proposed Project would
not exceed thresholds, and the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing
air quality violations or cause a new violation. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with
Consistency Criterion No. 2. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
implementation of an AQMP, and no new impacts related to conflict with implementation of an AQMP 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.
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 (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
No New Impact.
The SCAB is in non-attainment status for federal ozone standards, and state and federal particulate matter
standards. The SCAB is designated as a maintenance area for federal PM10 standards. Any development in
the SCAB, including the proposed Project could cumulatively contribute to these pollutant violations.
Evaluation of the cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed Project has been completed pursuant to
SCAQMD’s cumulative air quality impact methodology. SCAQMD states that if an individual project results
in air emissions of criteria pollutants (reactive organic gases [ROG], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides
[NOX], sulfur dioxide [SO2], particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less [PM10], and
particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less [PM2.5]) that exceed the SCAQMD’s
recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of the criteria pollutant(s) for which the Project region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. SCAQMD has established daily mass thresholds
for regional pollutant emissions, which are shown in Table AQ-1.
Table AQ-12: SCAQMD Regional Daily Emissions Thresholds
Air Pollutant
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Construction Operation
NOX 100 55
ROG 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SO2 150 150
CO 550 550
Lead 3 3
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 =
particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Construction
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions from the
following: (1) site preparation, (2) grading (including rock crushing and blasting), (3) building construction,
(4) paving, and (5) architectural coating. The amount of emissions generated on a daily basis would vary,
depending on the intensity and types of construction activities occurring.
The Project may require blasting and it is anticipated that up to one blasting event could occur per day
during the grading phase. While the need for blasting is not known at this point, the California Emissions
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
55
Estimator Model (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, which would result in 67
pounds per day of CO, 17 pounds per day of NOX, and 2 pounds per day of SO2 (Appendix A). The area
subject to rock blasting would be approximately 4.84 acres (see Figure 3-4), which would result in
approximately 2.6 pounds per day of PM10 and 0.1 pounds per day of PM2.5. These emissions have been
added to the appropriate phase of construction in Table AQ-2.
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 19,000 tons of rock would be crushed during the grading phase, which represents
approximately 271 tons per day. Rock crushing is anticipated to result in 1.3 pounds per day of PM10
emissions and 0.1 pounds of PM2.5 emissions per day (Appendix A). These emissions were added to the
grading phase in Table AQ-2.
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, utilizing a
wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit
the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a minimum freeboard
height of 12 inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
Compliance with Rule 403 was accounted for in the construction emissions modeling. In addition,
implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113, which governs the volatile organic compound (VOC) content in
architectural coating, paint, thinners, and solvents, was accounted for in construction emissions modeling. As
shown in Table AQ-2, the CalEEMod results indicate that construction emissions generated by the proposed
Project would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activities would not result in
a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, no new impact related to construction emissions would occur.
Table AQ-2: Regional Project Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
2025
Site Prep 4.1 37.5 33.8 0.1 7.8 4.5
Grading (with blasting/crushing) 4.0 52.8 101.2 2.1 8.9 2.9
Building Construction 1.5 12.4 19.0 <0.1 1.4 0.7
Maximum Daily Emissions 4.1 52.8 101.2 2.1 8.9 4.5
2026
Building Construction 1.4 11.7 18.6 <0.1 1.4 0.6
Paving 1.2 7.1 9.9 <0.1 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 65.5 1.2 2.3 <0.1 0.2 0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 65.5 11.7 18.6 <0.1 1.4 0.6
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 65.5 52.8 101.2 2.1 8.9 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 =
particulate matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
56
Operation
The SVSP designates the proposed Project site as Mini-storage overlay but does not establish minimum or
maximum development allowances for this use, other than requiring the facility to be at least 5 net acres in
size. As such, there are no prior quantitative operational assumptions available for comparison. However,
the proposed Project aligns with the intended land use under the SVSP. Based on qualitative considerations,
including typical operational characteristics of similar storage facilities in the region, the proposed Project is
expected to generate a comparable or lower level of operational intensity. This qualitative assessment is
provided in the absence of specific quantitative benchmarks for modeling purposes.
Project operation would be compatible with designated uses of the site. Operational activities associated
with the proposed storage facility would result in emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5.
Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources: mobile source, area source,
and energy source emissions. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in long-term regional
emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors associated with area sources, such as landscaping
and applications of architectural coatings.
Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project were modeled using the CalEEMod Version
2022.1 land use emission model and compared to the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds. Emissions
associated with the operation of the proposed Project are presented in Table AQ-3. As shown, operational
emissions would be below SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, the Project would result in no new impacts
related to operational air quality emissions. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the findings
contained in the SVSP EIR impacts, and the Project would result in no new impact or in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Table AQ-3: Regional Project Operational Emissions
Operational Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Mobile 0.5 0.5 4.6 <0.1 1.0 0.3
Area 4.3 <0.1 5.9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Energy <0.1 0.7 0.6 <0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Project
Operational Emissions 4.8 1.3 11.1 <0.1 1.1 0.3
SCAQMD Significance
Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, PM10 = particulate
matter 10 microns in diameter, PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
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) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No New Impact.
The SCAQMD’s 2008 Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology recommends the evaluation of
localized NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction-related impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate
vicinity of the Project site. Such an evaluation is referred to as a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis.
According to the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, off-site mobile emissions
from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to the LSTs. SCAQMD has developed LSTs
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
57
that 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 standards, and thus would
not cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts. LSTs are developed based on the ambient
concentrations of NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants for each of the 38 source receptor areas (SRAs) in
the Basin. The City of Fontana is located within SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley).
The localized thresholds for development projects were derived using the SCAQMD Fact Sheet for Applying
CalEEMod to Localized Significance Threshold and Appendix C of the SCAQMD 2008 Final Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology. The thresholds from SCAQMD are for 1-, 2-, or 5-acre sites, and
distances of sensitive receptors for 25 to 500 meters. Sensitive receptors can include residences, schools,
playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located
approximately 75 feet (22 meters) north of the proposed Project’s northern boundary and residences
located approximately 230 feet (70 meters) west of the Project’s western boundary. Therefore, the distance
for sensitive receptors in the assessment was set at 25 meters. The construction phase with the most ground
disturbance would be the grading phase, with 3.5 acres per day of grading, thus the SCAQMD thresholds
for a 2-acre and 5-acre site were interpolated to calculate thresholds for a 3.5-acre site.
Construction
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). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or
eliminate emissions by following SCAQMD’s standard construction practices. These practices include dust
suppression techniques and best available control measures to minimize off-site impacts. Rule 402 requires
implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Rule
403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of
such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. As shown
in Table AQ-4, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs and impacts would be
less than significant.
Table AQ-4: Localized Construction Emission Estimates
Construction Activity
Maximum Daily Regional Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
2025
Site Prep 37.5 32.4 7.6 4.5
Grading (with blasting/crushing) 52.1 98.9 8.4 2.8
Building Construction 11.3 28.3 0.9 0.9
Maximum Daily Emissions 52.1 98.9 8.4 4.5
2026
Building Construction 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Paving 7.1 9.9 0.3 0.3
Architectural Coating 1.1 1.5 <0.1 <0.1
Maximum Daily Emissions 10.7 14.1 0.4 0.4
Maximum Daily Emission 2025-2026 52.1 98.9 8.4 4.5
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds1 220 1,359 10.5 6
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
1Significance thresholds obtained by interpolating values for 2 acres and 5 acres.
NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
58
Operation
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs apply to project-related stationary mobile sources.
Projects that involve mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at a site, such as transfer
facilities or warehousing and distribution buildings, have the potential to exceed the operational LSTs. The
Project would operate as a self-storage facility, which does not typically involve diesel vehicles regularly
idling or queueing for long periods. Therefore, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions or
idling diesel-powered vehicles, impacts related to operational LSTs are presumed to be less than significant.
Health Risk Assessment
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA), included as Appendix B, was prepared to evaluate the potential health
impacts to sensitive receptors from the construction of the proposed Project. The HRA focuses on the emissions
of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from the construction and operation of the heavy-duty diesel vehicles and
off-road construction equipment that would be utilized for the construction and operational purposes of the
proposed Project on a day-to-day basis. DPM has been identified by the California Air Resources Board as
a carcinogenic substance responsible for nearly 70 percent of the airborne cancer risk in California. The
estimated health risk impacts were compared to the health risk significance thresholds recommended by the
SCAQMD for use in CEQA assessments. The City of Fontana has not adopted a numerical significance
threshold for cancer risk or non-cancer hazards. Therefore, the significance thresholds recommended by the
SCAQMD were utilized for this analysis. The relevant significance thresholds are provided below:
• Cancer Risk: ten (10) persons per million population as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk
due to exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC)
• Non-cancer Hazard Index: 1.0
The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 75 feet (22 meters) north of the
proposed Project’s northern boundary and residences located approximately 230 feet (70 meters) west of
the Project’s western boundary. The closest worker receptor is located approximately 410 (125 meters) feet
west of the Project’s western boundary (San Berardino County Fire Station 74).
Table AQ-5 presents a summary of the cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazards resulting from the
proposed Project's construction DPM emissions along with the SCAQMD health risk significance thresholds. As
shown, the estimated maximum cancer risk for sensitive/residential receptors during construction is 6.62 in
one million. The estimated maximum cancer risk for worker receptors during construction is 0.01 in one million.
In addition, the Project’s estimated non-cancer health risk is 0.01 and less than 0.01, for the maximum
impacted sensitive receptor and worker receptor, respectively. The construction maximum cancer risk would
not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, nor would the construction maximum
non-cancer risk exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. Thus, the Project would have a less-than-significant
impact related to both cancer and non-cancer health risks.
Table AQ-5: Project Construction Health Risk
Receptor
Cancer Risk (per million) Exceeds
Significant
Threshold?
Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30
years)
6.62 10 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.18 10 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor 0.01 10 No
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
59
Receptor
Chronic Non-Cancer Hazard Index Exceeds
Significant
Threshold?
Maximum Lifetime
Proposed Project Risk Significance Threshold
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Infant to Adult (30
years)
0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Sensitive
Receptor – Adult 0.01 1.0 No
Maximum Impacted Worker
Receptor <0.01 1.0 No
Source: Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number
of people?
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would not generate other emissions beyond those not previously described. According
to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor issues include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting activities, refineries,
landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding operations. The proposed Project would develop and operate a
self-storage facility, which would not involve the types of uses that lead to odors.
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 and the temporary
storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s operational uses. The
construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon
completion of construction.
The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of
public nuisance odors. Therefore, other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that could adversely affect
a substantial number of people would not occur from the proposed Project. No new 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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
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 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
60
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: Rule 403. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which includes the following:
• 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, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, at least 3 times daily during dry weather;
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: Rule 1113. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality
Management District Rule (SCAQMD) Rule 1113. Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more
than 50 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications shall be used.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
61
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?
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
62
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed impacts from buildout of the SVSP related to biological resources in Section
6.2.4. The SVSP Draft 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 Draft EIR, past agricultural activities
within the SVSP area have adversely impacted the abundance and diversity of wildlife in the area. The
SVSP Draft EIR notes that on-site impacts include the conversion of at the time existing open areas into urban
uses and would result in the removal of vegetation and the destruction or displacement of wildlife which uses
the on-site habitat, including nesting raptors. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with the
implementation of the Landscape Master Plan.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from page 60 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages 6 through 6 of the SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR
MMRP.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.1: Buildout of Delhi fly survey site #4 (Southridge parcels 124, 125, 126,
132, 133) could have an adverse impact on occupied Delhi fly habitat. Evidence of authorization under
Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act, and participation in an approved Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) process for Delhi fly shall be provided by applicants to the City prior to approval of any
remaining grading or building permits in this area.
Mitigation Measure 3.3.2: Prior to the commencement of grading or the construction of any structure(s)
on any remaining undeveloped parcels in Southridge Village, the owner of such undeveloped parcels
shall comply with all Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requirements for the Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly as listed upon the federal endangered species list, either by 1) the provision of evidence to the
Service that their land is not suitable habitat for the Delhi fly, or 2) otherwise providing to, and having
approved/adopted by the Service, a Habitat Conservation Plan. The service shall be notified of any
pending or approved permits involving any undeveloped parcels in Southridge Village with known Delhi
Sands soils.
SVSP Amendment No. 19 EIR Addendum Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages 100 through 101 of the SVSP Amendment No. 19 EIR
Addendum.
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,
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
63
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
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.
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.
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.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
64
• General Biological Assessment for Assessor’s Parcel Number 0237-411-27. Prepared by Hernandez
Environmental Services. March 2024. (Appendix C)
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that no endangered, threatened or special status species
were identified within the SVSP area, and therefore, found a less than signficaint impact. The Final EIR for
SVSP Amendment No. 15 found that the mitigation measures described above would reduce potential
impacts to known occupied Delhi Fly habitat to a level of insignificance; however, the cumulative loss of Delhi
Sands would remain significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.
A General Biological Assessment (GBA) was prepared for the proposed Project, which included a field
survey conducted on October 4, 2023 (Appendix C). The GBA described that the Project site consists of 0.43
acre of disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat, 11.03 acres of ruderal habitat, and 1.7 acres of disturbed
habitat. The literature review conducted as part of the GBA identified a total of 55 sensitive species of
plants, 9 sensitive habitats, and 59 sensitive species of animals that have the potential to occur on or within
the vicinity of the Project site. These include those species listed or candidates for listing by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and California
Native Plant Society (CNPS). During the field survey, 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. None of the 16 plant species were identified on the Project site during the
field survey. 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 (Hernandez, 2024).
Sensitive Animal Species
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. None of the 24 sensitive animal species were identified
on the site during the field survey. However, it was also found that the Project site contains potentially suitable
habitat for the following species: Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow and Bell’s sage sparrow.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2 from SVSP Amendment No. 19 is incorporated into the Project
to require Project compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). As required by MM BIO-2, any
proposed vegetation removal shall occur outside the nesting season for birds (generally, February 1 to
September 15) or if this avoidance schedule is not feasible, preconstruction nesting bird surveys are required
to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal to ensure compliance with the MBTA.
With implementation of MM BIO-2, impacts to nesting bird species (including Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow and Bell’s sage sparrow) would be less than significant.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
65
The east side of the Project site is within federal critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher. Thus,
six focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher were completed between April 9 to May 14,
2023 7. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed on the site during the surveys (Appendix C).
No evidence of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly was identified on the Project site and no Delhi Sands habitat
was identified (Appendix C). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an impact to the Delhi
Sands flower-loving fly or Delhi Sands habitat. Consistent with SVSP Amendoment No. 15 Final EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.3.2, prior to the commencement of grading or the construction of any structure(s) on the Project
site, the Project Appliant shall provide evidence to the USFWS that the Project site is not suitable habitat for
the Delhi fly.
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) 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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat, ruderal habitat,
and disturbed habitat. 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, six focused surveys for
the coastal California gnatcatcher were completed between April 9, 2023, and May 14, 2023, which did
not identify evidence of any coastal California gnatcatchers on the site (Appendix C). 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.
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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat, ruderal
habitat, and disturbed habitat. The Project site does not contain any streams or drainages or riparian habitat.
There are no CDFW, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), or Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters within the Project boundaries. Further, the Project area does not contain
7 Communication from a United States Fish and Wildlife biologist confirmed the coastal California gnatcatcher surveys are valid
though the year (2025) and there is no evidence indicating that additional surveys need to be conducted (Rebecca Christensen,
personal email communication, March 26, 2025).
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
66
any wetlands or vernal pools. 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.
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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 and no wildlife movement corridors were
found to occur on site (Appendix C). However, the Project site includes ornamental shrubs and bushes that
would be removed as part of the Project. Vegetation removal and/or indirect impacts from construction
activity could result in the disturbance of nesting migratory species covered under the MBTA. Therefore, as
required by MM BIO-2, any proposed vegetation removal shall occur outside the nesting season for birds
(generally, February 1 to September 15) or if this avoidance schedule is not feasible, preconstruction nesting
bird surveys are required to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal to ensure
compliance with the MBTA. With the implementation of 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.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that no significant impacts would occur related to biological
resources with implementation of mitigation measures.
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code, Chapter 28, Article III, Preservation of Heritage, Significant and
Specimen Trees, establishes regulations for the preservation of any tree defined by the ordinance as
heritage, significant, or specimen, and endangered species as specified by federal or state stature. Removal
or relocation of any heritage, significant, or specimen tree requires prior authorization from the Community
Development Department of the City through a permit process and planting of a replacement tree
designated by the designated staff. The City of Fontana municipal code also requires that any other living
tree that is not classified as heritage, significant, or specimen tree must be replaced.
No trees currently exist on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not require the removal of heritage,
significant, or specimen trees. Thus, the 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
67
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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 HCP or NCCP,
and therefore, would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
Revisions to 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 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA),
clearing of vegetation and removal of trees should occur between non-nesting (or non-breeding) season for
birds. The nesting season is between February 1 to September 15. 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. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, which shall conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey
no more than 3 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 City and the construction supervisor
that activities may resume via a letter report summarizing findngs of the surveys.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
68
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed impacts to cultural resources in Section 6.2.5. The SVSP Draft 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 Draft EIR
also noted that historical resources identified in the SVSP area included ruins of the Pagliuso Family Chapel,
the Old Spanish Road, ruins of Declezville, and ruins of the Le Vesu home and winery. The SVSP Draft EIR
determined that implementation of the SVSP would directly impact 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 Draft EIR also notes that the project may impact the CA-SBr-1632 site as well as the
historical resource sites discussed previously. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts
were considered less than significant.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from page 60 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
69
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.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project. Prepared by BFSA
Environmental Services. August 13, 2024. (Appendix D).
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP would cause adverse
impacts to historic resources. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be less
than significant.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be
eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the
Lead Agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following
criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s
history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents
the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project site to locate and record any
potential historical and/or archaeological resources that may be present within the Project site (Appendix
D). As part of the Cultural Resources Assessment, an archaeological records search was conducted through
the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University Fullerton. The results of
the records search identified nine resources within a half-mile radius of the proposed Project site, none of
which are recorded within the Project site boundaries. Of the previously recorded resources, six are historic
and three are prehistoric. The historic sites consist of the Declez Ranch, Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR)
Declezville Spur, the Etiwanda-San Bernardino 220 kilovolt (kV) Transmission Line, the Mira Loma 230 kV
Transmission Line (recorded under two separate resource numbers), and a sewage treatment plant. The
prehistoric resources consist of three isolates. The records search results also identified 22 previous studies
conducted within a half-mile radius of the Project site, four of which overlapped the Project site including
Schroth 1981; Drummy-Chapel 1981a, 1981b; and Encarnacion et al. 2008. The Schroth 1981, Drummy-
Chapel 1981a, and 1981b studies included the entirety of the Project site as part of a larger survey for the
Southridge Village Project and did not identify any resources within the subject property. The Encarnacion
et al. (2008) study conducted a survey that included the dirt road running parallel to the northern Project
site boundary and minimally overlapped the eastern portion of the Project site. Encarnacion et al. (2008)
did not identify any resources within the subject property (Appendix D).
In addition to the SCCIC records search, BFSA also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
index, historic United States Geological Survey (USGS) data, aerial photographs (1933 through 2024), and
the BFSA research library was consulted for any relevant historical information. Historic maps from the San
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
70
Bernardino, California 15-minute topographic quadrangle (1896, 1898, and 1901) do not show any
quarrying activity within the Project site. Rather, the Declez Quarry operations are noted southwest of the
current Project site, near the current location of Southridge Park. Aerial images demonstrate that by 1933,
the Project site had been impacted by mining activities as the quarrying operations had expanded northeast.
USGS topographic maps from 1943 and 1967 indicate that the quarry operation within the Project site was
located at the base of the Jurupa Mountains, along the southern boundary of the property. Additionally,
topographic maps and aerial imagery demonstrate the presence of sidings and spurs from the SPRR running
through the Project, allowing for the loading of quarried rock onto trucks for transport. Further, the 1933
aerial photograph illustrates the removal of dirt and portions of the mountainside, the presence of dirt roads
throughout the property, and piles of material adjacent to the quarry location. The site appears similar in
the 1938 aerial; however, the next available aerial, from 1948, depicts a general slowdown or complete
stop to quarrying activities within the subject property. The termination of quarrying activities and removal
of all associated features is evident within subsequent aerial photographs, which is consistent with local
sources indicting operations ceased in 1950 (Appendix D). However, as indicated in the SVSP Draft EIR,
Southern Pacific continued to obtain small amounts of rock for repairs to their railroad until the early 1980s.
Subsequent aerial photographs also illustrate the removal and shifting of past quarry debris, along with the
later dumping of soil, building materials, and boulders, likely from adjacent properties, within the Project
site. Between 1977 and 1985, it appears that much of the original quarried material was removed from the
property; however, the 1989, 1994, 2002, and later photographs illustrate the buildup and shifting of new
stockpiles. This later buildup of material within the subject property corresponds with the development of the
Southridge residential neighborhoods to the west/northwest, as well as the creation of a man-made drainage
channel and sewage treatment ponds to the north/northeast (Appendix D).
Additionally, BFSA conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site on July 26, 2024. The entire Project
site was surveyed in 15-meter transect. The pedestrian survey identified several dirt access roads and
various spoil piles containing soil, blasted rock, boulders, building materials, modern trash, and other
imported materials. The survey did not result in the identification of any prehistoric resources within the
Project. However, two concentrations of historic trash were identified within the southwest and southeast
portions of the site, respectively. The trash scatters were identified as sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 in the field,
and recorded according to the Office of Historic Preservation’s manual, Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources, using the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms (Appendix D). The site
survey results indicate that the entire property has been disturbed by the recent movement of dirt and the
mixture of modern trash within spoil piles throughout the Project site.
Site Temp-1 was located in the southwest portion of the Project site, within a spoil pile that was deposited
on top of a natural slope (See Plate 4.2–5, Appendix D). The site consists of a historic trash scatter measuring
15 by 15 meters, and the artifacts associated with the trash scatter primarily include bottles, cans, glass,
metal, and ceramic materials affiliated with the early 1900s to mid-1950s. Site Temp-1 was found within
disturbed soil removed from another location and dumped within the Project site. As such, Site Temp-1 is a
secondary deposit of archaeological material and does not possess integrity. Further, due to the lack of
integrity, the artifacts cannot be associated with any significant individuals or events. Such trash scatters are
common to the area and unlikely to yield any additional information. Therefore, Site Temp-1 is not eligible
for the listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) (Appendix D).
Site Temp-2 was located in the southeast portion of the project within a sandy deposit on the hill slope, which
appears to have been imported into the subject property (see Plate 4.2–7, Appendix D). The site consists of
a historic trash scatter measuring 60 by 15 meters, and the artifacts associated with the trash scatter
primarily include bottles, cans, glass, metal, and ceramic appearing to be affiliated with the 1960s. Site
Temp-2 artifacts were identified within a secondary deposit intermixed with a sandy soil that appears to
have been deposited onto the property from another location. As such, Site Temp-2 is a secondary deposit
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
71
of archaeological material and does not possess integrity. Further, due to the lack of integrity, the artifacts
cannot be associated with any significant individuals or events. Such trash scatters are common to the area
and unlikely to yield any additional information. Therefore, Site Temp-2 is not eligible for listing on the CRHR
(Appendix D).
In conclusion, although sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 are not eligible for the CRHR and the property has been
previously disturbed, ground visibility was hindered during the survey. Further, the records search results
confirmed the site’s former use as a quarry during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century and its
ties to the historic community of Declezville. Therefore, given the records search results, the limited visibility
during the survey, and the presence of sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 within the site, there remains potential for
the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources during grading. Therefore, it is recommended that the
Project be conditioned with archaeological monitoring during grading of the subject property. As a result,
the Project would be conditioned to require a qualified archeologist, approved by the City of Fontana, to
be present to monitor ground disturbing activities and provide protocols in the event of inadvertent discovery
of archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource. With implementation of standard conditions, potential
impacts would be reduced 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 Draft EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the SVSP would cause adverse
impacts to archaeological resources. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would
be less than significant.
As discussed above, the Cultural Recourse Assessment identified the property’s former use as a quarry during
the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century and its ties to the historic community of Declezville. Thus,
given the records search results, the limited visibility during the pedestrian survey, and the presence of sites
Temp-1 and Temp-2 within the property, there remains potential for the inadvertent discovery of
archaeological resources during grading. Therefore, it is recommended that the Project be conditioned with
archaeological monitoring during grading of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would be conditioned to
require a qualified archeologist, approved by the City of Fontana, to be present to monitor ground
disturbing activities and provide protocols in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resource
or tribal cultural resource. With implementation of standard conditions, potential impacts to archaeological
resources would be reduced 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 Draft EIR.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
72
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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
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
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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
73
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed energy consumption in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and Utilities. The SVSP
Draft EIR describes that natural gas would be provided to the SVSP area by the Southern California Gas
Company (SoCalGas) and electricity service would be provided by the Southern California Edison Company
(SCE). The SVSP Draft EIR determined 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 Draft 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
The following mitigation measures are from page 64 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
74
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Conifer Self Storage Project. Prepared by
EPD Solutions, Inc. February 28, 2025. (Appendix A)
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction of the proposed Project would consume energy in two 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; and
2. Electricity associated with providing temporary power for lighting and electric equipment.
Construction activities related to the proposed self-storage development and the associated infrastructure
are not expected to result in demand for fuel greater on a per-development basis than other development
projects in Southern California. Due to the Project size and the fact that construction is temporary, the
electricity used during construction of the proposed Project would be substantially less than that required for
Project operation and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption. The
electric power used would be for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment such as computers inside
temporary construction trailers. Natural gas is not anticipated to be needed for construction activities. Any
consumption of natural gas would be minor and negligible in comparison to the usage during the operation
of the proposed Project. Table E-1 details the construction fuel usage over the Project’s construction period,
as shown in Table E-1 below.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
75
Table E-1: Construction Equipment Fuel Usage
Activity Equipment Number
Hours
per
day
Horse-
power
Load
Factor
Days of
Construction
Total
Horsepower-
hours
Fuel Rate
(gal/hp-hr)
Fuel Use
(gallons)
Site
Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4 20 70,464 0.047454783 3,344
Crawler Tractors 4 8 84 0.37 20 19,891 0.05048826 1,004
Grading
Excavators 2 8 36 0.38 70 15,322 0.05121509 2,431
Graders 1 8 148 0.41 70 33,981 0.05153929 112
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4 70 82,208 0.04745478 500
Crawler Tractors 3 8 87 0.43 70 62,849 0.08075336 1,115
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 1 8 200 0.60 70 67,200 0.050641575 1,450
Building
Cranes 1 8 367 0.29 230 195,831 0.05312078 10,403
Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2 230 90,528 0.03216647 2,912
Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74 230 19,062 0.08075336 1,539
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 0.37 230 171,562 0.05158182 8,849
Welders 1 8 46 0.45 230 38,088 0.05116533 1,949
Paving
Pavers 2 8 81 0.42 20 10,886 0.05259167 573
Paving Equipment 2 8 89 0.36 20 10,253 0.05312078 545
Rollers 2 8 36 0.38 20 4,378 0.030188493 132
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 8 37 0.48 20 2,842 0.030188493 86
Total 36,944
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
76
The equipment associated with construction activities (off-road/heavy duty vehicles) would rely on diesel
fuel as would vendor and haul trucks involved in delivering building materials and removing soil material
from the Project site. Construction workers would travel to and from the Project site throughout the duration
of construction, and for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that construction workers would travel in
gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. Table E-2 summarizes the Project’s construction vehicle fuel usage
based on vehicle miles traveled and fuel usage factors contained in the CARB EMFAC2021. As shown, it is
estimated that Project construction would result in the use of 13,492 gallons of diesel fuel and 19,488 gallons
of gasoline during Project construction.
Table E-2: Estimated Project Vehicle Fuel Usage
Construction
Source
Total Number of
Trips VMT Fuel Rate Gallons of
Diesel Fuel
Gallons of
Gasoline Fuel
Haul Trucks 227 9,083 6.07 1,495 0
Vendor Trucks 5,290 107,916 9.00 11,997 0
Worker Vehicles 14,560 538,720 27.64 0 19,488
Total 13,492 19,488
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Table E-3 shows the overall fuel consumption for Project construction compared to fuel information for San
Bernardino County collected from EMFAC2021. As shown, it is estimated that on-road vehicles from the
proposed Project would account for 0.005 percent and 0.002 percent of diesel and gasoline consumption
within San Bernardino County in 2025, respectively. Off-road construction equipment from the proposed
Project would account for 0.2 percent of diesel consumption within San Bernardino County in 2025.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in fuel consumption. The proposed
Project would have less-than-significant construction energy impacts
Table E-3: Total Construction Fuel Usage
Source Diesel Fuel (Gallons) Gasoline Fuel (Gallons)
Proposed Project Construction Vehicles 13,492 19,662
Proposed Project Off-Road Construction Equipment 36,944 0
Proposed Project Total Consumption 50,436 19,662
San Bernardino County On-Road Vehicles 281,399,849 828,612,797
San Bernardino County Off-Road Construction Equipment 19,143,316 459,014
On-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.005 0.002
Off-Road Project Percentage (%) 0.2 -
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Under the SVSP, specific construction-related energy demands were not calculated. However, construction
activities related to redevelopment of the site for uses pursuant to the SVSP would be permitted to require
compliance with existing fuel standards, machinery efficiency standards, and CARB requirements that limit
idling of trucks, such as CARB Rule 2485 regulations that limit idling to 5 minutes (13 California Code of
Regulations [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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
77
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
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 storage buildings,
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-3, operation of the proposed Project
would use approximately 632,860 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per year of electricity, approximately 2,592,144
thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year of natural gas, and 17,102 gallons of gasoline annually. Table
E-3 also lists the most recent data available for electricity and natural gas usage in San Bernardino County
(2022) from the California Energy Commission. When compared to overall electricity and natural gas usage
in the County, the proposed Project would result in a 0.006 percent and 0.009 percent increase in non-
residential electricity and natural gas consumption, respectively. Further, using 2025 estimated rates as the
baseline year, the proposed Project would account for 0.002 percent of gasoline consumption in San
Bernardino County.. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant energy impacts.
Table E-3: Project Annual Operational Energy Requirements
Electricity (Kilowatt-Hours)
Proposed Project 632,860
San Bernardino County (2022) 10,327,755,820
Natural Gas (Thousands British Thermal Units)
Proposed Project 2,592,144
San Bernardino County (2022) 29,472,194,710
Petroleum (Gasoline) Consumption
Annual VMT Gallons of Gasoline Fuel
Proposed Project 472,769 17,102
San Bernardino County (2025) 2,167,523,424 828,612,797
VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
Further, the State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards
through Title 24 of the 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 Draft 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.
Regarding solar power, building roofs would include solar panels, consistent with the requirements of Title
24 standards. The exact size of the photovoltaic system will be based on the available roof area and the
condition floor area per Title 24 standards. 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
78
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) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
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 CCR. 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. 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 Draft EIR.
In addition, construction equipment and trucks are required to comply with CARB regulations regarding
heavy-duty truck idling limits of five minutes at a location and the phase-in of off-road emission standards
that result in an increase in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from more fuel-efficient
engines. Although these regulations are intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, compliance with the
anti-idling and emissions regulations would also result in the efficient use of construction-related energy.
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 information, 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 (PPP)
PPP E‐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.
PPP E-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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
79
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?
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
80
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft 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 on-site, with
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 on-site. 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 on-site. 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 Draft EIR found that the project would result in unavoidable adverse impacts related to geology
and soils as a result of exposure to on-site ground shaking and incompatibility of on-site 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
The following mitigation measures are from pages 58 through 59 of the SVSP Final EIR.
The following measures are recommended in order to minimize any impacts related to geological and
soils resources within the study area:
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
81
2. Grading operations should be conducted in a manner to control the potential for erosion by wind and
surface water runoff. This may include timing of grading where feasible to coincide with the dry season;
the construction of temporary desilting basins; early revegetation of graded areas; and/or other such
measures as may be recommended by the City engineers.
SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from page 2 of the SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR MMRP.
Mitigation Measure 3.1.3. Prior to any residential development within areas formerly designated
Quarry, or adjacent remaining areas with a Quarry designation, the applicant shall ensure that slope
stability investigations be completed as part of the initial geotechnical investigation prior to the
commencement of grading on-site. Such investigations shall identify any potential slope failure and/or
rockfall hazard areas, and shall identify the specific measures (e.g., barriers, setbacks) to reduce
hazards and protect project development to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety and
Engineering/Public Works Division of the Community Development Department.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment: Conifer Ridge Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant
Land South of Conifer Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California 92337. Prepared by Petra Geosciences. August 4, 2022. (Appendix E).
• Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation. Prepared by KANE GeoTech Inc. January 31, 2023.
(Appendix F)
• Paleontological Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project. Prepared by BFSA Environmental
Services. August 13, 2024. (Appendix G).
a) Directly or indirectly cause 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?
No New Impact.
In 1972, the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act was signed into law. In 1994, it was renamed the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-P Act). The primary purpose of the Act is to mitigate the
hazard of fault rupture by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of
an active fault. The A-P Act requires the State Geologist (Chief of the California Geology Survey) to
delineate “Earthquake Fault Zones” along with faults that are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.”
The boundary of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” is generally about 500 feet from major active faults and
200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. The A-P Act dictates that cities and counties withhold
development permits for sites within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the site zones are not threatened by surface displacements from future faulting.
As described above, there are no known faults within the SVSP area, including within the proposed
Project site. The three nearest faults are the San Jacinto fault, located nine miles to the northeast, the
Cucamonga fault, located nine miles to the north, and the San Andreas fault, located 13.5 miles to the
northeast. As the Project site does not contain an earthquake fault, it is not affected by a State-
designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
82
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. Strong seismic ground shaking?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located within a seismically active region of Southern California which means occasional
seismic ground shaking is likely to occur within the lifetime of the proposed Project. As described above,
the closest faults to the site are located approximately nine miles north and northeast of the site. Thus,
due to the proximity, strong seismic ground shaking has a high likelihood of occurring at the site. The
amount of motion can vary depending upon the distance to the fault, the magnitude of the earthquake,
and the local geology. Greater movement can be expected at sites located closer to an earthquake
epicenter, which consist of poorly consolidated material such as alluvium, and in response to an
earthquake of great magnitude.
Structures built in the city are required to be built in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC
[California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), included in the Municipal Code as Chapter 5, Article
III. Compliance with the CBC would ensure earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type,
the types of soils on-site, 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. Also, consistent
with the Section 1803 of Chapter 18 of the CBC and Article III of the Municipal Code, construction of
the Project would implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the
Project to ensure no geologic risks. Therefore, with CBC compliance, the proposed Project would not
expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong seismic ground shaking more than other developments in Southern California.
Impacts would be less than significant.
The Project site is part of an abandoned rock quarry and adjacent to a 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 could
potentially trigger a rockfall occurrence near the perimeter of the Project site from the outcrops above
the Project area. Although landslides are unlikely, tonalite boulders present a rockfall hazard (Appendix
F).
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. Additionally, in compliance with Mitigation
Measure 3.1.3 from the SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR, a Rcokfall Investigation (Appendix F) was
prepared which provided recommendations to reduce potential hazards related to rockfall. In
compliance with the recommendations of the Rockfall Investigation and Mitigation Measure 3.1.3, the
Project would include the installation of approximately 830 linear feet of compacted berm at the base
of the slope along the site’s southern property line. The berm would be combined with a three-foot deep
catchment ditch along the property line at the base of the berm. The berm would catch rocks that may
fall in the event of seismic ground shaking and prevent rockfall from impacting any structures or persons
within the Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
83
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?
No New Impact.
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils layers, located within
approximately 50 feet of the ground surface, lose strength due to cyclic pore water pressure generation
from seismic shaking or other large cyclic loading. During the loss of stress, the soil acquires “mobility”
sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soil properties and soil conditions such as
type, age, texture, color, and consistency, along with historical depths to ground water are used to
identify, characterize, and correlate liquefaction susceptible soils.
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.
Lateral spreading is a form of seismic ground failure due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer.
The Geotechnical Report (Appendix E) prepared for the proposed Project determined that the Project
site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the Geotechnical Report found
that groundwater exists deeper than 100 feet below the surface of site and most of the site is underlain
by very dense granitic soils. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a major geotechnical concern
for site development.
Further, 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 further reduced with compliance with the CBC. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure
Geology and Soils 1 of the SVSP 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?
No New Impact.
Landslides and other slope failures are secondary seismic effects that are common during or soon after
earthquakes. Areas that are most susceptible to earthquake induced landslides are steep slopes
underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or adjacent to existing landslide deposits.
The site exhibits gentle-sloping land that is not typically prone to landslides; however, the adjacent off-
site slope and overhanding tonalite boulders present a potential rockfall hazard (Appendix F). However,
the Project would include implementation of a rockfall berm and catchment ditch which would protect
the Project site from potential falling rocks. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to landslides.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
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.
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No New Impact.
The Project would involve earthmoving 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. Additionally, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-2 from the
SVSP EIR which requires grading operations to be conducted in a manner to control the potential for erosion
by wind and surface water runoff.
The proposed Project would also be subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting regulations, including implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
associated Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs may include a combination of construction methods to
reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from project-related grading and construction activities.
Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP; Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ) issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution,
including sediment. With compliance with City Municipal Code stormwater management requirements,
RWQCB SWPPP requirements, and installation of BMPs, which would be ensured by the City’s Project review
by the Department of Building and Safety, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would
be less than significant.
The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping adjacent to the proposed self-storage facility and
throughout the proposed parking areas. With this landscaping, areas of loose topsoil that could be eroded
by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the proposed Project. In addition, as described in Section
5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the hydraulic features of the proposed Project have been designed to
slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the proposed detention/infiltration basin, which
would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil. Furthermore, implementation of the Project
requires City approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure that RWQCB
requirements and appropriate operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize or eliminate the
potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil to occur. As a result, with implementation of existing requirements,
impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil 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.
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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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.
Landslides and other forms of mass wasting, including mud flows, debris flows, and soil slips, occur as soil
moves downslope under the influence of gravity. Landslides are frequently triggered by intense rainfall or
seismic shaking. As described above, landsliding at the Project site is not likely; however, the adjacent off-
site slope and overhanding tonalite boulders present a potential rockfall hazard (Appendix F). Thus, the
Project would include implementation of a rockfall berm and catchment ditch which would protect the Project
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
85
site from potential falling rocks. Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
landslides.
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction‐induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement
of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms
the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to
move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may
cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and
structures. The Geotechnical Report (Appendix E) prepared for the proposed Project determined that the
Project site is not located within an area susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the Geotechnical Report
found that groundwater exists deeper than 100 feet below the surface of site and most of the site is underlain
by very dense granitic soils. Therefore, liquefaction and lateral spreading are not considered to be of
geotechnical concern for site development.
Subsidence is a general lowering of the ground surface over a large area that is generally attributed to
lowering of the ground water levels within a groundwater basin. Localized or focal subsidence or settlement
of the ground can occur as a result of an earthquake motion in an area where groundwater in basin is
lowered. As described above, the Geotechnical Report found that groundwater exists deeper than 100 feet
below the surface of site and most of the site is underlain by very dense granitic soils. Therefore, subsidence
is not considered to be of geotechnical concern for site development.
Further, 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 further
reduced with compliance with the CBC. Additionally, as required by Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils
1 of the SVSP 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.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
No New Impact.
Expansive soils contain certain types of clay minerals that shrink or swell as the moisture content changes; the
shrinking or swelling can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Arid or semiarid areas with
seasonal changes of soil moisture experience, such as southern California, have a higher potential of
expansive soils than areas with higher rainfall and more constant soil moisture.
The Geotechnical Investigation performed soil testing which found that on-site soils have a Very Low
expansion potential (Appendix E). 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
86
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?
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would construct water and sewer lines on-site that would connect to an existing 8-inch
water and an existing 15-inch sewer line in Village Drive. 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.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No New Impact.
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 Assessment was prepared for the Project site that included a records
search, a literature search, a review of geological maps, and impact analyses (Appendix G). The record
search did not identify the evidence of paleontological resources within the Project site. Additionally,
geologic mapping shows that the surface of the Project site is mapped as artificial fill, bedrock of Cretaceous
tonalite, and young alluvial fan deposits. According to the Paleontological Assessment, these geologic units
are assigned low to no paleontological sensitivity, thus paleontological monitoring is not recommended for
excavation activities associated with the Project (Appendix G). 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 when
compared to those identified in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
PPP GEO-1: California Building Code. The Project shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the
2022 California Building Code (CBC) Design Parameters, or the most current CBC adopted in the City’s
Municipal Code.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
SVSP Amendment No. 15 Final EIR Mitigation Measure Applicable to Project
Revisions to mitigation measures are identified in bold underline and deletions are identified in strikethrough.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
87
Mitigation Measure 3.1.3. Prior to any residential development within areas formerly designated Quarry,
or adjacent remaining areas with a Quarry designation, the applicant shall ensure that slope stability
investigations be completed as part of the initial geotechnical investigation prior to the commencement of
grading on-site. Such investigations shall identify any potential slope failure and/or rockfall hazard areas,
and shall identify the specific measures (e.g., barriers, setbacks) to reduce hazards and protect project
development to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety and Engineering/Public Works Division of the
Community Development Department.
*Note: As a result of this measure, site preparation shall follow the recommendations in the Feasibility/Due
Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment: Conifer Ridge Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer
Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
92337, prepared by Petra Geosciences Inc. on August 4, 2022, and Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall
Investigation, prepared by KANE Geotech, Inc. on January 30, 2023, as well as any additional future site-
specific, design-level geotechnical investigations of the Project.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
88
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP EIR did not analysis impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as the topic area was not
included in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the SVSP EIR was written and adopted. 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
No mitigation measures related to GHG are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for Conifer Self Storage Project. Prepared by
EPD Solutions, Inc. February 28, 2025. (Appendix A).
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
89
GHG Thresholds
SCAQMD convened a GHG Emissions CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to help lead agencies
determine significance thresholds for GHG emissions when SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The last working
group was held in September 2010 (Meeting No. 15) and proposed a tiered approach (Tier 1 to Tier 5),
equivalent to the existing consistency determination requirements in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3),
15125(d), or 15152(a) (SCAQMD, 2010). This assessment applies the Tier 3 (Numerical Screening
Thresholds) approach. Tier 3 consists of screening values which the lead agency can choose from, but it must
be consistent with all projects within its jurisdiction. A project’s construction emissions are averaged over 30
years and are added to the project’s operational emissions. If a project’s emissions are below one of the
following screening thresholds, then the project impact would be less than significant:
• Option 1, all land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
• Option 2, based on land use type:
o Residential: 3,500 MTCO2e per year
o Commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year
o Mixed-use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year
Based on the foregoing guidance, the City of Fontana has elected to rely on compliance with a local air
district (SCAQMD) threshold in the determination of significance of Project-related GHG emissions.
Specifically, the City of Fontana has selected the interim 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold recommended
by SCAQMD staff against which to compare Project-related GHG emissions.
The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was proposed by SCAQMD a decade
ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has
since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by
SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document –
Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group
meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). SCAQMD has not withdrawn its support of the interim threshold
and all documentation supporting the interim threshold remains on the SCAQMD website on a page that
provides guidance to CEQA practitioners for air quality analysis (and where all SCAQMD significance
thresholds for regional and local criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants also are listed). Further, as
stated by SCAQMD, this threshold “uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal (80 percent below 1990 levels
by 2050) as the basis for deriving the screening level” and, thus, remains valid for use in 2024 and for
purposes of this analysis. Lastly, this threshold has been used for hundreds of GHG analyses performed for
projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
No New Impact.
Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area. A typical project does not generate
enough greenhouse gas (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. 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.
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to occur
over approximately 17 months. GHG emissions associated with Project construction would occur over the
short term and would consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. The calculations presented below
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
90
include construction emissions in terms of annual CO2e GHG emissions from increased energy consumption,
water usage, and solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would
result from implementation of the proposed Project. During construction of the proposed Project, GHGs would
be emitted through the operation of construction equipment, as well as emissions from worker and vendor
vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels
creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy
equipment. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity
levels change.
As discussed above, the SCAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction
related GHG emissions. However, lead agencies are required to quantify and disclose GHG emissions that
would occur during construction. Total estimated GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project
were amortized over 30 years per SCAQMD methodology. As shown in Table GHG-1, it is estimated that
the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 750 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (MTCO2e) during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life of the proposed Project,
annual emissions would be 25 MTCO2e.
Table GHG-1: Project Construction GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2025 502
2026 248
Total Emissions 750
Total Emissions Amortized Over 30 Years 25
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
During operations, the proposed Project would generate long-term GHG emissions from vehicular trips;
water, natural gas, and electricity consumption; and solid waste generation. Mobile-source emissions of
GHGs would include Project generated vehicle trips associated with employee and customer trips to and
from the Project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and
maintenance of proposed land uses and other sources. Increases in stationary source emissions would also
occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity and water by the proposed use.
The estimated operational GHG emissions that would be generated from implementation of the proposed
Project are shown in Table GHG-2. In accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, the proposed Project’s
amortized construction related GHG emissions are added to the operational emissions estimate in order to
determine the proposed Project’s total annual GHG emissions. As shown in Table GHG-2, the proposed
Project would generate a total of 557 MTCO2e per year, Therefore, based upon SCAQMD’s screening
threshold, impacts related to operational GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Table GHG-2: Project Total GHG Emissions
Activity Annual GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Mobile 173
Area 3
Energy 238
Water 78
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
91
Waste 40
Total Project Operation Emissions 532
Project Construction Emissions 25
Total Project Emissions 557
Significance Threshold 3,000
Threshold Exceeded? No
Source: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
No New Impact.
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG
emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap,
which was phased in starting in 2012. In 2022, CARB updated their Scoping Plan to reflect a State GHG
reduction target for 2045 at 85 percent below 1990 levels. The proposed Project meets the current interim
emissions targets/thresholds established by SCAQMD, therefore, the Project would also be on track to meet
the reduction target of 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, as mandated by the State. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with existing plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas. Table GHG-3 below shows the
Project’s consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan.
Table GHG-3: Project Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan
Action Consistency
GHG Emissions Reductions Relative to the SB 32 Target
40% Below 1990 levels by 2030. Consistent. The Project would comply with the 2022 Title
24, Part 6 building energy requirements along with other
local and State initiatives that aim to achieve the 40%
below 1990 levels by 2030 goal.
Smart Growth/Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
VMT per capita reduced 25% below 2019 levels by
2030, and 30% below 2019 levels by 2045.
Consistent. The proposed Project would provide
pedestrian trails, bicycle racks, and bicycle parking spaces
to encourage alternative modes of transportation. As
previously discussed, the Project would be consistent with
the growth and land use assumptions in the 2024 Connect
SoCal (SCAG, 2024), so the Project would not interfere
with the analysis completed for the Connect SoCal report
outlining VMT reduction targets and measures.
Light-Duty Vehicle (LDV) Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs)
100% of LDV sales are ZEV by 2035. Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not propose
the sale of vehicles.
Truck ZEVs
100% of medium-duty (MDV)/HDC sales are ZEV by
2040 (AB 74 University of California Institute of
Transportation Studies [ITS] report).
Not Applicable. The proposed Project does not propose
the sale of trucks.
Aviation
20% of aviation fuel demand is met by electricity
(batteries) or hydrogen (fuel cells) in 2045.
Sustainable aviation fuel meets most or the rest of the
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not utilize
aviation fuel.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
92
Action Consistency
aviation fuel demand that has not already transitioned
to hydrogen or batteries.
Ocean-Going Vessels (OGV)
2020 OGV At-Berth regulation fully implemented,
with most OGVs utilizing shore power by 2027.
25% of OGVs utilize hydrogen fuel cell electric
technology by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not utilize any
OGVs.
Port Operations
100% of cargo handling equipment is zero-emission
by 2037.
100% of drayage trucks are zero emission by 2035.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not impact
any operations at any ports.
Freight and Passenger Rail
100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are
ZEV by 2030.
100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.
Line haul and passenger rail rely primarily on
hydrogen fuel cell technology, and others primarily
utilize electricity.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any freight or passenger rail operations.
Oil and Gas Extraction
Reduce oil and gas extraction operations in line with
petroleum demand by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve oil
and gas extraction operations.
Petroleum Refining
CCS on majority of operations by 2030, beginning in
2028. Production reduced in line with petroleum
demand.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any petroleum refining.
Electricity Generation
Sector GHG target of 38 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) in 2030 and 30
MMTCO2e in 2035.
Retail sales load coverage13420 gigawatts (GW) of
offshore wind by 2045. Meet increased demand for
electrification without new fossil gas-fired resources.
Not Applicable. The Project would not generate electricity.
New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026 (residential)
and 2029 (commercial), contributing to 6 million heat
pumps installed statewide by 2030.
Consistent. The proposed Project would comply with the
2022 Title 24, Section 6 Building Codes energy
requirements, including installing electrical wiring for all
built in appliances.
Existing Residential Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030 and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2035.
Appliances are replaced at end of life such that by
2030 there are 3 million all-electric and electric-ready
homes—and by 2035, 7 million homes—as well as
contributing to 6 million heat pumps installed statewide
by 2030.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any existing residential buildings.
Existing Commercial Buildings
80% of appliance sales are electric by 2030, and
100% of appliance sales are electric by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any existing commercial buildings.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
93
Action Consistency
Appliances are replaced at end of life, contributing to
6 million heat pumps installed statewide by 2030.
Food Products
7.5% of energy demand electrified directly and/or
indirectly by 2030; 75% by 2045.
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose cold storage
and would not involve mass food production.
Construction Equipment
25% of energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
electrified by 2045.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be required to use
construction equipment that is registered by CARB and meet
CARB’s standards. CARB sets its standards to be in line with
the goal of reducing energy demand by 25% in 2030 and
75% in 2045.
Chemicals and Allied Products; Pulp and Paper
Electrify 0% of boilers by 2030 and 100% of boilers
by 2045.
Hydrogen for 25% of process heat by 2035 and
100% by 2045.
Electrify 100% of other energy demand by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
the production and/or storage of chemicals and allied
products like pulp and paper.
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Cement
CCS on 40% of operations by 2035 and on all
facilities by 2045.
Process emissions reduced through alternative
materials and CCS.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
the production and/or storage of stone, clay, glass and/or
cement.
Other Industrial Manufacturing
0% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 50% by
2045.
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose any
industrial manufacturing uses.
Combined Heat and Power
Facilities retire by 2040. Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any existing combined heat and power facilities.
Agriculture Energy Use
25% energy demand electrified by 2030 and 75%
by 2045.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any agricultural uses.
Low Carbon Fuels for Transportation
Biomass supply is used to produce conventional and
advanced biofuels, as well as hydrogen.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any production of biofuels.
Low Carbon Fuels for Buildings and Industry
In 2030s, biomethane135 blended in pipeline
Renewable hydrogen blended in fossil gas pipeline at
7% energy (~20% by volume), ramping up between
2030 and 2040.
In 2030s, dedicated hydrogen pipelines constructed to
serve certain industrial clusters
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any production of fuels for buildings and industry.
Non-Combustion Methane Emissions
Increase landfill and dairy digester methane capture.
Some alternative manure management deployed for
smaller dairies.
Moderate adoption of enteric strategies by 2030.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not involve
any production of non-combustion methane emissions or
organic waste.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
94
Action Consistency
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills by 2025.
Oil and gas fugitive methane emissions reduced 50%
by 2030 and further reductions as infrastructure
components retire in line with reduced fossil gas
demand
High GWP Potential Emissions
Low GWP refrigerants introduced as building
electrification increases, mitigating HFC emissions.
Not Applicable. The Project does not propose cold storage
uses.
Source: CARB. (2022). California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan Table 2-1: Actions for the Scoping Plan Scenario: AB 32
GHG Inventory Sectors. Referenced at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf
Table GHG-4 provides a consistency summary between City of Fontana General Plan policies related to
reducing GHG emissions and the proposed Project. As shown in Table GHG-4, the Project would comply
with applicable plans and programs of the Fontana General Plan intended to reduce GHG emissions.
Table GHG-4: Project Consistency with City of Fontana General Plan
Goals Consistency
Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas
include a multi-functional street network that ensures a
safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people,
goods, and services to support a high quality of life
and economic vitality.
Consistent. Pedestrian circulation would be provided via
sidewalks along Village Drive, 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, recreational
amenities, and to public transit (i.e., Omnitrans Route 82
which serves Rancho Cucamonga and Sierra Lakes via
Jurupa Avenue). The proposed Project would also construct
a public trail with connection to Southridge Park.
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 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient
community.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to
meet 2022 Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11 building energy
requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized
through installation of enhanced insulation and use of
energy efficient lights and appliances.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 3: Renewable sources of energy, including solar
and wind, and other energy-conservation strategies
are available to city households and businesses.
Consistent. Southern California Edison provides electricity
to Fontana and is subject to California’s Renewables
Portfolio Standards (RPS). The RPS requires investor-owned
utilities, electric service providers, and community choice
aggregators to increase procurement from eligible
renewable energy resources to 33% of total procurement
by 2020 and to 60% of total procurement by 2030. As
such, the proposed Project would not interfere with the
implementation of the RPS.
Goal 5: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be designed to
meet the 2022 Title 24, Pat 6 and Part 11 building energy
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
95
Goals Consistency
Goal 6: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
requirements, which would minimize the energy utilized
through installation of enhanced insulation and use of
energy efficient lights and appliances.
Source: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gase Impact Analysis (Appendix A)
The City of Fontana is part of the regional San Bernardino County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHGRP)
adopted in September 2011, which identifies the County’s vision and goals on reducing GHG emissions in
the different cities, local government facilities, and communities. The regional GHG reduction plan was
adopted in 2021 and serves as the basis for cities in San Bernardino County to develop more detailed
community level climate action plans. Table GHG-5 below presents the proposed Project’s compliance with
each reduction measure evaluated for the City of Fontana, as identified in the 2021 San Bernardino County
Regional GHGRP.
Table GHG-5: Project Consistency with City of Fontana General Plan
Measure Description Project Consistency
Building Energy
Energy-1. Building Energy
Efficiency
SR Policy 1: Create a Sustainable
Fontana program that promotes
green practices in government and in
the community.
SR Policy 2.1: Incorporate goals into the
City Code for resource efficiency in
municipal facilities and operations.
SR Policy 5: Promote green building
through guidelines, awards, and
nonfinancial incentives.
SR Policy 6.1: Promote energy-efficient
development in Fontana.
SR Policy 6.2: Meet or exceed state
goals for energy- efficient new
construction.
Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote
renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work
towards the highest levels of low carbon
energy-efficiency.
Not Applicable. This measure is not
applicable as the City would be
responsible for implementing this
measure.
Energy-2. Light Efficiency SR Policy 1: Create a Sustainable
Fontana program that promotes
green practices in government and in
the community.
SR Policy 2.1: Incorporate goals into
the City Code for resource efficiency
in municipal facilities and operations.
SR Policy 2.2: Continue organizational
and operational improvements to
maximize energy and resource
efficiency and reduce waste.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would comply with the
CALGreen Code, regarding
energy conservation and green
building standards.
Energy-5. Renewable Energy-
New Commercial/Industrial.
SR Policy 3: Promote renewable
energy programs for government,
Consistent. The proposed Project
would comply with the
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
96
Measure Description Project Consistency
Fontana businesses, and Fontana
residences.
Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote
renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and
retrofits of existing development to work
towards the highest levels of low carbon
energy-efficiency.
CALGreen Code, regarding
energy conservation and green
building standards.
Energy-6. Solar Energy for
Warhouse Space.
SR Policy 3: Promote renewable
energy programs for government,
Fontana businesses, and Fontana
residences.
Not Applicable. The Project is not
a warehouse use. However, the
proposed Project would comply
with the CALGreen Code,
regarding energy conservation
and green building standards.
Energy-7. Solar Installation for
Existing Housing
SR Policy 3: Promote renewable
energy programs for government,
Fontana businesses, and Fontana
residences.
SR Policy 3.1: Evaluate a Community
Choice Aggregation (CCA) Program
for Fontana.
SR Policy 3.2: Ensure that
appropriate zoning and design
standard regulations are in place as
needed to provide for domestic
solar and wind installations.
Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote
renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing
development to work towards the
highest levels of lowcarbon energy-
efficiency.
Not Applicable. This measure is
not applicable as the proposed
Project would not retrofit an
existing building.
Energy-8. Renewable Energy-
Existing Commercial/Industrial
SR Policy 3: Promote renewable
energy programs for government,
Fontana businesses, and Fontana
residences.
SR Policy 4: Continue to collaborate
with SBCTA, infrastructure agencies,
and utilities on greenhouse gas
reduction studies and goals.
Chapter 10 Policy 7: Promote
renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development
and retrofits of existing development
to work towards the highest levels of
low carbon energy-efficiency.
Not Applicable. This measure is
not applicable as the proposed
Project would not retrofit an
existing building.
On-Road
On Road-2. Encourage Use of
Mass Transit
CM Policy 1.4: Make land use
decisions that support walking,
Not Applicable. The proposed
Project would include a self-
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
97
Measure Description Project Consistency
bicycling, and public transit use, in
alignment with the 2014-2040
Regional Transportation Plan and
Sustainable Communities Strategy.
CM 7.2: Coordinate with regional
agencies and Caltrans to participate
in regional efforts to maintain
transportation infrastructure in
Fontana.
CM 7.3: Participate in the efforts of
the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG) to
coordinate transportation planning
and services that support greenhouse
gas reductions.
storage facility and a public trail.
Due to the nature of the
proposed Project, mass transit
would not be feasible.
On Road-3. Transportation
Demand Management and Signal
Synchronization
CM Policy 1.1: Provide roadways
that serve the needs of Fontana
residents and commerce, and that
facilitate safe and convenient access
to transit, bicycle facilities, and
walkways.
CM Policy 1.2: Make safety and
multimodal accessibility the top
priority of Citywide transportation
planning.
CM 3.2: Promote concentrated
development patterns in
coordination with transit planning to
maximize service efficiency and
ridership.
CM 7.1: Lead and participate in
initiatives to manage regional
traffic.
CM 7.4: Participate in the efforts by
Caltrans to reduce congestion and
improve traffic flow on area
freeways.
Not Applicable. The proposed
Project would generate 124
daily trips, including 4 AM peak
hour trips and 12 PM peak hour
trips. Based on the minimal peak
hour trips generated by the
proposed Project, the project
would not be required to
implement transportation
demand management
strategies or
signal synchronization.
On Road-4. Expand Bike Routes CM 2.1: When constructing or
modifying roadways, design the
roadway space for use by all users
when feasible, including motor
vehicles, buses, bicyclists, mobility
devices, and pedestrians, as
appropriate for the context of the
area.
Not Applicable. The proposed
Project would include a self-
storage facility and a public trail.
Due to the nature of the proposed
Project, mass transit would not be
feasible.
On Road-5. Community Fleet
Electrification
CM Action 7.D: Support the
adoption and use of technologies
that reduce emissions from passenger
and transit vehicles.
Not Applicable. The proposed
Project would not involve City
fleet vehicles.
Solid Waste Managment
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
98
Measure Description Project Consistency
Waste-2. Waste Diversion and
Reduction
SR Policy 2.2: Continue
organizational and operational
improvements to maximize energy
and resource efficiency and reduce
waste.
Chapter 10 Policy 8.2: Continue to
maximize landfill capacity by
supporting recycling innovations, such
as organic waste recycling for
compost.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would be consistent with County
Solid Waste and State
requirements.
Water Conveyance
Water Conveyance Chapter 10 Policy 1: Support
initiatives to provide a long-term
supply of the right water for the right
use through working with regional
providers and the One Water One
Watershed Plan.
Chapter 10 Policy 2.1: Encourage
use of processed water from the
IEUA systems using recycled water
for all non-drinking water purposes.
Chapter 10 Policy 2.2: Promote
laundry-to-landscape greywater
systems for single-family housing
units.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would comply with the
CALGreen Code regarding
water conservation.
Water-1. Voluntary CALGREEN:
New
Construction
SR Policy 7: Continue to promote
and implement best practices to
conserve water.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would comply with the
CALGreen Code regarding
water conservation.
Water-2. Renovate Existing
Buildings
SR Policy 7: Continue to promote
and implement best practices to
conserve water.
Not Applicable. This measure is
not applicable as the proposed
Project would not retrofit an
existing
building.
Water-3. Water-Efficient
Landscaping Practices
SR Policy 7: Continue to promote
and implement best practices to
conserve water.
Chapter 10 Policy 3.1: Support
landscaping in public and private
spaces with drought resistant plants.
Chapter 10 Policy 3.2: Continue
successful City water conservation
programs and partnerships.
Consistent. The proposed Project
would comply with the
CALGreen Code, regarding
water conservation.
Source: San Bernardino Council of Governments (2021)
Further, the proposed Project would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s GHG reduction
target of 19 percent below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035 under the 2024-2050 SCAG
RTP/SCS. In addition, the proposed Project is not regionally significant per State CEQA Guidelines Section
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
99
15206 and as such, it would not conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS targets since those targets were established
and are applicable on a regional level.
Overall, the proposed Project would comply with existing State regulations adopted to achieve the overall
GHG emissions reduction goals identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would be consistent with applicable
plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as the City’s General Plan and SCAG's
RTP/SCS. 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 and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Project
would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Standards at the time of building permit issuance.
In addition, as described above, GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project would not exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project
would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
PPP E-1. Title 24 Standards. As listed previously under Section 5.6, Energy.
PPP GHG-1: CALGreen Standards. Projects shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California
Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR 11).
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
100
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not analyze impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
101
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to hazards and hazardous materials are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Metal Soils Residue Survey. Prepared by Petra
Geosciences. June 17, 2024. (Appendix H).
• Excavation, Transportation and Disposal Completion Report; Soil Removal Activities, Conifer Ridge
Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-0000,
City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 9233. Prepared by Petra Geosciences. January 3,
2025. (Appendix I).
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
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 workplace or environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited
to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any material that a business or the local implementing
agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful
to the environment if released into the workplace or 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 are not expected. Therefore, impacts related to use of these
materials during construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The Project involves operation a self-storage facility. The types and amounts of hazardous materials that
would be used in connection with operation of the Project would include typical housekeeping and janitorial
products, including lubricants, solvents, cleaning agents, wastes, paints and related wastes, petroleum, and
wastewater. The routine use and disposal of normal household products is not considered to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. These substances are not stored or utilized in high
concentrations and would be handled in accordance with their proper use and all applicable federal, State,
and local regulations. Compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the
transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for impacts due
to the transportation, use, handling, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
102
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?
No New Impact.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Metals Soil Residue Survey (Phase I/Limited
Phase II) was prepared for the Project site in order to evaluate near surface site soils for detectable levels
for elevated metal residues, detectable carbon chain petroleum hydrocarbons, and creosote/creosol (wood
preservatives/fungicides used on railroad ties) and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon residues within
the Project site from historic rail spur activity on-site (Appendix H). The Phase I/Limited Phase II identified a
Recognized Environmental Concern (REC) in connection with the Project site associated with elevated Lead
and Chromium soil residues in the soil samples (locations S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, and S-17) collected along the
former main railroad spur within the west-southwest portion of the site (see Figure 5-1, Limited Phase II Soil
Sample Locations). The Phase I/Limited Phase II did not identify any controlled RECs or historical RECs in
connection with the Project site.
As a result of the elevated levels of Lead and Chromium soil residues on the Project site, soil removal activities
were performed and an Excavation, Transportation, and Disposal Completion Report was prepared
(Appendix I). Five remedial excavations at sample locations S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, and S-17 occurred on the
site. After excavations were completed, additional soil samples were collected from randomly chosen
locations from each excavation site on August 22, 2024. Overall, 25 soil samples (and 2 duplicates) were
collected from the five remedial excavations. Based upon the laboratory test results, elevated Soluble
Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) levels of Lead soil residues collected from the five remedial excavation
areas (S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, and S-17) were reported below the limit concentration of 5.0 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) in 20 of 25 initial remedial excavation verification samples (and 2 duplicates). Seven additional
samples collected for further excavation in S-3, S-5, and S-17 reported TTLC Lead residues well below the
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Screening Level (SL) of 80 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Elevated STLC concentrations of Chromium soil residues were not reported in any of the remedial excavation
verification samples.
Ten samples (and one duplicate) were also collected from the stockpiles from the five remedial excavation
areas (S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, and S17) on August 22, 2024, and were subsequently tested for Title 22 Metals.
Test results reported no elevated Lead soil residues above the limit concentration of 5.0 mg/L. Furthermore,
Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) results from the 10 stockpile samples (and 1 duplicate) reported
no elevated Lead concentrations above the DTSC SL of 80 mg/kg. Detected STLC concentrations of Chromium
soil residues were not reported in any of the soil stockpile samples. TTLC concentrations of Chromium soil
residues were not reported above the DTSC SL of 160 mg/kg in any of the soil stockpile samples. Thus, the
stockpiled soils were determined suitable for unrestricted off-site disposal (Appendix I).
The 10 stockpile samples (and 1 duplicate), analyzed for gasoline range total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH-g), diesel range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-d), motor oil range petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-
mo), and VOCs reported non-detectable concentrations. Thus, the stockpiled soils were determined suitable
for unrestricted off-site disposal (Appendix I).
Following testing of the soils on-site, a total of eight soil (115 cubic yards) and two rock loads, which reported
no elevated residue concentrations of Lead, Chromium, Title 22 Metals, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, and
VOCs, were removed from the site between September 5, 2024, and November 27, 2024.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Figure 5-1
Base Map Reference: Google Earth, 2022, Photo dated August 2019.
N
175 ft.0
LEGEND
- Approximate Limits of Subject Property
- Approximate Location of Soil Sample - 1st Phase
- Estimated Location of Main Railroad Spur (1959 aerial)
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5 S-6
S-9
S-8
S-7
S-9
Scale
- Approximate Location of Phase II Soil Sample - 2nd Phase
- Approximate Location of Soil Sample with Elevated Lead Residues - 1st PhaseS-3
S-22
S-21
S-20
S-19S-18
S-16
S-17
S-15
S-12
S-11
S-13 S-10
S-14
S-22
- Approximate Location of Phase II Soil Sample - 3rd PhaseS-25
- Approximate Limits of Large Stockpile
S-2
3S-2
4
S-25
Liv
e
O
a
k
A ve.
Limited Phase II Soil Sample Locations
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
104
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
105
Construction
While 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, improper
use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes could result in accidental spills
or releases, posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. To avoid an impact related to
an accidental release, the use of BMPs during construction are implemented as part of a SWPPP as required
by the NPDES General Construction Permit. Implementation of an SWPPP would protect quality of the water
supply. The SWPPP requires construction contractors to implement specific BMPs during construction which
are enforced through the city’s permitting and inspection process. 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
Operation of the proposed self-storage facility could involve use and storage of common hazardous
materials such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, fuels, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and
pesticides/herbicides. Normal routine use of these typical commercially used products pursuant to existing
regulations would not result in a significant hazard to the environment or workers in the vicinity of the Project.
Should future uses of the self-storage building utilize or store substantial amounts or acute types of hazardous
materials, both federal and State governments require all businesses that handle more than specified
amounts of hazardous materials to submit a business plan to regulating agencies. With adherence to existing
regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
No New Impact.
The closest schools to the Project site are Southridge Middle School, located approximately 0.5-mile west of
the site and Canyon Crest Elementary School, located approximately 0.5-mile southwest from the site. As
noted under thresholds 5.9(a) and 5.9(b), the proposed Project is a self-storage facility 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.
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?
No New Impact.
The Phase I/Limited Phase II (Appendix H) prepared for the Project site conducted a database search
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 to determine if the Project site or any nearby properties are
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
106
identified as having hazardous materials. As described in the Phase I/Limited Phase II, the Project site is not
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
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 or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located approximately 5.5 miles northwest of Flabob Airport. According to Map FL-1
within the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, the Project site is not within
the airport influence zone for the Flabob Airport (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2004).
The Project site is also located approximately 5.9 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) (Ontario International Airport, 2018). 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 (See ONTLUCP Map 2-4, Airspace Protection Zones, and Map 2-5, Overflight
Notification Zones) (Ontario International Airport, 2018).
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 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 tenant 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.
f) Impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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 the new driveway and connections to existing and proposed infrastructure systems that would
be implemented during construction of the proposed Project would not require closure of 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 one driveway on Village Drive. Additionally, fire
truck access would be provided by the proposed public trail. The Project driveway 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 have reviewed the
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
107
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 Chapter 5, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XV, California Fire Code,
Section 5-425. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not 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?
No New Impact.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (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, 2025). 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 and 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 CBC
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. Direct access to the Project site would be provided via one driveway on
Village Drive and additional fire truck access would be provided by the proposed public trail. Additionally,
consistent with Fontana Municipal Code Article IX, Overlay Districts, Division 8, Fire Hazard Overlay District,
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 O 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. Overall, impacts associated with exposure of people or structures
to significant risk involving wildland fires is less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
PPP HWQ-1: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. As listed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water
Quality.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
108
PPP HAZ-1: Airport proximity disclosure information shall be provided to the future tenant of the self-
storage facility in accordance with State law (Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code
Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353.
PPP W-1: Fire Protection Plan. The Project is required to comply with the Project-specific Fire Protection Plan
(FPP) which has been approved by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD). The FPP establishes both short-
term and long-term vegetation management actions required to minimize any projected wildland fire
hazards and assigns annual maintenance responsibilities for each of the required vegetation management
actions.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
109
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 off-site;
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?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
110
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft 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. According to
the SVSP Draft EIR, the majority of the SVSP area drains to a broad 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 San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) developed a comprehensive
storm drain plan for the south Fontana area that recommended the 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 SVSP Drainage Master Plan (included as
Section 3.3 of the SVSP) 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 Final EIR indicated
the average depth to groundwater was approximately 200 feet. Groundwater quality underlying the site
was described as generally good. The Final 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
111
proposed flood control channel to have an unlined bottom and implementation of runoff retention reservoirs;
as well as continued use of Regional Plant (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
The following mitigation measures are from page 59 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
*Note: 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).
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.
*Note: 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).
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.
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).
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following reports:
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
112
• Fontana RV and Self Storage APN: 0237-411-27 Preliminary Drainage Report. Prepared by Allard
Engineering. March 13, 2024. (Appendix J).
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Fontana RV and Self Storage. Prepared by Allard
Engineering. January 1, 2025. (Appendix K).
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
No New Impact.
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.
Pursuant to City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 5-14, Compliance with the NPDES Permit, the Project
Applicant would be required to implement the requirements of the Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer
System (MS4) NPDES. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction
General Permit. Under the Construction General Permit, the Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP,
which would include the use of BMPs to prevent potentially polluted stormwater from leaving the construction
site (PPP HWQ-1). The SWPPP would incorporate erosion control practices, to prevent sedimentation from
occurring, as well as nonstructural BMPs to minimize the potential for spills or other pollutant sources from
entering stormwater runoff. The use of BMPs during construction implemented as part of a SWPPP as
required by the Construction General Permit, San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and the MS4
NPDES permit would serve to ensure that Project impacts related to construction activities resulting in a
degradation of water quality would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project would operate a self-storage facility, which would introduce the potential for pollutants
such as chemicals from cleaners, pesticides and sediment from landscaping, trash and debris, and oil and
grease from vehicles. These pollutants could potentially discharge into surface waters and result in
degradation of water quality. However, in accordance with State Water Resources Board Order R8-2010-
0036, NPDES No. CAS618036, 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 (PPP HWQ-2). The source control BMPs would minimize the introduction of pollutants that may result in
water quality impacts and treatment control BMPs would treat stormwater runoff. For the purposes of
stormwater quality, a infiltration basin is proposed. All runoff would be collected in a series of inlets and
piped to a clarifier for pre-treatment and then conveyed to the proposed infiltration basin. The /infiltration
basin would be sized to detain the design capture volume of 29,767 cubic feet. Runoff would not exceed
the existing condition. The treatment system would remove coarse sediment, trash, and pollutants (i.e.,
sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria, and pesticides).
The treated stormwater would discharge into the existing storm drain beneath Village Drive with a maximum
outlet flow rate equal or less than the existing condition 100-year 24-hour storm event.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
113
With implementation of the operational source and treatment control BMPs that are outlined in the
preliminary WQMP (Appendix K), which 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.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No New Impact.
Groundwater recharge is facilitated by percolation of stormwater through pervious surface areas to
groundwater resources. Increasing the imperviousness of an area could interfere with groundwater recharge
capabilities of an area. The Project site is currently undeveloped and largely pervious. The Project would
result in a greater area of impervious surface from the introduction of new building coverage and pavement.
However, the Project would install drainage infrastructure that would convey runoff to an infiltration basin,
which would percolate runoff into the groundwater basin and provide for basin recharge. In addition, the
proposed Project includes approximately 111,999 SF of landscaping that would also provide stormwater
infiltration on-site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the findings contained in the GPU EIR and would
result in no new or increased impact on groundwater supplies or recharge.
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 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require grading and excavation of soils, which would loosen
sediment and could result in erosion or siltation. However, Project construction would be permitted under
the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP
by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) for construction activities that disturb 1-acre or more of soils
(PPP HWQ-1). The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to reduce erosion or siltation and is required
for plan check and approval by the City prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project. Typical
BMPs for erosion or siltation, include use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, stabilized construction
driveway, and stockpile management. Adherence to the existing requirements and implementation of
the required BMPs per the permitting process would ensure that erosion and siltation associated with
construction activities would be minimized, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation
As described previously, proposed development would result in an increase in impervious areas. As a
result, the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However, the stormwater
runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces on-site from development of the Project would be
conveyed into a infiltration basin per the Project’s WQMP (Appendix K) (PPP HWQ-2). The infiltration
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
114
basin has been sized to capture and treat stormwater while providing peak storm mitigation. The
proposed infiltration basin would capture the 1-hour rainfall depth (in) for a 2-year return period, per
the County’s LID requirements. Flows would be discharged to the existing storm drain system with a
maximum outlet flow rate equal or less than the existing condition 100-year 24-hour storm event. Further,
the BMPs identified in the WQMP would reduce the potential for erosion and siltation. As part of the
permitting approval process, the proposed drainage, water quality design, and engineering plans would
be reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department to ensure it meets the City’s NPDES Permit and limits
the potential for erosion and siltation. Overall, adherence to the existing regulation would ensure that
Project impacts related to erosion and siltation from operational 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
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would include activities that could temporarily alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site and could result in flooding on- or off-site if drainage is not properly
controlled. However, as described previously, implementation of the Project requires a SWPPP (PPP
HWQ-1) that would address site specific drainage issues related to construction of the Project and
include BMPs to eliminate the potential for flooding or alteration of the drainage pattern during
construction activities. This includes regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities
by a QSD. Compliance with the City’s NPDES Permit and a SWPPP, as verified by the City through the
construction permitting process, would prevent construction-related impacts related to potential increase
in runoff or flooding on or off-site from development activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
Operation
As described previously, proposed development would result in an increase in impervious areas on-site.
As a result, the Project would increase surface flows compared to existing conditions. However,
installation of new storm water drainage facilities, including a detention/infiltration basin, and pervious
landscaped area would be installed by the Project. The proposed infiltration basin would capture the
1-hour rainfall depth (in) for a 2-year return period, per the County’s LID requirements. Flows would be
discharged to the existing storm drain system with a maximum outlet flow rate equal or less than the
existing condition 100-year 24-hour storm event (Appendix K). In addition, landscaped areas would
accept runoff water from impervious surfaces and regulate the rate and velocity of stormwater flows
and would control the amount of discharge into the off-site drainage system. Overall, the proposed
drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to be consistent with the County MS4 permit
requirements and the City’s WQMP requirements (PPP HWQ-2). Thus, implementation of the Project
would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff, such that flooding would occur,
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
115
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?
No New Impact.
As described in the previous responses, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP
during construction that would implement BMPs, such as the use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, and gravel
bags, that would ensure that runoff would not substantially increase during construction, and that
pollutants would not discharge from the Project site, which would reduce potential impacts to drainage
systems and water quality to a less-than-significant level.
During operation, the runoff generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to a
detention/infiltration basin. The basin has been sized to accommodate the anticipated flows, and would
control drainage, such that it would not exceed the capacity of the stormwater drainage system. The
Preliminary WQMP details that the storm drain facilities are sized adequately for the 1-hour rainfall
depth (in) for a 2-year return period, per the County’s LID requirements (PPP HWQ-2). Therefore, the
Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems and/or additional sources of polluted runoff.
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?
No New Impact.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for
the Project area (Map No. 06071C8665H), the Project site is located in “Zone X” flood plain area,
which includes areas with a minimal or 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard and is classified as a
non-special flood hazard area with moderate-to-low risk (FEMA, 2008). As described previously, the
drainage facilities proposed for the Project have been sized to adequately accommodate the
stormwater flows from the proposed development and are consistent with the County and City drainage
plans and MS4 permit requirements as part of the required WQMP (PPP HWQ-2). Thus, although the
proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces on the site, the proposed
drainage infrastructure would maintain the existing drainage pattern and accommodate flows, such that
storm flows would not be impeded or redirected. 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.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No New Impact.
As discussed in Response 5.10(c)(iv), the Project site is not within a flood hazard area. 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 inland from 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. There are
existing shallow detention basins located northeast of the site. However, a flood control channel exists
between the Project site and the detention basins. Additionally, there are no major reservoirs or bodies of
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
116
water located up-gradient within the near vicinity of the site. Therefore, the potential for seiche is considered
very low and impacts 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.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
No New Impact.
The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The site’s related construction and operational
activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality
Control Plan which requires the preparation of and adherence to a SWPPP and WQMP (PPP HWQ-1 and
PPP HWQ-2). Through implementation of the applicable construction and post-construction permitting
requirements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.
The Project site overlays the Chino Basin, which is an adjudicated groundwater basin. Adjudicated basins
are exempt from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because they already operate
under court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the basin. Therefore, the
Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a groundwater management plan. Thus,
impacts related to water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
PPP HWQ‐1: NPDES/SWPPP. Prior to issuance of any grading or construction permits, the applicant shall
provide the Building and Safety Department evidence of submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop and
implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a monitoring program and reporting plan
for the construction site.
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, a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that address Pollutants
of Concern in accordance with the City’s Water Quality Management Plan Handbook.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
117
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
118
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed impacts related to land use in Section 6.2.6, Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses
and determined impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The SVSP Draft EIR describes that
existing on-site land uses included abandoned vineyards and fallow agricultural land; a residential
subdivision; a sewage treatment plant; Southern California Edison (SCE) and Metropolitan Water District
(MWD) easements; Southern Pacific Railroad quarry and railway spur; Fontana Bird Park; a
fertilizer/shaving plant and a recycling center; and several scattered rural residences.
The SVSP Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft EIR determined that development of the project may result in
short-term incompatibility from new residential communities adjacent to existing industrial areas. However,
these impacts were determined to be less than significant.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages 60 through 61 from the SVSP Final EIR.
Setbacks and landscape buffers, as described in SVSP Final EIR section 3.8, the Landscape Master Plan,
would create a transition zone between on-site urban uses and existing surrounding uses in south
Fontana. The proposed buffer zone with a landscaped median, landscaped earth berm, meandering
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
119
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 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).
Additionally, Amendment No. 15 to the SVSP designated the Project site (PA 66B) as Mini-storage overlay.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No New Impact.
As stated previously, the Project site is currently undeveloped. The proposed Project would develop the site
with a self-storage facility and a public trail. 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 and open space to the south, east, and west.
The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s assigned General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial and its SVSP designation of Mini-storage. Additionally, the 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. Furthermore, access to the site would be provided by one
new driveway off an existing roadway (Village Drive). 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
120
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?
No New Impact.
The documents regulating land use for the Project site and immediate vicinity are the SVSP, the City’s General
Plan, and the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed Project’s consistency with these planning documents is
described below.
SVSP. The Project site is designated as Mini-storage by the SVSP. The Project would develop the site with a
136,863 SF self-storage facility on Parcel 1 and a 20-foot-wide public trail on the City-owned Parcel 2.
The Project would be consistent with the SVSP Goals as outlined in Table LU-1, below.
Table LU-1: 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.
Not Applicable. The proposed Project would not
introduce new residential uses into the SVSP area;
however, the Project would provide a self-storage use
and a public recreational trail that could be used by the
existing and proposed residential uses in the area.
Additionally, the proposed Project is consistent with the
SVSP land use designation for the site.
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. The Project would provide a self-storage use
and a public recreational trail that could be used by the
existing and proposed residential uses in the area.
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 and
access to 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 is consistent with the site’s SVSP
land use designation of Mini-storage. Additionally, the
Project would be consistent with the building character of
the surrounding uses and is compatible with the
surrounding residential and open space uses.
City of Fontana General Plan. The Project site has a General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial (C-G) which allows retail, malls, wholesale, auto dealerships and offices that can serve a
broader, regional population. The C-G designation allows for a FAR between 0.1 and 1. The proposed
Project would result in an FAR of 0.4. As shown in Table LU-2 below, the Project is consistent with the General
Plan goals and policies.
Table LU-2: Project Consistency with General Plan Policies
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Community and Neighborhoods
Goal 1: The integrity and character of historic structures,
and cultural resources sites within the City of Fontana are
preserved.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.5, Cultural
Resources, there are no structures or historic resources on
the site. Therefore, the Project would not result in an
adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource. Additionally, the Project included an Goal 3: Cultural and archaeological resources are
protected and preserved.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
121
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy 3.1: Collaborate with state archaeological
agencies to protect resources.
archaeological and historical records search at the South
Central Information Center which did not identify any
historic or archaeological resources on the Project site. It
is unlikely that ground disturbing activities would uncover
an archaeological resource. However, in the event of an
inadvertent discovery of an archaeological resource, the
Project would be conditioned to require a qualified
archeologist, approved by the City of Fontana, to be
present to monitor ground disturbing activities and
provide protocols in the event of inadvertent discovery
of archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource.
With implementation of standard conditions, potential
impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Goal 8: All housing and businesses in Fontana are well-
managed and code-compliant.
Consistent. The Project would be developed to comply
with applicable City Municipal Code requirements.
Policy 8.1: Continue to enforce and publicize code-
compliance programs for all housing and businesses.
Building a Healthier Fontana
Goal 1: The average lifespan in Fontana consistently
ranks within the top ten of all Southern California cities.
Consistent. As detailed in the Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix A), and in
Section 5.2, Air Quality, the Project would not result in a
significant construction or operational health risk impact.
Policy 1.3: Support local and regional initiatives to
improve air quality in order to reduce asthma while
actively discouraging development that may exacerbate
asthma rates.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.8, Greenhouse
Gases, the Project would comply with the CALGreen
standards that are applicable to the proposed Project.
Goal 2: Fontana has healthy and safe development
patterns.
Consistent. As detailed in the Air Quality, Energy, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report (Appendix A) and in
Section 5.3, Air Quality, the Project would not result in a
significant health risk in either the construction or
operation of the Project.
Goal 3: The City of Fontana considers health at all levels
of decision making.
Conservation, Open Space, Parks and Trails
Goal 3: Fontana has a healthy, drought-resistant urban
forest.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes installation of
111,999 SF (19 percent of site area) of drought tolerant
landscaping, inclusive of trees, throughout the site. Policy 3.1: Support tree conservation and planting that
enhances shade and drought resistance.
Policy 3.2: Expand Fontana’s tree canopy.
Goal 10: Trails in natural areas offer recreation. 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.
Policy 10.1: Support trail creation and maintenance in
natural areas.
Community Mobility and Circulation
Goal 5: Fontana’s commercial and mixed-use areas
include a multi-functional street network that ensures a
safe, comfortable, and efficient movement of people,
goods, and services to support a high quality of life and
economic vitality.
Consistent. Pedestrian circulation would be provided via
sidewalks along Village Drive, 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, recreational amenities, 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
122
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
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.
Consistent. The Project would incorporate water
efficient landscaping in compliance with the
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance into the
proposed Project.
Policy 3.1: 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.
Goal 6: Fontana has a stormwater drainage system that
is environmentally and economically sustainable and
compatible with regional One Water One Watershed
standards.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.10, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the proposed Project would construct on-
site stormwater drainage facilities necessary to prevent
on-site stormwater flows from impacting off-site
properties. Development pursuant to the proposed
Project would construct a stormwater drainage system to
convey runoff from the site in a manner consistent with
City requirements. Additionally, the Project would
adhere to the City’s WQMP as well as develop as site-
specific WQMP (Appendix K). With adherence to the
WQMP, BMPs would be implemented to ensure
stormwater runoff would be treated prior to discharge
from the site.
Policy 6.1: Continue to implement the water-quality
management plan for stormwater management that
incorporates low-impact and green infrastructure
standards.
Goal 7: Fontana is becoming an energy-efficient
community.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.6, Energy, the
proposed Project would comply with Title 24 energy
efficiency requirements and would not result in wasteful
energy use. Policy 7.1: Promote renewable energy and distributed
energy systems in new development and retrofits of
existing development to work toward becoming a zero
net energy city.
Goal 8: All residences and businesses have a
dependable, environmentally safe means of disposing of
solid waste.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.19, Utilities and
Service Systems, the Project would comply with State law
requiring a reduction of solid waste that enters the
landfills. Additionally, the landfills serving the site would
have sufficient capacity to manage the solid waste
generated by the proposed Project.
Policy 8.1: Continue providing city waste-management
services.
Policy 8.2: Continue to maximize diversion opportunities
and landfill capacity by supporting recycling innovations,
such as E-waste, commercial, multifamily and organic
waste recycling programs.
Noise and Safety
Goal 3: The City of Fontana is a community that
implements proactive fire hazard abatement strategies,
and as a result, is minimally impact by wildland and
urban fires.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed
in compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) and
CBC, and final Project design would be subject to plan
check by the Fontana Fire Protection District (FFPD) to
verify compliance with applicable fire prevention and
protection requirements.
Access to the self-storage facility would be provided via
a 30 foot wide driveway from Village Drive. Internal
access to the self-storage portion of the Project would be
provided via 26-foot-wide drive aisles while access to
Action B: 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
123
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Action D: 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.
the RV storage portion of the Project would be provided
via 50-feet-wide drive aisles. The drive aisles would
double as fire department access lanes to serve the self-
storage facility and the City’s open space south of the
Project. 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.
Further, as discussed in Section 5.20, Wildfire, the Project
includes a Fire Protection Plan (Appendix O) that outlines
ongoing fuel treatment and fire protection measures that
would be enforced by the Project’s Home Owners
Association. Implementation of the fuel modification plan
would minimize any potential loss of life, homes, or
personal property due to a wildland fire.
Action E: 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.
Goal 4: The City shall monitor development or
redevelopment in areas where faults have been mapped
through the city.
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. Action B: 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.
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.
Consistent. The proposed Project would be constructed
in compliance with the CBC, and final Project design
would be subject to plan check by the City’s Engineer to
verify compliance with applicable building code
requirements.
Additionally, 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.
Action A: Require adherence to the latest California
Building Code regulations; update codes and ordinances
periodically for latest advances.
Action B: The Building Official shall require development
proposals to include geotechnical hazard analysis as
applicable.
Goal 8: The City of Fontana protects sensitive land uses
from excessive noise by diligent planning through 2035.
Consistent. The proposed storage facility would not be
a substantial source of noise and would be compatible
with surrounding uses. The proposed Project would be
compatible with the surrounding existing development.
As detailed in Section 5.13, Noise, all construction and
operational noise was determined to be less than
significant.
Policy 8.4: Noise spillover or encroachment from
commercial, industrial and educational land uses shall be
minimized into adjoining residential neighborhoods or
noise-sensitive uses.
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.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.13, Noise, the
Noise Impact Analysis calculated the change in noise
level that would occur with the addition of Project-
generated trips and found that the traffic noise increase
in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the
proposed Project would be less than significant
(Appendix L).
Action B: Development that generates increased traffic
and subsequent increases in the ambient noise level
adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall provide
appropriate mitigation measures.
Goal 10: Fontana’s residents are protected from the
negative effects of “spillover” noise.
Consistent. The Project would result in noise associated
with construction activities; however, as discussed in
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
124
General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Policy 10.1: Residential land uses and areas identified
as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise
from non-transportation sources including industrial,
commercial, and residential activities and equipment.
Section 5.13, Noise, all construction noise impacts would
be temporary and less than significant. Additionally,
operational noise was determined to be less than
significant and would not impact surrounding sensitive
uses.
Action A: Projects located in commercial areas shall not
exceed stationary-source noise standards at the
property line of proximate residential or commercial
uses.
Action D: Construction shall be performed as quietly as
feasible when performed in proximity to residential or
other noise sensitive land uses.
Sustainability and Resilience
Goal 6: Green building techniques are used in new
development and retrofits.
Consistent. The Project would incorporate various
measures related to building design, landscaping, and
energy systems to promote the efficient use of energy,
pursuant to Title 24 CALGreen Code and Building Energy
Efficiency Standards.
Policy 6.1: Promote green building through guidelines,
awards and nonfinancial incentives.
Goal 7: Conservation of water resources with best
practices such as drought-tolerant plant species, recycled
water, greywater systems, has become a way of life in
Fontana.
Consistent. As described in Section 5.9, Hydrology and
Water Quality, the proposed Project includes a Project
specific Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix K)
which would be the guiding document to ensure BMPs are
incorporated to promote water conservation.
Additionally, the Project includes 111,999 SF (19
percent of site area) of drought-tolerant landscaping.
Policy 7.1: Continue to promote and implement best
practices to conserve water
Land Use, Zoning, and Urban Design
Goal 7: Public and private development meets high
standards of design.
Consistent. The proposed Project is designed to be
compatible with the surrounding architecture within the
SVSP. The proposed office would be visible from public
vantage points along Village Drive and would include
architectural treatments such as a low-pitched gable
roof, doors and windows wrapped with trim, stone
wainscot, shutters, and board and batten siding. The self-
storage buildings would include various building finish
materials such as stucco, masonry block, and metal roofs,
doors, and trim; and a consistent color scheme of blues,
greys, and sand finishes.
Policy 7.1: Support high-quality development in design
standards and in land use decisions.
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 information, 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
125
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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
126
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not identify impacts related to mineral resources.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to mineral resources are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
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?
No New Impact.
As previously discussed, the Project site was previously a part of the former Declezville Quarry which
produced tonalite for building purposes. However, the quarry ceased production in the early 1980s and no
extraction has occurred since. According to the California Department of Conservation (CDOC), 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 (CDOC, 2008). While the site
was once used for the extraction of tonalite for building purposes, extraction of mineral resources is not
permitted under the Project site's current General Plan land use designation or SVSP designation of Mini-
storage overlay. Therefore, 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
127
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?
No New Impact.
As described previously, the Project site is identified as within an MRZ-3 zone by the CDOC. The site has an
existing SVSP designation of Mini-storage. 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 (City of Fontana, 2018b; City of
Fontana 1981b). 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
128
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
Impacts related to noise were analyzed in Section 6.2.9, Acoustic Environment, of the SVSP Draft EIR. The
SVSP Draft EIR determined that implementation of the project would result in a significant increase in noise
levels within and around the project area. The SVSP Draft EIR noted that short-term noise would include
construction equipment noise and long-term noise would include roadway and traffic noise. Additionally, the
SVSP Draft 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 Draft EIR concluded that future traffic volumes along arterials and most collector streets, both on-
site and off-site, would create noise levels that require mitigation for adjacent residential uses.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is from pages 62 through 63 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
129
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.
*Note: This mitigation measure is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project is not a
residential development.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Conifer Court Self-Storage Project Fontana, California. Prepared by
LSA. January 2025. (Appendix L).
Existing Ambient Noise Environment
To assess the existing noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site, 24‐hour noise level measurements were
taken at three locations near the Project site. The noise level measurements listed in Table N-1 show that the
calculated CNEL levels reached 72.4 dBA CNEL while hourly noise levels at surrounding uses are as low as
47.0 dBA Leq. Noise levels in the Project area are dominated by vehicle-related noise from Live Oak
Avenue, Village Drive, and Beech Avenue. Figure 5-2 illustrates the location of each noise measurement.
Table N-1: Long Term 24-Hour Ambient Noise Monitoring Results
Location
Daytime Noise
Levels1 (dBA
Leq)
Evening Noise
Levels2 (dBA
Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels3 (dBA
Leq)
Daily Noise
Levels (dBA
CNEL)
LT-1
Near 11454 Blackstone
Court. On a tree along Live
Oak Avenue, approximately
30 feet from the Live Oak
Avenue centerline.
68.2 – 71.2 66.0 – 68.3 57.1 – 68.6 72.4
LT-2
Near 11508 Conifer Court.
On a tree along Village
Drive, approximately 38
feet from the Village Drive
centerline.
55.7 – 62.2 54.7 – 56.5 48.1 – 56.2 60.9
LT-3
On a light pole at the north
end of the Teaberry Court
cul-de-sac, approximately
220 feet west of the Beech
Avenue centerline.
47.0 – 53.5 51.1 – 52.6 47.0 – 52.9 57.6
Note: Noise measurements were conducted from January 16 to January 17, 2025, starting at 10:00 AM.
1 Daytime Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
2 Evening Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM.
2 Nighttime Noise Levels = Noise levels during the hours from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
130
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self Storage Project
City of Fontana
Figure 5-2
Noise Measurement Locations
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Villa
g
e
D
r
Liv
e
O
a
k
A
v
e
Be
a
c
h
A
v
e
T
e
a
b
e
r
r
y
C
t
Villa
g
e
D
r
Be
a
c
h
A
v
e
T
e
a
b
e
r
r
y
C
t
LT-1LT-1
LT-3
LT-2LT-2
LT-3
FEET
4002000
LEGEND
Project Site Boundary Long-term Noise Monitoring LocationLT-1LT-1
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
132
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
133
Noise and Vibration Regulatory Setting
City of Fontana General Plan
The Noise Element provides the City’s goals and policies related to noise, including the land use compatibility
guidelines for community exterior noise environments. The City has identified the following policies in the
Noise Element (City of Fontana, 2018a):
Policy. Residential land uses and areas identified as noise-sensitive shall be protected from excessive noise
from non-transportation sources including industrial, commercial, and residential activities and equipment.
Actions
a. Projects located in commercial areas shall not exceed stationary-source noise standards at the property
line of proximate residential or commercial uses.
b. Industrial uses shall not exceed commercial or residential stationary source noise standards at the most
proximate land uses.
c. Non-transportation noise shall be considered in land use planning decisions.
d. Construction shall be performed as quietly as feasible when performed in proximity to residential or
other noise sensitive land uses.
City of Fontana Municipal Code
Operational Noise Standards. Municipal Code Section 30-469 lists the City’s noise control guidelines for
determining and mitigating non-transportation or stationary noise source impacts from operations in
neighboring residential areas. Because the City does not have specific criteria for commercial zones, the
residential zoning district standards are utilized in this analysis. For residential zoning districts, Section 30-
469 indicates that “no use shall create or cause to be created any sound that exceeds the ambient noise
standards outlined in Table 30-469” (Table N-2 below; City of Fontana, 2024). The performance standards
found in Section 30-469 limit the exterior noise level to 65 dBA Leq during the daytime and nighttime hours
at sensitive receiver locations
Table N-2: Operational Noise Standards
Noise Level Descriptor Daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) Nighttime (10:00 PM – 7:00 AM)
Hourly Equivalent Level (Leq), dBA 65 65
Source: City of Fontana Municipal Code, Section 30-469
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Construction Noise Standards. Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) states that construction shall occur only
between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM on Saturdays.
Federal Transit Administration
The City does not have daytime construction noise level limits for activities that occur within the allowed
construction hours specified in Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7), therefore, to determine potential CEQA
noise impacts, the Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis used criteria from the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) 2018 Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Table N-3 lists the FTA’s Detailed Assessment
Construction Noise Criteria based on the composite noise levels per construction phase.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
134
Table N-3: Detailed Assessment Daytime Construction Noise Criteria
Land Use Daytime 1-hour Leq (dBA)
Residential 80
Commercial 85
Industrial 90
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018)
Vibration standards included in the FTA Manual are used in this analysis for ground-borne vibration impacts
on human annoyance. The criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are
based on the maximum levels for a single event. Table N-4 provides the criteria for assessing the potential
for interference or annoyance from vibration levels in a building.
Table N-4: Interpretation of Vibration Criteria for Detailed Analysis
Land Use Max Lv
(VdB)1 Description of Use
Workshop 90 Vibration that is distinctly felt. Appropriate for workshops and similar areas
not as sensitive to vibration
Office 84 Vibration that can be felt. Appropriate for offices and similar areas not as
sensitive to vibration
Residential Day 78 Vibration that is barely felt. Adequate for computer equipment and low-
power optical microscopes (up to 20×).
Residential Night and
Operating Rooms 72
Vibration is not felt, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet
rooms. Suitable for medium-power microscopes (100×) and other
equipment of low sensitivity.
1 As measured in 1/3-Octave bands of frequency over the frequency range 8 to 80 Hertz.
Max = maximum; Lv = velocity in decibels; VdB = vibration velocity decibels
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018)
Table N-5 lists the potential vibration building damage criteria associated with construction activities, as
suggested in the FTA Manual (FTA, 2018). FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.5 in/sec in
PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster), and would
not result in any construction vibration damage. For non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, the
construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV.
Table N-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.50
Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.30
Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.20
Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018)
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
135
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?
No New Impact.
Construction
During construction, noise levels on access roads leading to the site would incrementally increase due to
construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site. According
to the City’s Community Mobility Circulation Element of the General Plan, the existing (2017) average daily
traffic (ADT) on Village Drive adjacent to the Project site is 1,500 (City of Fontana, 2018a). Although the
current traffic volume on Village Drive is likely higher, using the 2017 volumes would be considered
conservative because the delta is based on a ratio; therefore, the lower the baseline, the larger the increase
would be for the same value of Project added traffic. During the grading phase, approximately 1,239
acoustically equivalent trips would occur during an average day from worker and delivery activities resulting
in a traffic noise increase of approximately 2.6 dBA. A threshold of 3 dBA is used because a noise level
increase of less than 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment (Appendix
L). Therefore, because the traffic noise increase on Village Drive during construction would be less than 3
dBA, impacts would be less than significant.
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, and 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.
For the purposes of the Noise Impact Analysis, the nearest sensitive receptors are the existing single-family
residences approximately 75 feet away from the northern Project boundary line and the existing single-
family residences approximately 230 feet away from the western Project boundary line. Table N-6 below
shows the nearest uses to the Project site, their distance from the center of construction activities, as
recommended by FTA guidance, and composite noise levels expected during construction. As shown,
construction noise at the nearby receiver locations would range from 63 to 73 dBA Leq, which would not
exceed the 80 dBA 1-hour construction noise level criteria for daytime construction noise level criteria as
established by the FTA for residential land uses. Therefore, impacts related to construction noise would be
less than significant and no new impact would occur.
Table N-6: Potential Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at 50 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Composite Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Grading
Residential Use (North) 89 335 73
Residential Use (West) 950 63
Rock Crushing
Residential Use (North) 90 460 70
Residential Use (West) 560 69
1 The composite construction noise level represents the grading phase which is expected to result in the greatest noise level as
compared to other phases
2 Measured from the center of construction activities
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
136
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Additionally, as described above, Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) states that construction shall occur
only between the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM on Saturdays. The Project would comply with the City’s construction hours regulations.
Operation
During Project operation, adjacent off-site land uses would be potentially exposed to stationary-source noise
levels from HVAC equipment 8 and vehicle loading and unloading activities. Tables N-7 and N-8 show the
combined hourly noise levels generated by HVAC equipment and vehicle activity at the closest off-site land
uses. The results indicate that operational noise levels would be below the daytime and nighttime hourly
noise level standards of 65 dBA Leq for residential uses. Additionally, ambient noise levels would not
increase by 5 dBA or more. Therefore, operations of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Table N-7: Daytime Exterior Noise Levels
Receptor Direction
Existing Quietest
Daytime Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Project Generated
Noise Levels (dBA
Leq)
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact?1
Residential North 55.7 41.8 No
1A potential operational noise impact would occur if (1) the quietest daytime ambient hour is less than 65 dBA Leq
at the nearest residential uses and project noise impacts are greater than 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residential
uses, or (2) the quietest daytime ambient hour is greater than 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses and project
noise impacts are 3 dBA greater than the quietest daytime ambient hour.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Table N-8: Nighttime Exterior Noise Levels
Receptor Direction
Existing Quietest
Nighttime Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Project Generated
Noise Levels (dBA
Leq)
Potential
Operational Noise
Impact?1
Residential North 48.1 41.8 No
1A potential operational noise impact would occur if (1) the quietest daytime ambient hour is less than 65 dBA Leq
at the nearest residential uses and project noise impacts are greater than 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residential
uses, or (2) the quietest daytime ambient hour is greater than 65 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses and project
noise impacts are 3 dBA greater than the quietest daytime ambient hour.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Implementation of the Project has the potential to increase off-site traffic volumes on surrounding roadways.
The Project is anticipated to result in 124 daily trips (Appendix M). According to the City’s Community
Mobility Circulation Element of the General Plan, the existing (2017) ADT on Village Drive adjacent to the
Project site is 1,500 (City of Fontana, 2018). Although the current traffic volume on Village Drive is likely
higher, using the 2017 volumes would be considered conservative because the delta is based on a ratio;
therefore, the lower the baseline, the larger the increase would be for the same value of Project added
traffic. The Noise Impact Analysis calculated the change in noise level that would occur with the addition of
Project-generated trips. The results of the calculations show that an increase of approximately 0.3 dBA CNEL
is expected along Village Drive. A noise level increase of less than 1 dBA would not be perceptible to the
8 Note: The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L) assumed HVAC equipment would be installed on the
rooftops of thebuildings in order to provide a conservative analysis.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
137
human ear; therefore, the traffic noise increase in the vicinity of the Project site resulting from the proposed
Project would be less than significant (Appendix L).
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) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No New Impact.
Construction
Construction activity can cause varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and
methods used, the distance to receptors, and soil type. Construction vibrations are intermittent, localized
intrusions. The use of heavy construction equipment, particularly large bulldozers, and large loaded trucks
hauling materials to or from the site generate construction-period vibration impacts.
The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L) uses vibration standards in the FTA Manual to analyze
ground-borne vibration impacts on human annoyance. The analysis discusses the level of human annoyance
using vibration levels in VdB (vibration velocity decibels) and assesses the potential for building damages
using vibration levels in PPV (peak particle velocity) (in/sec). Vibration levels calculated in VdB are best for
characterizing human response to building vibration, while vibration level in PPV is best for characterizing
potential for damage. The FTA guidelines indicated that for a non-engineered timber and masonry building,
the construction vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV. The threshold at which vibration levels would
result in annoyance would be 78 VdB for daytime residential uses. Table N-9 shows the PPV and VdB values
at 25 feet from the construction vibration source.
Table N-9: Construction Vibration Reference Levels
Equipment Reference PPV/Lv at 25 feet
PPV (in/sec) Lv (VdB)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
1 RMS vibration velocity in decibels (VdB) is 1 μin/sec
Lv = velocity in decibels; VdB = vibration velocity decibels; RMS = root-mean-square
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Table N-10 shows the summary of vibration annoyance levels due to construction equipment at each of the
closest receptors. Because vibration annoyance assesses an average condition, the distance from the center
of construction activities to surrounding land uses was utilized. As shown in Table N-10, vibration levels are
expected to approach 53 VdB at the closest residential use to the north and 40 VdB at the closest residential
use to the west which is below the 78 VdB annoyance threshold for daytime residential uses.
Table N-10: Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (VdB) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (VdB)
Residential Use (North) 87 335 53
Residential Use (West) 950 40
1The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy
equipment used during construction.
2The assessment distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction
activities to surrounding uses.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
138
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
Table N-11 shows the summary of vibration damage levels due to construction equipment at each of the
closest receptors. When assessing potential vibration damage, the appropriate distance to assess a peak or
maximum vibration condition is perimeter of construction to surrounding buildings. As shown in Table N-11,
vibration levels are expected to approach 0.017 PPV in/sec at the closest residential use to the north and
0.003 VdB in/sec at the closest residential use to the west which is below the 0.2 PPV in/sec damage
threshold considered safe for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.
Table N-11: Potential Construction Vibration Damage Levels at Nearest Receptors
Receptor (Location) Reference Vibration
Level (PPV) at 25 feet1 Distance (feet)2 Vibration Level (PPV)
Residential Use (North) 0.089 75 0.017
Residential Use (West) 230 0.003
1The reference vibration level is associated with a large bulldozer, which is expected to be representative of the heavy equipment
used during construction.
2The assessment distance is associated with the average condition, identified by the distance from the perimeter of construction
activities to surrounding uses.
Source: Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis (Appendix L).
As such, construction related vibration would remain below thresholds and impacts would be less than
significant. Additionally, as described above, the Project would adhere to the construction hours permitted
by Municipal Code Section 18-63(b)(7) which states that construction shall occur only between the hours of
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays.
Thus, construction related vibration would not occur during sensitive evening hours. No new impact would
occur.
Blasting Activities
The Project may include 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 the grading phase, 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 3-4, Off-
site Disturbance Area, shows the boundaries for potential 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
139
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 MM NOI-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
Once operational, the Project would not be a significant source of ground-borne vibration. Ground-borne
vibration surrounding the Project currently results from traffic on Village Drive, Live Oak Avenue, and Beech
Avenue. Operations of the Project would include passenger cars traveling to and from the self-storge facility.
However, the closest off-site uses are greater than 25 feet away and vibration levels generated from trucks
would not be perceptible. In addition, vibration levels generated from project-related traffic on the adjacent
roadways are unusual for on-road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on-road
vehicles provide vibration isolation. Based on a reference vibration level of 0.089 in/sec PPV, structures
greater than 25 feet from the roadways that contain project trips would experience vibration levels below
the most conservative standard of 0.12 in/sec PPV; therefore, vibration levels generated from Project-
related traffic on the adjacent roadways would be less than significant. No new 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.
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?
No New Impact.
The nearest airport to the Project site is Flabob Airport, located approximately 5.3 miles southeast of the
Project site. According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, the Project
site is located well outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of Flabob Airport (Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission, 2004). Two additional airports are also located in the Project vicinity. Ontario
International Airport (ONT) is located approximately 6.2 miles west of the Project site and Riverside
Municipal Airport is located approximately 6.4 miles south of the Project site. According to the ONT Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of Ontario
International Airport (Ontario International Airport, 2018). According to the Riverside County Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document, the Project site is located well outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise
contours of Riverside Municipal Airport (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 2004). Therefore,
the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels from airports. Impacts would be less than significant. No new 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
140
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 N-1: Construction Noise. Pursuant to Fontana Municipal Code Chapter 18, Article II Noise, 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.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
Revisions to mitigation measures are identified in bold underline and deletions are identified in strikethrough.
Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Noise impact assessment and mitigation reports, prepared by qualified
professional engineers, should be required as a condition of approval for residential new development
projects in certain areas within Southridge Village. Such reports should identify specific methods whereby
noise impacts from street traffic construction and operation of the proposed development 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 LSA, in January 2025. In compliance
with the requirements of SVSP Noise Mitigation Measure, 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 and Vibration Impact
Analysis, prepared by LSA in February 2025. Where blasting is required, the following measures must be
employed:
1) Blasting will be conducted only between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
141
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.
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
142
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed impacts related to population and housing in Section 6.5. The SVSP Draft EIR
discuses that the SVSP is located in the regional planning area known as Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 28.
SCAG projected that the RSA 28 would grow to approximately 674,800 persons by the year 2000. The
SVSP Draft 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 Draft 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
No mitigation measures related to population and housing are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
No New Impact.
Growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with the provision of urban services to an undeveloped
or rural area. Growth-inducing impacts include the following:
• New development in an area presently undeveloped and economic factors which may influence development.
The site is currently undeveloped though it has been disturbed. The proposed use is consistent with the
SVSP designation of Mini-storage and General Plan land use designation of C-G.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
143
• Extension of roadways and other transportation facilities. The proposed Project includes installation of on-
site roadway that would connect to the existing Village Drive. No new off-site roadways would be
constructed as part of the Project.
• Extension of infrastructure and other improvements. The installation of proposes new on-site utility lines
would not lead to subsequent off-site development since these utility connections would be sized to serve
the site only.
• Major off-site public projects (treatment plants, etc.). The Project’s incremental increase in demand for
utility services can be accommodated without the construction or expansion of landfills, water treatment
plants, or wastewater treatment plants (see Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems).
• The removal of housing requiring replacement housing elsewhere. The site does not contain any housing
units. As a result, no replacement housing will be required.
• Additional population growth leading to increased demand for goods and services. The project would result
in an incremental increase in employment in the City. The proposed Project is anticipated to employ two
individuals on-site at any given time. The on-site employees’ functions are limited to business transactions,
site maintenance, and equipment operations/maintenance. This number of new employees can be
accommodated by the local labor market.
• Short-term growth-inducing impacts related to the project’s construction. The Project would result in
temporary employment during the construction phase. However, these temporary employees can be
accommodated by the local labor market.
For the reasons discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in any unplanned growth. Therefore,
impacts related to unplanned population growth from the 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.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No New Impact.
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any housing, nor has it historically been used
for housing. The Project site has a General Plan designation of C-G, which does not provide for residential
development. Therefore, the Project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the
construction of replacement housing. As a result, no 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
144
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
145
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 Draft EIR
Fire Protection
The SVSP Draft EIR discusses impacts related to fire services in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and Utilities.
The SVSP Draft EIR noted that development of the SVSP would create the need for additional fire services.
The SVSP Draft 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.
Police Protection
The SVSP Draft EIR discusses impacts related to police services in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and Utilities.
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 Draft 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.
Schools
The SVSP Draft EIR discusses impacts related to schools in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and Utilities. The
SVSP Draft 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
Draft 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
146
Parks
The SVSP Draft EIR discusses impacts related to 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.
Other Public Facilities
The SVSP Draft EIR discusses impacts related to other public facilities in Section 6.2.10, Public Services and
Utilities. The residential development proposed by the SVSP may increase the use and demand of the San
Bernardino County Library System Branch that serves the SVSP. However, the SVSP Draft EIR described that
an expansion of the San Bernardino County Library System Branch was planned in 1986. The SVSP Draft
EIR determined land designated for quasi-public uses in the Village Center could accommodate a new branch
library facility, should County library funds be available for construction. 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
The following mitigation measures are from pages 64 through 65of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
*Note: San Bernardino County Fire Station 74 has since been constructed at 11500 Live Oak Avenue,
Fontana, CA 92337.
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.
*Note: The police contact office has since been constructed at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, Fontana, CA 92337.
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.
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
147
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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:
i. Fire Protection and Emergency Services
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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, just west of
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 six minutes or less
to allow personnel time to control a fire or mitigate a medical emergency before it has reached its
maximum intensity (City of Fontana, 2023a). 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, approximately 500 feet
west of the Project site, is the first responding unit.
Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not significantly increase demands for fire
protection and emergency medical services. As described previously, the proposed Project would
construct and operate a new self-storage facility and construct a new public trail. Operation of the Project
is expected to require two employees on-site at one time. The proposed 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.
ii. Police Protection
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts to police services would be less than
significant with the addition of a contact office within the SVSP area. The contact police office referenced
in SVSP mitigation measures has since been constructed and is located at 11500 Live Oak Avenue, just
west of the Project site.
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 typical demand for police services during construction and
operation of the proposed Project. Although response time to service calls may vary, the FPD’s actual
response time to Priority One calls between 2021 and 2022 was 4 minutes and 42 seconds, while the
target response time for Priority One calls between 2024 and 2025 is 4 minutes and 20 sections (City
of Fontana, 2023a). 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, 2018b). The Project would result in two on-site employees and goods that could
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
148
create the need for police services. Crime and safety issues during Project construction may include theft
of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. Operation
of the self-storage facility may generate a typical range of police service calls such as burglaries, thefts,
and employee disturbances. The Project would include security lighting and security gates at both the
entrance and exit and other security measures. Operation of the proposed Project 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, 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
iii. School Services
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 consists of a self-storage facility that would not directly generate students. As described
previously, the Project is not anticipated to generate a new population, as the employees needed to
operate the Project are anticipated to come from within the Project region and substantial in-migration
of employees that could generate new students is not anticipated to occur. Thus, the Project would not
generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities and impacts would be less than
significant.
Additionally, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 et seq., the need for additional school
facilities is addressed through compliance with school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of
Statutes of 1998) sets forth a State school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a
local jurisdiction’s ability to condition a project on mitigation of a project’s impacts on school facilities in
excess of fees set forth in the Government Code. The Project would be required to contribute fees to the
Fontana Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998
(Senate Bill 50) (included as PPP PS-3). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees
constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project‐related impacts to school services. 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.
iv. Parks
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than
significant.
The Project would construct and operate a self-storage facility on a site that is currently undeveloped,
and would not construct any residential facilities, nor create an additional need for housing. Additionally,
the employees needed to operate the Project are anticipated to come from the unemployed labor force
in the region. Thus, operation of the proposed Project would not generate an increase in use of the existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be accelerated. However, the Project includes the construction of a public
trail which would add to the available recreational facilities available to the public in the City of Fontana.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
149
The impacts associated with the development of the proposed public trail the City-owned portion of 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.
v. Other Public Facilities
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR determined development fees would help fund a library expansion
and reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
As previously discussed, development of the Project would not result in a direct increase in the population
of the Project site and would not increase the demand for public services, including public health services
and library services, which would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities. As
described previously, the employees needed to operate the proposed Project are anticipated to come
from the Project region and commute Project site and substantial in-migration of employees that could
generate substantial usage of other public facilities is not anticipated to occur. Nonetheless, 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.
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 information, 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, Fire Prevention, Section 11-2, Fire
protection fees on new development.
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, Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-8, Police
capital facilities fee on new or expanded development.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
150
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, Buildings and Building Regulations, Section 5-9, Library capital facilities fee on
new or expanded development.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
151
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft 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.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to recreations are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that physical deterioration of the facility would be accelerated?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than
significant.
The Project would construct and operate a self-storage facility on a site that is currently undeveloped and
designated for Mini-storage. As previously discussed, the Project does not propose any residential facilities,
and would not cause an increase in residential population. Additionally, the employees needed to operate
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
152
the Project are anticipated to come from the unemployed labor force in the region. The closest existing park
to the Project site is Southridge Park, located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.
The Project also includes the construction of a public trail which would add to the available recreational
facilities available to the public in the City of Fontana. The trail is proposed to connect to a future park that
is proposed to be constructed at the corner of Village Drive and Live Oak Avenue, as part of the previously
approved Heights at Southridge project (City Council Resolution No. 2023-085). The impacts associated with
the development of the proposed public trail on the City-owned portion of 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 public
trail are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation Sections.
Project employees may use the park or public trail for breaks or recreation; however, the use of these
facilities by Project employees would be limited and would not lead to a physical deterioration. The Project
would not generate an increase in population which could cause any increase in demand for existing parks
or other recreational facilities, and the Project would not cause nor accelerate physical deterioration of these
facilities. 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.
b) Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to parkland would be less than
significant.
The Project would construct and operate a self-storage facility on a site that is currently undeveloped and
would not construct any residential facilities, nor create an additional need for housing. The Project would
not directly increase the residential population of the City or generate additional need for parkland. As
described above, the Project includes the construction of a public trail on the City-owned Parcel 2. The
impacts associated with the development of the proposed public trail the City-owned portion of 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 public trail are analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and
Transportation Sections. 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.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
153
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
154
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?
Summary of Impacts Identified in the SVSP Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft EIR concluded
that implementation of the Circulation Master Plan would reduce major traffic-related impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to transportation are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
155
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section is based on the following report:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis – Conifer Court Self-Storage Fontana – EPD Project No.
24-066. Prepared by EPD Solutions. October 1, 2024. (Appendix M)
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
No New Impact.
Construction
The proposed Project involves the construction of a 136,863 SF self-storage facility. Vehicular access to the
proposed Project would be provided via one driveway from Village Drive. 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 Project would construct internal roadways that would provide connection to and from proposed
residences to adjacent residential areas. However, final design plans would be subject to review and
approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. As such, the Project would not introduce any
new roadways or land uses that would interfere with adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies
regarding roadway facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Construction activities associated with the Project would generate vehicular trips from construction workers
traveling to and from the Project site, delivery of construction supplies and import materials to, and export
of debris from, the Project site. However, these construction activities would be temporary in nature and only
occur during the anticipated 18-month construction period. The increase of trips during construction activities
would be limited and is not anticipated to exceed the number of operational trips described below. The
short-term vehicle trips from construction of the Project would generate less-than-significant traffic related
impacts.
Operation
The proposed Project involves the construction of a 136,863 SF self-storage facility, associated parking,
landscaping, and utility improvements to serve the site. Operation of the Project would introduce new
vehicular traffic from workers and proposed operations. Vehicular traffic to and from the Project site would
utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that currently serve the Project site.
A Project-specific trip generation analysis was prepared to determine the estimated change in site trip
generation resulting from the Project. The analysis includes the proposed trip generation using trip rates from
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Table T-1 shows the trip
generation estimate for the proposed Project. As shown in Table T-1, the proposed Project is forecast to
generate 124 daily trips including 8 trips during the AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
156
Table T-1: Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Mini Warehouse1 HSU 17.96 0.62 0.59 1.21 0.84 0.84 1.68
Proposed Project's Trip Generation
Self Storage Facility1 6.88 HSU 124 4 4 8 6 6 12
Total Project Trip 124 4 4 8 6 6 12
HSU = Hundred Storage Units 1 Trip rate from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation,11th Edition, 2021 -Mini-Warehousing (100s
Storage Units) - 151
Alternative Transportation
Sidewalks currently exist along Project frontage on Village Drive. No bike lanes currently exist along Project
frontage on Village Drive. According to Fontana General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Figure
5.13-1, Existing Transportation Network, the closest existing bicycle facility to the site is a Class III bicycle
lane separated by striping exists along Live Oak Avenue, approximately 350 feet west of the Project site.
The proposed Project would not conflict with the existing sidewalks along Village Drive or the existing bicycle
lane along Live Oak Avenue. Thus, no impacts to these facilities would result from implementation of the
Project.
The closest bus route to the site is Omnitrans Route 82 which serves Rancho Cucamonga and Sierra Lakes via
Jurupa Avenue. The closest bus stops along Route 83 are located approximately 0.3 miles north of the site
at Live Oak Avenue and Jurupa Avenue and 0.4 miles to the west at Live Oak Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
Buildout of the Project site would not disrupt the existing bus route. Therefore, the Project would not conflict
with alternative transportation and Project impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less
than significant. As such, there would be no new or increased impacts.
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.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No New Impact.
The SVSP 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 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
157
Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320). Nonetheless, the following discussion
regarding the Project’s potential VMT impacts is included for informational purposes.
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed by Governor Brown in 2013 and required the California Governor’s Office
of Land Use and Climate Innovation (previously known as California Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research) to amend the State CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Service (LOS) for
evaluating transportation impacts. SB743 specified that the new criteria should promote the reduction of
GHGs, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses. In response,
Section 15064.3 was added to the CEQA Guidelines beginning January 1, 2019, with the provisions of the
section applying statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Determining
the Significance of Transportation Impacts, states that VMT is the most appropriate measure of transportation
impacts and provides lead agencies with the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology and
thresholds for evaluating VMT.
Section 12.2 of the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines provides VMT screening thresholds to
identify projects that would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT and therefore could
be screened out from further analysis. If a project meets one of the following criteria, then the VMT impact
of the project would be considered less-than-significant and no further analysis of VMT would be required:
1. Screening Criteria 1 – Transit Priority Area (TPA)Screening: According to the City’s guidelines, projects
located within a TPA, defined as a half-mile area around an existing major transit stop or an existing
stop along a high-quality transit corridor, may be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. The
proposed Project is not located within a TPA; therefore, it would not satisfy the requirements of Screening
Criteria 1 – TPA screening.
2. Screening Criteria 2 - Low VMT Area Screening: The City’s guidelines include a screening threshold for
projects located in a low VMT generating area. A low VMT generating area is defined as traffic analysis
zones (TAZs) with a total daily VMT/service population (service population = employment + population)
that is 15 percent below the baseline level for the County. The proposed Project’s site was evaluated
using the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT Screening Tool. As shown in
Appendix M, the Countywide VMT/service population is 33.5 and the VMT/service population for the
project zone (TAZ 53719401) is 31.2. The VMT/service population of the project zone is 6.88 percent
below the County average, which is above the threshold of 15 percent below the County average.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not meet Screening Criteria 2 – Low-VMT Area Screening.
3. Screening Criteria 3 – Low Project Type: According to the City’s guidelines, projects which propose local-
serving retail (retail projects less than 50,000 square feet) or other local-serving uses would have a less-
than-significant impact on VMT. The types of projects considered local serving include supermarkets,
hair/nail salons, walk-in medical clinics/urgent care, K-12 schools, day care centers, and community
institutions such as libraries, fire stations, etc. The proposed Project does not propose a local serving land
use and therefore would not satisfy the requirements of Screening Criteria 3.
4. Screening Criteria 4 – Net Daily Trips Less Than 500 ADT: According to the City’s guidelines, projects
which would generate fewer than 500 ADT would not cause a substantial increase in the total citywide
or regional VMT. As shown in Table T-1, the proposed Project is expected to generate 124 ADT, which
is below the 500 ADT threshold. Therefore, the proposed Project is presumed to have a less-than-
significant impact on VMT under Screening Criteria 4, and no further analysis is necessary.
The proposed Project is not located within a TPA, is not located within a low VMT area, and is not classified
as a local serving use; therefore, the Project would not meet Screening Criteria 1, 2, or 3. However, the
proposed Project generates 124 ADT, which is below the 500 ADT threshold specified in Screening Criteria
4. Therefore, the proposed Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT, requiring no
further analysis.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
158
Additionally, a Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis (Appendix N) was prepared to determine whether
a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the Project. As shown in Table T-1, the proposed Project
would generate 8 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips. According to Section 3 of the City's TIA
guidelines (2020), if a project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips, a TIA is not required. As shown in
Table T-1, the Project generates fewer than 50 peak hour trips for both the AM and PM peak hour.
Therefore, a TIA would not be necessary for the Project and the project can be presumed to have a less than
significant impact related to LOS. Additionally, the Project is within the overall development capacity that
was considered in the SVSP Final EIR. Therefore, the traffic that would be generated from operation of the
Project is within the assumptions of the SVSP Final EIR.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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 one ingress and egress driveway connecting to
Village Drive. 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.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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 the Project driveway, 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 Village Drive 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 one ingress and egress driveway
connecting to Village Drive. Additionally, fire truck access would be provided by the public trail. 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 have reviewed the development plans as part of the
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
159
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
Chapter 5, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article XV, California Fire 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.
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 information, 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 (PPP)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
160
5.18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Subsequent or Supplemental EIR Addendum to EIR
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:
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
i. 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
ii. 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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not analysis impacts related to tribal cultural resources as the topic area was not
included in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the SVSP Draft EIR was written and adopted.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to tribal cultural resources are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
This section was prepared using the following report:
• A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer Court Storage Project. Prepared by BFSA
Environmental Services. August 13, 2024. (Appendix D).
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:
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
161
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
No New Impact.
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
identified sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 within the site which were not determined to be sites eligible for
listing on the CRHR. However, given the records search results, the limited visibility during the survey, and
the presence of sites Temp-1 and Temp-2 within the site, there remains potential for the inadvertent
discovery of archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, during grading. Therefore, it is
recommended that the project be conditioned with archaeological monitoring during grading of the
subject property. As a result, the Project would be conditioned to require a qualified archeologist,
approved by the City of Fontana, to be present to monitor ground disturbing activities and provide
protocols in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource. With
implementation of standard conditions, potential impacts would be reduced to 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).
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe?
No New Impact.
Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either eligible or listed in the California
Register of Historical Resources or local register of historical resources (Public Resources Code § 21074).
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 (PPP CUL-1).
Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
162
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing information, 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 (PPP)
PPP CUL-1. As previously listed in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
163
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR analyzed impacts related to utilities and service systems in Section 6.2.10. According the
SVSP Draft 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
Draft EIR estimated that buildout of the 8,800 units would require approximately a water supply of 5.7
million gallons per day (mgd). The SVSP Draft 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,
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
164
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 Draft 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
requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and would require and
advanced wastewater treatment 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 Draft 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 Draft 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 Draft EIR determined impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.
The SVSP Draft EIR noted that the 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 Draft EIR
concluded that impacts related to natural gas would be less than significant.
Electrical service is provided to the SVSP by the 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 Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity would
be less than significant.
According to the SVSP Draft EIR, telephone service would be provided to the SVSP area via the Riverside
exchange and the Fontana exchange. The SVSP Draft EIR noted that future development would increase the
demands for telephone service, which would require the installation of new service lines. The SVSP Draft 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).
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are from pages 63 through 65 of the SVSP Final EIR.
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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
165
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 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.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment,
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to water would be less than significant
with implementation of the Water Master Plan. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts to wastewater
treatment would be considered less than significant with implementation of the Sewer Master Plan. In
addition, the SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to electricity, natural gas, solid waste and
telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
166
Water
The Project Applicant would develop the Project site, which is currently served by FWC and would install
new water infrastructure at the Project site that would connect to existing water infrastructure within Village
Drive. The new on-site water system would convey water supplies to the proposed self-storage building and
landscaping through plumbing/landscaping fixtures that are compliant with the CALGreen Code for efficient
use of water.
The proposed Project would continue to receive water supplies through the existing water lines located within
the Village Drive that have the capacity to provide the increased water supplies needed to serve the
proposed Project, and no expansions of the water pipelines that convey water to the Project site would be
required. Installation of the new on-site water distribution lines would only serve the proposed Project and
would not provide new water supplies to any off-site areas.
The construction activities related to the on-site water infrastructure that would be needed to serve the
proposed Project is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects
beyond those identified throughout this Addendum. For example, analysis of construction emissions from
excavation and installation of the water infrastructure is included in Sections 5.3, Air Quality and 5.8,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new water
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The
Project includes installation of new on-site sewer lines that would connect to the existing sewer lines Village
Drive. The existing sewer lines would accommodate development of the Project site and would not require
expansion to serve the proposed Project. The construction activities related to installation of the on-site sewer
infrastructure that would serve the proposed Project, is included as part of the proposed Project and would
not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this Addendum. For
example, analysis of construction emissions for excavation and installation of the sewer infrastructure is
included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and noise volumes from these activities
are evaluated in Section 5.13, Noise. As the proposed Project includes facilities to serve the proposed
development, it would not result in the need for construction of other new wastewater facilities or expansions,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no new or increased impact would occur.
Storm Drainage
The proposed Project would install combination detention/infiltration basin in the northern portion of the site
to capture, treat, and infiltrate stormwater flows. Treated stormwater captured in the detention/infiltration
basin would exit the site through on-site storm water drains which would drain to Declez Channel via a storm
drain connection to the existing storm drain line in Village Drive. As discussed above in Section 5.10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, due to the appropriate sizing of the on-site drainage features and detention
basin, as shown in the Project’s Hydrology Report (Appendix J) and WQMP (Appendix K) as ensured through
the Project permitting process, operation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase stormwater
runoff, and the Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing off-site facilities. Thus, no new or increased impacts would result
Electric Power
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities that are
adjacent to the Project site and would not require the construction of new electrical facilities.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
167
Natural Gas
The Project would connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities that are
adjacent to the Project site.
Telecommunications
The proposed Project would require a connection to telecommunication services, such as wireless internet
service and phone service. This can be accomplished through connection to existing services that are available
to the developer at the Project site. The two largest telephone and internet service providers in Fontana are
AT&T and Time Warner Cable, one of which could provide service to the 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) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to water supplies would be less
significant with implementation of the Water Master Plan.
The FWC provides water to the Project site. According to FWC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
(UWMP), current water supplies are made up of 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 purchased from IEUA and San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District); and
recycled water (produced by IEUA) (FWC, 2021). The 2020 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. Table UT-1 shows FWC’s projected
water supply between 2025 and 2045.
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: 2020 Urban Water management Plan (FWC, 2021).
The 2020 UWMP describes that its water demands are based on a water use factor of 165 gallons per
capita per day (gpcd). As discussed previously, the Project would result in the need for two employees, thus,
the proposed two employees would use approximately 330 gallons per day or 0.37 acre-feet per year
(AFY), which is within the anticipated increased demand and supply for water, as shown in Table UT-1. Thus,
implementation of the Project would result in an incremental and less than significant increase in the demand
for water. Additionally, development of the Project site would also be required to comply with
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
168
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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater would be less than
significant with implementation of the Sewer Master Plan.
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 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 RP-1 currently treats approximately 28 million gpd, or 65 percent of its capacity (City of
Fontana, 2018b). The treatment capacity of RP-4 is 14 million gpd, and RP-4 typically treats approximately
10 million gpd or approximately 71 percent of capacity (City of Fontana, 2018b). According to Table 5.12-
8, Wastewater Generation Factors, from the Fontana General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, the
IEUA estimates that commercial uses generate 10.76 gallons of wastewater per acre per day. Using this
generation rate, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 80.6 gallons (0.0000806 million gpd) of
wastewater per day (10.76 gpad x 7.49 acres = 80.6 gpd). The public trail component of the Project is not
anticipated to result in a wastewater generation demand; therefore, it is not included in the calculation
herein. Given the excess capacity available from IEUA’s RP-1 and RP-4, the Project would be adequately
served by IEUA’s existing infrastructure. Therefore, 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?
No New Impact. The SVSP Draft 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. The Mid-Valley Landfill is the primary solid waste
depository for the area (City of Fontana, 2018b). The Mid Valley Landfill is permitted to accept 7,500 tons
per day of solid waste and is permitted to operate through 2045 (CalRecycle, 2025a). As of December
2024, the landfill's peak tonnage per day was 5,852.6 tons (CalRecycle, 2025b). Thus, on average, the
facility had an additional capacity of 1,647.4 tons per day.
Project construction would generate solid waste for landfill disposal in the form of construction waste from
packaging and discarded materials. Utilizing a construction waste factor of 4.34 pounds per square foot of
nonresidential development (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2003, p. 10), construction of the Project
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
169
would generate approximately 297 tons of waste during construction from packaging and discarded
materials ([136,863 × 4.34 lbs/SF] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton = 297 tons). However, Section 5.408.1 of the 2022
California Green Building Standards Code requires demolition and 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.
Therefore, construction and demolition would generate approximately 104 tons of solid waste for landfill
disposal. As the Mid-Valley Landfill has a limit of 7,500 tons per day and has an average additional
capacity of 1,647.4 tons per day (CalRecycle, 2025b), the landfill would be able to accommodate the
addition of solid waste during construction of the proposed Project.
Operation
Using the CalEEMod solid waste generation rate of 0.94 tons per year per 1,000 square feet, the proposed
Project would generate approximately 128 tons of solid waste per year or 0.35 tons per day. However, at
least 75 percent of the solid waste is required by AB 341 to be recycled, which would reduce the volume of
landfilled solid waste to approximately 32 tons per year or 0.09 tons per day.
As the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill has additional capacity of approximately 1,647.4 tons per day, the
facility would be able to accommodate the addition of 0.09 tons of waste per day from the Project.
Therefore, the Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill would be able to accommodate solid waste from operation of
the proposed Project, and impacts related to landfill capacity 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.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related
to solid waste?
No New Impact.
The proposed Project would result in a 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 Section
5.408.1 of the 2022 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. The proposed
Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to solid waste.
Furthermore, the proposed Project would comply with all standards related to solid waste diversion,
reduction, and recycling during Project construction and operation. Therefore, the proposed Project is
anticipated to 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 information, 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.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
170
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)
None.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
171
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 Draft EIR
The SVSP Draft EIR did not analysis impacts related to wildfire as the topic area was not included in the
CEQA Guidelines at the time the SVSP Draft EIR was written and adopted.
SVSP Final EIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures related to wildfire are included in the SVSP Final EIR.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
172
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
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, 2025). As discussed 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 driveway 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 one driveway Village Drive. Fire access to the site would be
provided via the main ingress/egress driveway and from the public trail. The Project does not include any
changes to public or private roadways that would physically 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, and 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.
Additionally, consistent with Fontana Municipal Code Article IX, Overlay Districts, Division 8, Fire Hazard
Overlay District, 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 O 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 5-3, 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.
Figure 5-3Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
City of Fontana
Fuel Modification Plan
FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN
SCALE 1 : 40
0 40 80
SCALE: 1" = 40'
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
174
This page intentionally left blank.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
175
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No New Impact.
As discussed previously, the Project site is within a VHFHSZ. The Project proposes the development of a
136,863 SF self-storage facility and a public trail 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 (City of Fontana, 2018b).
In addition to temperature and winds, the topography of the site can either hinder or facilitate that spread
of wildfire. Elevations at the Project site range from 938 feet amsl to 975 feet amsl and the Project site
contains gentle slopes from south to north. 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 FFPD through a
contract with the SBCFD. The FFPD operates seven fire stations in the City of Fontana, the closest to the
Project site being Station 47 located approximately 500 feet to the west of the Project site. 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 areas of the Project site are accessible to emergency responders, 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 exacerbated 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?
No New Impact.
Although the Project includes a new driveway 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
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
176
would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Adherence 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?
No New Impact.
As stated previously, the Project site is located within a VHFHSZ. As discussed in Section 5.7, Geology and
Soils, the Geotechnical Report found that while the site exhibits gentle sloping, the land is not typically prone
to land sliding. As established in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, 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 on-site drainage patterns.
Compliance with the proposed operational BMPs would ensure on-site storm drain facilities would be sized
to accommodate stormwater runoff from the Project site so that on-site 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 information, 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.
Plans, Programs, or Policies (PPP)
PPP W-1: Fire Protection Plan. As listed in Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required
None.
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
177
6. REFERENCES
Allard Engineering. (March 13, 2024). Fontana RV and Self Storage APN: 0237-411-27 Preliminary
Drainage Report. (Appendix J)
Allard Engineering. (July 22, 2024). Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Fontana RV and Self
Storage Fontana, CA 92335. (Appendix K)
BFSA Environmental Services. (August 13, 2024). A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the Conifer
Court Storage Project. (Appendix D)
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (2008). 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.
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). (2022). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved
September 9, 2024, from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
CAL FIRE. (March 24, 2025). Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Retrieved March 26, 2025, from
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-
hazard-severity-zones
CalRecycle. (2025a). SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill (36-AA-0055).
Retrieved February 28, 2025, from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1880?siteID=2662
CalRecycle. (January 1, 2025b). Disposal Facility (Site) Inspection Report (52) Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill
(36-AA-0055). Retrieved September 18, 2024, from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/380064
Caltrans. (2018). State Scenic Highway Map. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-
liv-i-scenic-highways
City of Fontana. (August 1981a). Southridge Village Specific Plan No. 5 and Environmental Impact Report
81-3. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from https://www.fontanaca.gov/1296/Southridge-
Village-Specific-Plan
City of Fontana. (October 1981b). Southridge Village Specific Plan 5 Addendum and Final Environmental
Impact Report 81-3. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from
https://www.fontanaca.gov/1296/Southridge-Village-Specific-Plan
City of Fontana. (November 13, 2018a). General Plan Update 2015-2035. Retrieved September 11,
2024, from https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
City of Fontana. (June 8, 2018b). General Plan Update 2015-2035 Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH
2016021099). Retrieved September 11, 2024, from
https://www.fontanaca.gov/2632/General-Plan-Update-2015---2035
City of Fontana. (June 13, 2023a). City of Fontana Adopted Operating Budget 2023/2024 – 2024/2025.
Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.fontanaca.gov/263/Budget
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
178
City of Fontana. (July 25, 2023b). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42959/GP-Citywide-Proposed-Map-July-
2023
City of Fontana. (July 31, 2023c). Zoning District Map. Retrieved September 10, 2024, from
https://www.fontanaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/30623/Zoning-District-Map
City of Fontana. (November 1, 2024). Municipal Code. Retrieved January 28, 2025, from
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=12233&stateId=5&stateName=California
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2003). Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and
Demolition Materials Amounts. Retrieved February 14, 2025, from
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-
09/documents/estimating2003buildingrelatedcanddmaterialsamounts.pdf
EPD Solutions, Inc. (January 23, 2025a). Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis for
Conifer Self Storage Project. (Appendix A)
EPD Solutions, Inc. (January 23, 2025b). Conifer Self Storage Construction Health Risk Assessment.
(Appendix B)
EPD Solutions, Inc. (October 1, 2024a). Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis – Conifer Court
Self-Storage Fontana. (Appendix M)
EPD Solutions, Inc. (October 1, 2024b). Level of Service (LOS) Screening Analysis – Conifer Court Self-
Storage Fontana. (Appendix N)
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 28, 2008). FIRM Flood Map 06071C8665H. Retrieved
September 11, 2024, from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home
Federal Transit Administration. (2018). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Retrieved
September 11, 2024, from 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
Firewise 2000, LLC. (September 20, 2024). Conifer Court RV & Self Storage Fire Protection Plan.
(Appendix O)
Fontana Water Company (FWC). (June 2021). 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Retrieved
September 18, 2024, from https://www.fontanawater.com/water-quality-supply/2020-urban-
water-management-plan/
Hernandez Environmental Services. (October 2023). General Biological Assessment for Assessor’s Parcel
Number 0237-411-27. (Appendix C)
Kane GeoTech, Inc. (January 31, 2023). Conifer Court Self Storage Rockfall Investigation. (Appendix F)
LSA. (January 2025). Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis Conifer Court Self-Storage Project Fontana,
California. (Appendix L)
Ontario International Airport. (July 2018). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-
plan/
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
179
Petra Geosciences. (August 4, 2022). Feasibility/Due Diligence-Level Geotechnical Assessment: Conifer Ridge
Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-
0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 92337. (Appendix E)
Petra Geosciences. (June 17, 2024). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Metals Soil
Residue Survey; Conifer Ridge Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and
Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
92337. (Appendix H)
Petra Geosciences. (January 3, 2025). Excavation, Transportation and Disposal Completion Report; Soil
Removal Activities, Conifer Ridge Property, 14.5 Acres of Vacant Land South of Conifer Court and
Village Drive, APN 0237-411-27-0000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California
92337. (Appendix I)
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. (October 14, 2004). Riverside County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. Retrieved September 17, 2024, from https://rcaluc.org/current-compatibility-
plans
San Bernardino Council of Governments. (March 2021). San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan. Retrieved April 30, 2025, from https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-
greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). (April 4, 2024). Demographics and Growth
Forecast Technical Report. Retrieved February 24, 2025, from
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-demographics-growth-forecast-
final-040424.pdf?1712261839
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). (September 28, 2010). Minutes for the GHG
CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-
significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf
Conifer Court Self-Storage Project
Conifer Court, LLC Addendum to the Southridge Village Specific Plan EIR
180
End of document.