Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 10 of 16)

system will include approximately 140,000 feet of additional trunk sewer to serve the OR. The sewer master plan includes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure adequate long-range planning for implementing the City’s sewer infrastructure improvements in line with the City’s 2010 General Plan buildout scenario.

Sewer services for the Project site will be provided by the City. There are no sewer mains located within the broader vicinity of the Project area; therefore, the Specific Plan includes a network of new public sewer mains, consistent with the City’s Ultimate Sewer System Plan.

A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each tract map and development within the Specific Plan. A 36-inch sewer main will connect to an existing IEUA interceptor trunk main sewer located in Kimball Avenue to the south, run north in Euclid Avenue to Merrill Avenue, then east to Grove Avenue. The IEUA interceptor trunk sewer main is 54 inches east of Euclid and 60 inches west of Euclid Avenue. An 18-inch sewer main would run from Merrill Avenue north within Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue. A sewer main will run within Eucalyptus Avenue, from a point west of Grove Avenue to Bon View Avenue where it will connect to the 18-inch sewer main within Bon View Avenue. The size of the Eucalyptus Avenue sewer main will be determined during
development plan preparation for planning area (PA) 1 and PA2 of the Project. Note that all of these offsite sewer mains are regional facilities identified in the City’s Sewer System Plan and/or already required for construction by other projects. The Project will pay a fair share of these offsite regional sewer system improvements, which all occur within existing streets or are part of future development. As these off-site facilities have already been identified in the City’s Sewer Master Plan, the Project will not require the construction or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities beyond that already identified by the City as part of its regional wastewater system.

The Project also includes various on-site sewer infrastructure to connect the Specific Plan site to the City’s sewer system. The ultimate sizing and alignment of the sewer shall be consistent with the Sewer Master Plan, the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines, the Municipal Code, and/or a City conducted and approved hydraulic analysis. A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and development within the Specific Plan. The impacts of all on-site 2531
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 118 of 240 ends

infrastructure are addressed throughout the EIR as part of the overall Specific Plan site development.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-5 through 4.15-6.)
SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed increase in residential density for the SB330 Replacement Site would likely result in a slight increase in water demand for this area, due to increased residential density. The net effect of the Project site plus the SB330 Replacement Site is anticipated to be similar in overall demand as the current General Plan land use designations. Pursuant to SB330, the Project will create an Overlay District on the SB330 Replacement Site to increase the residential zoning capacity by 1,352 units, which will offset the “loss” of residential zoning capacity within the Project site.

In order for this Overlay District to be approved, a Zone Change is required. The additional density is assumed to be spread evenly across the 473-acre SB330 Replacement Site. This area is currently zoned with a mix of low density, low-medium density and medium density residential allowing an estimated 3,690 DU, in addition to 18 acres of Neighborhood Commercial and 44 acres of General Commercial. As part of the City’s current TOP Update process, City staff are evaluating this SB330 Replacement Site area for higher density land uses to create a mixed used transit-oriented area, currently envisioned with approximately 10,161 DU and a mixed-use area of 44 acres. Once development occurs, it would comply with applicable regulations and requirements including the City’s standard development review process. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-6.) Water Facilities
Specific Plan – Phase I & Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Project site is currently agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The site is not connected to the City’s water supply and utilizes groundwater for irrigation of crops and other agricultural-related uses. The use of this water supply would cease upon implementation of the proposed Project. There are also three 2532
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 119 of 240 ends

potable water wells on site which would be abandoned in accordance with California Department of Water Resources (DWR) standards.

Potable water distribution to the proposed Project would be provided by the City of Ontario. There are no existing water mains near the Project that are within the City’s jurisdiction; existing water mains along the west half of Euclid Avenue and the south half of Merrill Avenue are within City of Chino jurisdiction. It would be financially infeasible for residential development to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements required to support a residential development. The Project proposes new offsite potable water mains as specified in the City’s Water Master Plan, which has identified water facilities to serve the OR. Note that the off-site facilities described below are part of the City’s Water Master Plan, and the Project is paying a fair -share for these regional improvements.

These improvements are part of the City’s Water Master Plan and have already been conditioned upon other projects to construct.

Potable water system improvements for the proposed project require the planning, design, and construction of the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone, which includes: extending the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue from Archibald Avenue to Grove Avenue; installing a 30-inch potable water main in Grove Avenue connecting from the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to Chino Avenue; installing a 42-inch potable water main in Grove Avenue connecting from the 30-inch potable water main in Grove Avenue at Chino Ave and extending to Francis Avenue; installing a 42-inch potable water main in Francis Avenue connecting from the 42-inch potable water main in Grove Avenue and extending to Bon View Avenue; installing a 42-inch potable water main in Bon View Avenue connecting from the 42-inch potable water main in Francis Avenue and extending to Bon View Avenue Reservoir site and to the Reservoir; a 9 million gallon reservoir on the Bon View Reservoir site; and, two 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm) wells with any treatment necessary to meet water quality standards and the 16-inch and 24-inch collection main from the wells to the reservoirs.

In addition to the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone, the Specific Plan area requires the planning, design, and construction of a Secondary Loop between the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone and the Specific Plan area which includes: installing a 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue connecting from the 30-inch potable water main in Grove 2533
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 120 of 240 ends

Avenue and extending to Campus Avenue; installing a 12-inch potable water main in Campus Avenue connecting from the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to the 16- inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue connecting from the 12-inch potable water main in Campus Avenue and extending to the 16-inch potable water main in Walker Avenue; and installing a 16-inch potable water main in Walker Avenue connecting from the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue and extending to the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue; installing a 12-inch potable water main in Grove Avenue connecting to the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue; and installing a 12-inch potable water main in Bon View Avenue connecting to the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue. The Specific Plan area also requires the planning, design, and construction of the Adjacent Potable Water System, which includes: installing a 12-inch potable water main in Sultana Avenue connecting to the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue.

Until the ultimate pipeline network for South Ontario Logistics Center has been completed, there may be instances where construction of improvements to serve a project may not meet the required fire flow demands. Therefore, development within the Specific Plan area may be required to construct additional pipelines not indicated in the City’s Water Master Plan or upsize master planned pipelines to meet Fire Department fire flow requirements and/or Water Master Plan criteria.

All lines would be installed per City master plans, located in road rights-of-way that are already improved, and/or already addressed in prior CEQA documents. The developer will submit a hydraulic analysis to the City for review and approval to demonstrate adequate fire flow and adherence to the City’s Water Master Plan criteria.

Although off-site construction of the water lines would be necessary for operation of the proposed Project, these facilities have been planned by the City in its Water Master Plan, and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required.

Furthermore, any offsite construction of potable water infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the standards and specifications of the Municipal Code. Off-site water mains required 2534
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 121 of 240 ends

to serve the Project will need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. Within the project site, a network of 2-inch water lines for domestic water service and 8- to 10-inch water lines for fire service water will be installed. The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Eucalyptus Avenue to serve PA-1 and to the main in Merrill Avenue to serve PA-2. Onsite construction of the proposed infrastructure would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the Municipal Code. The necessary installation of onsite water lines is included as part of the proposed Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in other sections of this EIR.

There are currently no existing City recycled water mains or City recycled water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site and the proposed Project would require the construction of both on- and offsite recycle water mains to serve the site, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. Recycled water infrastructure improvements for the Project require the planning, design, and construction of the 930 PZ Recycled Water Master Plan mains. The Specific Plan area requires the planning, design, and construction of new recycled water system lines which would be installed as follows:
installing a 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue connecting to the 8-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue and extending to connect to the IEUA 30-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue; installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue connecting to the 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue; installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue connecting to the 8-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue and extending to connect to the 8-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue; installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue connecting to the 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue and extending to connect to the 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue connecting to the 8-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue and extending to Campus Avenue. If a recycled water pipeline point of connection exists at the intersection of Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue at the time of entitlement, the 8-inch recycled water main may need be installed in Merrill Avenue connecting to the 8-inch recycled water main in Campus Avenue and extended to Sultana Avenue.
2535
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 122 of 240 ends

All lines would be installed per City master plans, located in road rights-of-way that are already improved, and/or already addressed in prior CEQA documents.

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. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-14 through 4.15-15.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The Project is not proposing any specific development in the SB330 Replacement Site. The area is already planned for water and recycled water infrastructure, and the slight increase in density is not anticipated to result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR and that would occur under current zoning densities. Any future development in this area would be evaluated as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process, including consistency with the City’s TOP and municipal code, as well as consistency with the UWMP and Water and Recycled Water Master Plans. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-17.) Conclusion
The proposed Project and the SB330 Replacement Site would not result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-5 through 4.15-6, 4.15-14 through 4.15-17.) Storm Water Facilities
Specific Plan – Phase I/ Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
As detailed above, the proposed Project would not adversely impact existing and planned stormwater drainage facilities.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
As detailed above, the SB330 Replacement Site would not adversely impact existing and planned stormwater drainage facilities.

Conclusion
2536
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 123 of 240 ends

Neither the Specific Plan site nor the SB330 Replacement Site will require construction of additional storm water infrastructure beyond what is already planned for in the City’s regional drainage master planning. Impacts are less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-22.) b. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-17.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Water Demand
Water use for the proposed Project was calculated using domestic water demand rates and recycled water irrigation demand rates as specified in the UWMP. Table 4.15-4 of the DEIR shows the total water demand estimate for the proposed development.

The total domestic water demand within the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan area is estimated to be 327,508 gal/day (366.9 AFY). The total recycled water demand is estimated to be 216,253 gal/day (242.2 AFY). The total water demand would be 543,761 gal/day or 609.1 AFY.

The 2015 UWMP projected water demands are based on future land uses as specified in the City’s latest 2010 General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use Map by changing the existing land use designations of the Project site from Low Medium Density Residential and “Business Park” to “General Industrial” and “Business Park” in different areas, to facilitate development of the Project site. Pursuant to SB330, an additional GPA will be processed concurrently to increase density elsewhere in the City to achieve no net loss of unit capacity. Based on the projected future land use for the Project site in the UWMP, the water demand for a medium density residential development was estimated, as shown in Table

4.15-5 of the DEIR, Water Demand Estimate for the Project Site Based on Projected Future Land Use in 2015 UWMP. In order to evaluate water supply reliability, California statutes require the consideration of water supplies and demands in three types of water conditions: normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years . The 2015 UWMP indicates that the City is capable of meeting the water 2537
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 124 of 240 ends

demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2040.

Comparing Project water demand in Table 4.15-4 of the DEIR with water demand assumed in the 2015 UWMP as shown in Table

4.15-5 of the DEIR shows that the total domestic water demand within the site area will decrease, compared to planned land use as depicted in the 2015 UWMP. Water usage per the 2015 UWMP is estimated to be 742,856 gal/day (832.1 AFY). The total recycled water demand is estimated to be 183,914 gal/day (206.0 AFY).

Therefore, the total water demand per the 2015 UWMP would be 926,770 gal/day or 1,038 AFY, compared to a total water demand of the Project (shown in Table 4.15-4 of the DEIR) of 543,761 gal/day or 609.1 AFY.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, because the Project will not use any additional water that was not accounted for.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
In addition to evaluating changes in water demand for the Project site in comparison to the 2015 UWMP (Tables 4.15-4 and 4.15-5 of the DEIR), this WSA also evaluates a related aspect of the Project, the change in water demand associated with increasing residential density within the Grove Avenue Corridor SB330 Replacement Site study area. Per SB330, in order for the City to approve the Specific Plan, the City must also rezone an area in the City to offset the loss in residentially zoned land. The City has determined that the Project would displace 1,352 DU of residential capacity as part of the Project approval. As stated previously, the City has evaluated the Project and has determined that it would result in the “loss” of approximately 1,352 low to moderate density housing units (due to the proposed rezoning and associated General Plan Amendment and Zone Change). Therefore, as part of the Project, the City will be required to rezone a separate area in the City with higher density, to ensure that there is no net loss in allowable housing density due to the Project Therefore, the City has identified an additional density of 1,352 DU within the Grove Avenue Corridor, with an assumed average density of Medium Density Residential. The additional daily water usage will be a net increase of 398,840 gal/day.
2538
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 125 of 240 ends

The implementation of the Project, and the rezoning of lower-density land for the SB330 Replacement Site for the Project, will result in a slight decrease in domestic water demand, an increase in recycled water demand, and an overall slight increase in total water demand (of 1.7%, or 15,831 gallons/day), compared to the 2015 UWMP.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a nominal increase in water demand and will not obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands.

Conclusion
According to the City’s UWMP, the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of its customers during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demand through 2040 accounting for projected population increases and corresponding increases in water demand.

Projected water demand for the proposed Project was included in the UWMP 2015 projections and was based on the 2010 General Plan land use designations. The 2010 General Plan land use designations for the Project site were general industrial and business park land uses. The proposed Project would consist of up to 5,333,518 square feet of industrial/warehouse and ancillary office space. The projected water demand for the proposed Project is slightly increased to the water demand for the land use that was accounted for in the 2015 UWMP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a nominal increase in water demands and will not obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands of its customers in normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry years.

The City will have sufficient water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2040 to meet all projected water demands associated with its existing and future customers, including the proposed Project. In the unlikely event of a water shortage, implementation of the City’s Water Conservation Plan and water efficiency strategies would ensure that sufficient water supplies were available to serve its customers, including the Project and existing and future users.

Proposed Water Conservation Strategies
Landscaping within the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan area will be implemented in line with the City of Ontario’s Landscape Development Guidelines. The guidelines include water conservation measures that need to be incorporated into landscape designs, the different elements that need to be incorporated into preliminary landscape plans, and the required landscape construction 2539
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 126 of 240 ends

documents. Construction documents need to include a water efficient landscape worksheet, grading design, erosion control measures, and a maintenance schedule. Furthermore, the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan includes key provisions for landscaping plans within the Project area which include:
 Selecting drought-tolerant plants such as colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to Southern California or naturalized to the arid Southern California climate.  Incorporating water conservation features in landscape and irrigation plans.

In addition to the City having adequate water supply to service the proposed Project, these water conservation measures would decrease water demand and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-17 through 4.15-21.)
c. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-7.) Explanation: Specific Plan - Phase I and Future Development Area The Project site is located in the OR and is within IEUA’s wastewater service area boundary. The proposed Project will be served by the RP-5 wastewater treatment plant. Buildout of the proposed Project would generate approximately 543,761 gal/day. The current liquid treatment capacity of RP-5 is 15 mgd, and the plant treats an average of 9 mgd. Thus, RP-5 has a remaining wastewater treatment capacity of 6 mgd. The proposed Project’s generated wastewater would represent less than one percent of the RP-5’s remaining treatment capacity. Therefore, wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be adequately treated at the RP-5.

RP-5 is required by federal and state law to meet applicable standards of treatment plant discharge requirements subject to Order No. RS-2015-0036 NPDES No. CA8000409. The permit
includes the conditions needed to meet minimum applicable technology-based requirements. The NPDES permit regulates the amount and type of pollutants that the system can discharge into receiving waters. RP-5 is operating in compliance with and would 2540
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 127 of 240 ends

continue to operate subject to state waste discharge requirements and federal NPDES permit requirements, as set forth in the NPDES permit and order. Furthermore, the proposed Project will comply with IEUA’s Ordinance No. 97 ensuring that wastewater discharge into the sewer system is compliant with the NPDES permit conditions, bio-solid use and disposal requirements, and any other federal or state laws.

The additional wastewater (quantity and type) that would be generated by the proposed Project and treated by the RP-5 would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. Impacts on wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
IEUA will also provide wastewater services to development on the SB330 Replacement Site. The slight increase in residential density will generate additional wastewater, although future development would be required to fund fair share of improvements to ensure adequate treatment capacity, through connection fees, development impact fees and service fees. An NPDES Permit will be obtained prior to start of construction and the development on the site would be compliant with the NPDES permit conditions, bio-solid use, disposal requirements, and other applicable federal or state laws.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The additional wastewater that would be generated by the proposed Project and treated would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. Impacts on wastewater treatment would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-7.)
d. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-27.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1 and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Prior to construction of the proposed Project, onsite structures would need to be demolished and its debris moved offsite to appropriate 2541
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 128 of 240 ends

landfills. The Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm and is improved with several residential structures, dairy barns, storage structure, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. The Project site does not currently contain an existing storm drain or sewer facility, but there are large existing retention ponds that collect the surface and agricultural waste accumulations from the dairy farming practices. The Project site is currently served with three portable water wells as well as two above ground fuel storage tanks and various mechanical systems for dairy production practices.

The remainder of the Project site is used as irrigated cropland with berms located along the site perimeter. Using aerial imagery of the site and the application of geological information systems, it was determined that approximately 1,571 tons of demolition debris will result from this Project .

The demolition of the existing structures may cause a strain on existing landfill capacities if waste exceeds the daily permitted capacity for the landfills serving the City. Collectively, the two primary landfills have a daily permitted capacity of 20,854 tons per day (tpd), and an average daily disposal of 12,994 tpd, as reported in 2019.

Therefore, the two landfills have a residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The 1,517 tons of demolition waste that would be disposed of in landfills would occur over a period of approximately two and a half months and would not exceed the daily residual capacity of the landfills.

Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate 24,363 ppd of solid waste.

The two landfills serving Ontario have capacity residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The estimated 24,363 ppd or 12.18 tpd generated by the proposed project would be adequately served by the Badlands Sanitary, or El Sobrante landfills.

Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the proposed project during operations, and project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity. Impacts would be less than significant for the operational phase.

Page 129 of 240 ends

 Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities.
 Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler in the service area.
 Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multifamily complex).
 Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement the
requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals.

The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Municipal Code will also be implemented to ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance with § 4.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Code Standards.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed slight increase in residential density would generate additional solid waste than currently anticipated for this area based on current zoning. However, the increase would be nominal relative to the total volume generated in the City, and any future residential development would be required to comply with the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with all applicable state and federal laws, including, but not limited to the City’s municipal code and Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Through application and accordance of the City’s goals, policies, and standards and adherence to all state, federal, and local laws and regulations, the impacts for both the Project site and S330 Replacement Site will remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.15-27 through 4.15-29.)
e. Solid Waste Laws
2543
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 130 of 240 ends

Threshold: Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-27.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1 and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Prior to construction of the proposed Project, onsite structures would need to be demolished and its debris moved offsite to appropriate landfills. The Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm and is improved with several residential structures, dairy barns, storage structure, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. The Project site does not currently contain an existing storm drain or sewer facility, but there are large existing retention ponds that collect the surface and agricultural waste accumulations from the dairy farming practices. The Project site is currently served with three portable water wells as well as two above ground fuel storage tanks and various mechanical systems for dairy production practices.

Therefore, the two landfills have a residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The 3,0411,517 tons of demolition waste that would be disposed of in landfills would occur over a period of approximately two and a half months and would not exceed the daily residual capacity of the landfills.

Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate 24,363 ppd of solid waste.

Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the proposed project during 2544
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 131 of 240 ends

operations, and project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity. Impacts would be less than significant for the operational phase.

Regulatory Compliance
Additionally, Assembly Bill 341 requires all businesses in California that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week to implement one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal:
 Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities.
 Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler in the service area.
 Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multifamily complex).
 Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.

Page 132 of 240 ends

4.15-27 through 4.15-29.)

16. WILDFIRE
a. Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-9.)
Explanation: The Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and the Project site is also not near a Fire Hazard Severity Zone, when using WUI as a measure of proximity. The construction of the proposed Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes. The Project site is relatively flat and there are no steep slopes where high winds can exacerbate wildfire risks. Adjacent areas to the Project site are also urbanized, therefore, there are no wildlands adjacent to the site that may expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope and prevailing winds. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. Less than significant impacts would occur.

CAL FIRE’S FHSZ Viewer Map identifies that the SB330
Replacement Site is not within a Very High FHSZ zone, and is within an LRA zone (it is not within an SRA zone). The replacement site is approximately 9.0 miles northeast from a Very High FHSZ zone located within the City of Ontario. Any future development would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, including applicable provisions of the City’s municipal code related to fire safety and emergency access. Therefore, the proposed slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially severe environmental impact in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-8 through 7-9.)
2546
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 133 of 240 ends

b. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-9.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas The development of the Project would remove the existing agriculture and decrease the risk of any potential fire outbreak. Thus, wildfire is not anticipated to occur on-site that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Worse-case extreme high winds that could exacerbate wildfire would not expose construction workers to pollutant concentrations since all agriculture uses would be removed. The Project site is also in a well vehicularly circulated area with existing roadways which would be further improved once the Project is completed. The site and its surrounding areas do not contain tall trees that would experience a crown fire.

Furthermore, due to the presence of surrounding development, noncontiguous nature of the existing undeveloped areas, presence of area roadways, lack of steep slopes, and concrete construction of the Project, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations. In addition, the surrounding agricultural areas would be separated from the structures by roads, landscaping, parking, and other accommodating Project features. Lastly, the construction of the Project would be predominantly concrete which is not typically susceptible to fire. Specifically, the site would be built consistent with the California Building Code Chapter 7A requiring new buildings to use ignition-resistant construction methods and materials. It is anticipated that these design elements would reduce exposure of the Project site and structure to wildfire. Furthermore, the City’s plan for fire prevention requires that all plans are reviewed and are required for all new buildings and for changes to existing buildings. The OFD reviews these plans to help ensure that the applicable codes, ordinances, and standards are being followed, and to prevent unnecessary hazards. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed slight increase in residential density at the SB330 Replacement Site is not anticipated to result in any new or 2547
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 134 of 240 ends

substantially more severe environmental impact related to wildfire.

No specific development is proposed at this time. Any future development would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, including applicable provisions of the City’s municipal code related to fire safety and emergency access.

Therefore, the proposed slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially severe environmental impact in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-9 through 7-10.) c. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-10.)
Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas The Project would include the construction of roadways, landscaping, signage, lighting, and utility improvements. The Project site is consistent with the area’s land use and would be consistent with the City’s zoning designation upon approval of the proposed zone change. The site is not located near a wildland interface and it is not within a designated Very High FHSZ. The Project site would include installation of utilities and roads within the Project area. The Project does not include any fuel breaks and does not require a fuel break.

In addition, emergency water sources are not required beyond water supply needed to comply with applicable building codes as well as the City’s Municipal Code. No elements of the Project would exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed slight increase in residential density at the SB330 Replacement Site is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact related to wildfire risk. No specific development is proposed at this time. The proposed rezoning would not change the development footprint, nor is it anticipated to require substantial additional infrastructure (beyond what would be required under current zoning) that would, in turn, lead to an increase in wildfire risk. Any future development would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, 2548
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 135 of 240 ends

including applicable provisions of the City’s municipal code related to fire safety and emergency access. Therefore, the proposed slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially severe environmental impact in this regard. (Draft EIR, p. 7-10.)
d. Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-11.)
Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas Aerial imagery indicates that the Project is in a rural part of the City and is not adjacent to a wildland-urban interface or in an area subject to landslide after a wildland fire event. Development of the Project would alter existing ground contours of the Project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns interior to the site.

The Project would include the installation of a 120-inch public storm drain main along Grove Avenue leading south to existing facilities via modification of an existing channel. The overall Project would result in a network of drainage lines on- and off-site to accommodate stormwater runoff flows. The drainage plan for the Project site is designed according to the City of Ontario’s Master Plan standards.

The new storm drain would increase the efficiency of the drainage infrastructure in that area and provide an updated conveyance system. Additional on-site storm drain improvements would include stormwater detention/retention/water quality basins, which would capture, treat, and/or gradually release stormwater into the downstream public storm drain system. On-site stormwater treatment would incorporate underground chambers installed within each building’s parking area. The installation of the drainage design features would prevent flooding on- and off-site. A less than significant impact would occur.

Page 136 of 240 ends

the SB330 Replacement Site is relatively flat, and has a low landslide potential. The proposed rezoning is not otherwise anticipated to result in a new or substantially more severe exposure of people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage change that would, in turn, lead to an increase in wildfire risk. Any future development would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, including applicable provisions of the City’s municipal code related to fire safety and emergency access. Therefore, the proposed slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially severe environmental impact in this regard. (Draft EIR, p. 7-11.)
D. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT

CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

1. AIR QUALITY
a. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-30.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1
Operational LST
Operational emissions are based on CalEEMod operational outputs and conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources, and on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and hostler/yard trucks). In addition, a portion of mobile sources are included to capture on-site vehicle emissions including idling trucks and TRUs.

Based on Project site plans, it was assumed that each vehicle would drive a maximum of one mile on-site (0.5 miles when entering and

0.5 miles when leaving), for a total of 3,616 miles driven on site. In CalEEMod, each passenger car is assumed to drive 33.2 miles and each truck is assumed to drive 80 miles for a total of 152,858 daily miles. Because 3,616 on-site miles is 2.37 percent of the total 152,858 daily miles, on-site mobile emissions are assumed to be three percent of the total mobile emissions. TRU idling is assumed to be 15 minutes, five minutes waiting to check in, five minutes idling at the docking doors, and five minutes waiting to check out. 2550
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 137 of 240 ends

Therefore, on-site TRU emissions are assumed to be a quarter of the total daily emissions . The Phase 1 operational localized emissions shown in Table 4.2-15: Phase 1 – Localized Significance of Operational Emissions of the Draft EIR, indicates that Phase 1 mitigated emissions would not exceed thresholds. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-32.)
Future Development Areas – Phase 2
Operational LST
Operational emissions are based on CalEEMod operational outputs and conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and hostler/yard trucks). In addition, a portion of mobile sources are included to capture on-site vehicle emissions including idling trucks and TRUs.

Because Phase 2 has no conceptual plans yet, it was assumed that vehicle circulation in Phase 2 would be similar that in Phase 1, therefore each vehicle would drive a maximum of one mile on-site (0.5 miles when entering and 0.5 miles when leaving), for a total of 2,507 miles driven on on-site. In CalEEMod, each passenger car is assumed to drive 33.2 miles and each truck is assumed to drive 80 miles for a total of 110,795 daily miles. Because 5,507 on-site miles is 2.35 percent of the total 110,795 daily miles, on-site mobile emissions are assumed to be three percent of the total mobile emissions. TRU idling is assumed to be 15 minutes, five minutes waiting to check in, five minutes idling at the docking doors, and five minutes waiting to check out. Therefore, on-site TRU emissions are assumed to be a quarter of the total daily emissions The Phase 2 operational localized emissions shown in Table 4.2-17: Phase 2 – Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, indicates that Phase 2 mitigated emissions would not exceed thresholds. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-39.)
Conclusion
Project construction and operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and operations would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds, would not create a CO hotspot, and would not generate concentrations of DPM that would result in carcinogenic, chronic, or acute health risk effects.

Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

In addition, the recent adoption of South Coast AQMD’s proposed Rule 2305 (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting) means that the Project operator could potentially be required to pay mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these 2551
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 138 of 240 ends

potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.2-42 through 4.2-43.) MM AQ-1 through AQ-5 require that the Project utilize “Super-Compliant” low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings; only electric-powered equipment be used on-site for daily warehouse and business operations; all truck/dock bays that serve cold storage facilities within the proposed buildings shall be electrified to facilitate plug-in capability and support use of electric standby and/or hybrid electric transport refrigeration units; preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees, thereby increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit; and signage shall be placed at truck loading/parking/access areas to reduce idling emissions. MM AQ-1 through AQ-5 would reduce potential impacts to air quality to a level that is less than significant.

MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Ontario Building Department shall confirm that plans specify that all architectural coatings will be supercompliant low VOC paints.

MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered/zero emissions off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized on-site for daily warehouse and business operations.

The project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electricpowered/zero emissions off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.

Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/business entity, the project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a signed document (verification document) noting that the project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only electric-powered/zero emissions equipment for daily operations. This verification document shall be signed by authorized agents for the project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entities. In 2552
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 139 of 240 ends

addition, if applicable, the tenant/business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electric-powered or produce zero emissions.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario Building Department shall confirm that if emergency generators are proposed, the Project applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible, the Project applicant shall provide written justification to be approved by the City’s Building Department.

MM AQ-3 All truck/dock bays that serve cold storage facilities within the proposed buildings shall be electrified to facilitate plug-in capability and support use of electric standby and/or hybrid electric transport refrigeration units. All site and architectural plans submitted to the City of Ontario Planning Department shall note all the truck/dock bays designated for electrification. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City of Ontario Building Department shall verify electrification of the designated truck/dock bays.

MM AQ-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
 Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the Project site;
 Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day;
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ridematching service; and 2553
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 140 of 240 ends

 Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.

MM AQ-5 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
 Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use
 Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report Violations
 Truck travel is restricted to identified truck routes only In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-19 through

4.2-24.)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1
2554
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 141 of 240 ends

Construction
The duration of construction activities associated with Phase 1 of the Project is estimated to last approximately twelve months.

Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. Typical construction equipment assumed by CalEEMod include industrial saws, excavators, and dozers for demolition; dozers and tractors for site preparation; excavators, graders, dozers, scrapers and tractors for grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders for construction; pavers, paving equipment, and rollers for paving; and air compressors for painting. Predicted maximum daily constructiongenerated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8:

Phase 1 - Construction-Related Emissions of the Draft EIR.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations.

Unmitigated Phase 1 construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the ozone precursor VOC. The majority of these emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction. MM AQ-1 is required to reduce maximum daily VOC emissions below the SCAQMD threshold. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.

Implementation of MM AQ-1 will reduce Phase 1 construction impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-20 through

4.2-21.)
Future Development Areas - Phase 2
Construction
The duration of construction activities associated with Phase 2 of the Project were modeled to last approximately twelve months. The exact construction timeline is unknown; however, to be conservative, earliest dates possible were utilized in the modeling (assumed 2555
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 142 of 240 ends

June 1, 2022). This approach is conservative given that emissions factors decrease in future years due to regulatory and technological improvements and fleet turnover. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B1 for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-10: Phase 2 – Maximum Daily
Construction-Related Emissions.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. SC AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.

Unmitigated Phase 2 construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the ozone precursor VOC. The majority of these emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction which use VOC emitting paints. The VOC exceedance occurs during the painting phase of construction. Low VOC paint must be used during the painting phase to reduce impacts. MM AQ-1 is required to reduce maximum daily VOC emissions below the SCAQMD threshold. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. Implementation of MM AQ-1 will reduce Phase 2 construction impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-23 through 4.2-24.)
SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates.

The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
2556
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 143 of 240 ends

 All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
 All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.  The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
 Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22.) Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I
Construction
A substantial adverse effect to special-status species would occur if the Project would:
1) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a rare, threatened, or endangered species; or 2) Reduce the population size or reduce the area of occupied habitat of a locally uncommon species.

A substantial adverse effect on a special-status wildlife species occurs if the Project would:
1) Increase predation of a species, leading to population reduction;
2) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to affect potential reproduction; or
3) Reduce habitat availability sufficiently to constrain the distribution of a species and not allow for natural changes in distributional patterns over time.

Implementation of the Project site would cover a 219.39-acre area containing four habitat types, including agriculture fields, disturbed 2557
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 144 of 240 ends

agriculture infrastructure, stock/retention ponds and channels, and eucalyptus woodland.

Sensitive Animals
The General Biological Assessment indicated that seven wildlife species could potentially inhabit the Project site due to suitable habitat or foraging opportunities present on-site. The Tricolored blackbird, Grasshopper sparrow, Great blue heron, Swainson’s hawk, California glossy snake, Western Pond Turtle, Western mastiff bat, Yellow rail, California horned lark, and Merlin have the potential to be on-site due to suitable habitat for foraging and nesting purposes. Therefore, implementation of the Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 will require the removal of suitable vegetation be conducted during the off-season and that any nesting surveys occur prior to construction start in accordance with local and state policy and regulations (refer to MM BIO-1 below). With implementation of MM BIO-1, the potential for a species to inhabit the site is reduced to less than significant.

Nesting Birds
Migratory non-game native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA. Additionally, §§3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the CFGC prohibit take of all birds and their active nests. The Project site contains non-native structures, grasses, shrubs and trees including

3.64 acres of Eucalyptus woodland that can support nesting songbirds or raptors and can be used by nesting songbirds or raptors during the nesting bird season of February 1 to September 15. MM BIO-1 will require that nesting bird surveys be conducted prior to construction start to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. There is potential habitat for this species to be present on the Project site. Owl survival can be adversely affected by disturbance (e.g., foraging habitat loss) even when impacts to individual birds and nest/burrows are avoided.

Therefore, construction activity shall be conducted in accordance to the recommended restricted construction activity dates and setback distances by level of disturbance for the BUOW (Scobie and Faminow 2000 in 03/7/12 CDFW BUOW Staff Report) and are provided below in Table 4.3-2, CDFW Recommended Restricted 2558
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 145 of 240 ends

Activity Dates and Setback Distances by Level of Disturbance for BUOW.
2 Several field surveys were conducted to determine the presence of BUOW foraging on or adjacent to the site. Results of the observations recorded during the April-July 2019 focused BUOW breeding season surveys indicated that there were no direct BUOW identifications. None of the potential burrows inspected during the survey were determined to be currently occupied by BUOW based on absence of individual BUOW or signs (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) at or near burrow entrances/aprons.

Despite the fact that the site has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, BUOW often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. If it were later determined that active nests of BUOW would be lost as a result of site-preparation, it could result in significant adverse impacts and would be in conflict with CDFW Code §3503.5, 3511, and 3515. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO 2 would require an avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities before construction starts.

With the implementation of MM BIO-2, impacts would be less than significant.

Overall, implementation of MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 would reduce unknown potential impacts to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through 4.3-19.)
Specific Plan-Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to Phase I discussion above. The General Biological Survey and BUOW Focused surveys were conducted for the entire Project site which includes both Phase I and future development areas.

Therefore, MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 are applicable to both phases.

MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 would ensure that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels during buildout of the entire Specific Plan area.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
According to the City’s TOP Plan, Section ER5 Biological, Mineral & Agricultural Resources, rare and/or endangered species that have the potential to occur in Ontario include Delhi Sands Flower Loving

2 Ecological Sciences. (2020). Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys. Page 6. Accessed April 22, 2021, Available as Appendix C3 2559
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 146 of 240 ends

Fly and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. However, habitat for these species is of poor quality and/or is limited to isolated pockets. The SB330 Replacement Site contains existing residential and agricultural uses, which could potentially contain suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat including other sensitive species. The Project, however, does not propose development of the SB330 Replacement Site. Instead, the Project proposes a rezoning of the area to increase the maximum allowed housing unit density. This action would neither include nor require physical disturbance of the SB330 Replacement Site.

Furthermore, development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR, because this action does not propose any specific construction of new structures or redevelopment of the SB330 Replacement Site other than what was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR (the rezoning does not change the development footprint nor the general nature of land uses for this area). Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Site-specific biological assessments would be conducted prior to any approval or development of potential future residential uses. With compliance with the City’s standard discretionary review process and existing local, state, and federal regulations, no significant impacts are anticipated. Refer to MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2.

Conclusion
The General Biological Assessment conducted by HES concluded that Project implementation would have only a minor risk to candidate, sensitive, or special status species listed in federal, state, regional, and local plans, policies, or regulations. Mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 are also proposed in order to further reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-19 through 4.3-20.)
MM BIO-1 The following measures shall be implemented for the indicated species, prior to commencement of ground disturbance at the Project site:

Tricolored blackbird, Grasshopper sparrow, Great blue heron, Swainson’s hawk, Yellow rail, California horned lark, Merlin:
2560
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 147 of 240 ends

 Vegetation removal is recommended to be conducted outside of the nesting season for migratory birds to avoid direct impacts.  If vegetation removal will occur during the migratory bird nesting season, between February 1 and September 15, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within three days prior to vegetation removal.
 If active nests are found during nesting bird surveys, they shall be flagged. A 250-foot buffer shall be fenced around songbird nests and a 500-foot buffer shall be fenced around raptor nests.  A biological monitor shall visit the site once a week during ground disturbing activities to ensure all fencing is in place and no sensitive species are being impacted.

California glossy snake:
 Three days prior to any ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal, a qualified biological monitor should conduct a preconstruction survey to identify any sensitive biological resources. Any sensitive reptilian species that may be present within the Project area shall be relocated outside of the impact areas.
 Biological monitors shall be on-call to relocate any reptile or amphibian that is encountered during construction activities.

Western mastiff bat:
 Prior to implementation of Project activities that would demolish the agriculture buildings used for sheltering bovines, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey April 1 through August 31 to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats.

If the survey does not identify the presence of occupied roosts, no further action is necessary.
 If day roosts or maternity roosts occupied by special-status bat species are documented within construction areas, the bats shall be safely flushed from the sites where roosting habitat is planned to be removed prior to the month of May (maternity roosts are generally occupied from May to August) and prior to the onset of construction activities. The removal of the roosting sites shall occur during the time of day when the roost is unoccupied. The loss of each roost will be compensated for by the construction and installation of two bat boxes suitable to the bat species and colony size excluded from the original roosting site. The bat boxes shall be installed in the vicinity prior to removal of the original day/maternity roost sites. A detailed program for bat flushing, roosting site removal, and installation of bat boxes shall be developed in consultation with a qualified biologist. The 2561
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 148 of 240 ends

specifications of the bat boxes must be based upon the species of bat and the size of the colony to be affected by the Project. The Bat Management Plan for excluding bats must be developed by the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. The Bat Management Plan will be based upon the species of bat, number of roosts, and the size of the colony to be affected by the Project. Performance standards will be developed based on the results of the bat survey consistent with CDFW recommendations such that no residual significant impacts would remain.

Western pond turtle:
 Within the breeding season (May-July) prior to the onset of construction activities, a CDFW-approved qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction trapping surveys, following U.S.

Geological Survey trapping protocol, for western pond turtle within all areas of any suitable aquatic habitat for this species (e.g., retention and treatment ponds). If western pond turtles are observed or trapped during the pre-construction survey, the Project Proponent shall either avoid impacts to western pond turtle aquatic and terrestrial habitat or shall prepare for CDFW review and approval, a translocation plan identifying proposed protocol for trapping and relocating turtles, including identifying potential, appropriate receiver sites to relocate western pond turtles to. If no western pond turtles are observed during the pre- construction survey, then construction activities may begin.

If construction is delayed or halted for more than 30 days, another pre-construction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted. Within seven days of the pre-construction survey, a report of findings from the survey shall be submitted to the CDFW. During construction, a qualified biological monitor who has been approved by the CDFW to relocate western pond turtles shall be onsite to ensure that no western pond turtles are harmed.  If western pond turtles are observed in the construction area at any time during construction, the onsite biological monitor shall be notified and construction in the vicinity of the sighting shall be halted until such a time as a turtle has been removed from the construction zone and relocated by an approved biologist. If a sighting occurs during construction, the biologist shall prepare a report of the event and submit it to CDFW.

MM BIO-2 Burrowing Owl Surveys. Phase 1: Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit for any ground disturbing activity, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction presence/absence survey 2562
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 149 of 240 ends

for burrowing owls within 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted consistent with the procedures in outlined in the “California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.” If the species is absent, no additional mitigation will be required.

If burrowing owl(s) are observed onsite during the pre-construction clearance survey;
 Prior to disturbance of the occupied burrows, suitable and unoccupied replacement burrows shall be provided at a ratio of 2:1 within designated off-site conserved lands to be identified through coordination with CDFW and the City in which the burrowing owl(s) is(are) detected. A qualified biologist shall confirm that the artificial burrows are currently unoccupied and suitable for use by owls.
 Until suitable replacement burrows have been
provided/confirmed within the off-site conserved lands to be identified through coordination with CDFW and the City of Ontario, no disturbance shall occur within 50 meters
(approximately 160 feet) of occupied burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31) or within 75 meters (approximately 250 feet) during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31).
 Occupied burrows should not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW verifies through non-invasive methods that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.  If burrowing owls are present at the time that the occupied burrows are to be disturbed, then the owls shall be excluded from the site following the 2012 CDFG Staff Report.

Phase 2 and SB 330 Replacement Site: Prior to any site-specific development, potential future residential development would be required to conduct site-specific biological resource surveys, including an arborist report, as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with CEQA and applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
b. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established 2563
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 150 of 240 ends

native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
The Project site is not located within a designated wildlife corridor or linkage. The Project site is currently developed with man-made structures and is surrounded by development and/or existing agricultural and livestock land uses. The site is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Damn Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, the Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor.

However, due to the predominately agricultural land uses, Project construction could potentially disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests. Specifically, Project development may affect the eggs and young of the tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, great blue heron, Swainson’s hawk, yellow rail, California horned lark, and merlin. Disturbing these birds and their nests would be in violation of the MBTA and would result in a significant environmental effect. In order to avoid direct impacts, the Project would implement MM BIO-1 which would require that vegetation removal be conducted outside of the nesting season for migratory birds to avoid direct impacts and that a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be performed within three days prior to vegetation removal. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-24.)
Specific Plan – Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion above. The General Biological Assessment analyzed the whole Project area and therefore, impacts would also be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of MM BIO-1. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-26.)

3. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-22.) Explanation: The California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) records search identified a total of 19 cultural resources investigation that have been previously conducted within a one-mile mile radius buffer around the Project Area, with two studies adjacent to the Project Area (see Table 1 of Appendix D1 of the DEIR). Since 2564
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 151 of 240 ends

completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site.

Despite actions taken to ensure that all cultural resources are identified prior to construction, including record searches and on-site field surveying, there remains a possibility that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources might be encountered during grading activities. If discovered, impacts to those resources would be potentially significant. In order to minimize any potential impact to the environment, impacts to archaeological resources are considered potentially significant and MMs are required to ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered archaeological resources that may be encountered during grading. The application of MM CUL-6 and MM TCR-1 would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.

Following the completion of construction of the Project and disturbances to the site, Project operation will not include further ground disturbing activities, and is not anticipated to cause a substantial or adverse change in the significant of an archaeological resource since construction will be completed and MMs applied.

Therefore, impacts will be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22 through 4.4-23.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The proposed increase in residential density is not anticipated to have any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than what was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. There will be no physical disturbance of the grounds after construction and the Project will comply with all relevant local, state, and federal policies and regulations. Any potential future residential development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process and CEQA compliance, including conducting site-specific cultural resource assessments. The local area is known to contain significant cultural resources, and as such the City anticipates construction monitoring for any new development. MM CUL-6 and MM TCR-1 would apply to any new development in the SB330 Replacement Site area. With implementation of MM CUL-6 below and MM TCR-1, and in consideration of compliance with the City’s standard discretionary review and CEQA compliance process for new development, no significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-23 through

4.4-24.)
MM CUL-6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project site, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work at the Project sites. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 2565
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 152 of 240 ends

The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for their review and approval.

MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Project site, the Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the Project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all grounddisturbing activities on the Project site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.

Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by Project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per PRC § 5097.98, and Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California 2566
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 153 of 240 ends

PRC § 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available.

The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC § 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
b. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-21.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site currently operates with agricultural uses and is frequently disturbed by human and machine activity. A
paleontological resource assessment was prepared for the Project to review the susceptibility of subsurface geologic units to provide paleontological resources as well as review records for fossil localities near the Project site. No paleontological resources or unique geologic formations were identified on the Project site during the field survey. A records search within a one-mile radius of the 2567
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 154 of 240 ends

Project site did not yield any fossil localities and there were no fossil localities identified within the Project site boundaries.

The geologic units underlying the Project site are mapped entirely as younger Quaternary alluvium (Qyfa) dating from the late Holocene to Pleistocene. While these deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils within the uppermost layers, it is likely they are underlain in the area by older Quaternary deposits at relatively shallow but unknown depth. The Project would require remedial grading to remove all existing undocumented fill soils and nearsurface alluvial soils. Preliminarily, the over excavations within the building areas are recommended to extend to a depth of at least four to six feet below existing grades and three to four feet below proposed building pad subgrade elevations. The over excavation should also extend to a depth of at least two to three feet below bearing grade within the influence zones of any new foundations.

These recommendations are subject to review and may be revised based on the results of the design-level geotechnical investigation.

Excavation extending more than 10 feet below surface has the potential to impact the paleontologically sensitive older Quaternary sediments. MCC recommends the Project site be considered low to moderately sensitive to have the potential for construction activities of the Project to impact underlying paleontological resources.

Although no significant paleontological resources are expected to occur, the Project proponents would utilize the services of a Project paleontologist in the case of any inadvertent discoveries. The provisions described in MM GEO-1 would further reduce the impact of the Project on paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant impact levels with mitigation incorporated.

Because fossils may be present at depths greater than 10 feet below the existing ground surface, paleontological spot
checking/monitoring in these areas is required. MM GEO-1 would require a paleontological monitor to ensure that any paleontological finds are properly collected and recorded, and that construction is relocated to assess the find for significance. With the implementation of MM GEO-1, potential impacts associated with paleontological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to paleontological resources have been identified.
2568
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 155 of 240 ends

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Similar to the Specific Plan site, potential future development of the SB330 Replacement Site could result in impacts to paleontological resources. However, no specific development is proposed at this time, and the impacts would be similar to those evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the OMC and CEQA compliance. The proposed rezoning allows for a slight increase in residential density, which is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. In consideration of the above, and with implementation of MM GEO-1, a less than significant impact is anticipated . MM GEO-1 will be applied to the SB330 Replacement Site. Although no significant paleontological resources are expected to occur, the proposed project proponents would utilize the services of a project paleontologist in the case of any inadvertent discoveries.

The provisions described in MM GEO-1 would further reduce the impact of the potential development of the SB330 Replacement Site on paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant impact levels with mitigation incorporated.

Conclusion
Although no significant paleontological resources are expected to occur for the Project site, and if proposed development of the SB330 Replacement Site were to occur, they would be subject to project proponents which would utilize the services of a project paleontologist in the case of any inadvertent discoveries. The provisions described in MM GEO-1, below, would further reduce the impact of the Project and SB330 Replacement Site development on paleontological resources or unique geologic features to less than significant impact levels with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.5-21 through 4.5-23.)
MM GEO-1 Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of five feet to determine if older, paleontologically sensitive sediments are present. If present, monitoring would be implemented. Prior to the start of construction, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. The Project’s PRMP would implement the following procedures:
2569
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 156 of 240 ends

 A trained and qualified paleontological monitor would perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any excavations on the
Project that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native sediments below five feet in depth. The monitor would have the ability to redirect
construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
 The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from Lead
Agency and Client representatives.
 Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology professional
standards.
 Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
 A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate personnel.

5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction
Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. According to the City’s Fire Department Hazardous Materials standards, the materials used would be in small quantities or stored in such a manner as to reduce any safety hazards. The use of these materials would be temporary and short-term or single-use in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project’s construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct the safe 2570
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 157 of 240 ends

handling of hazardous materials use as proposed in Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-4.

Project construction would involve the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and would therefore be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would be less than significant.

Grading Activities
Grading activities conducted during Project construction would lead to the disturbance of on-site soils. There is the potential for the discovery of contamination during grading activities due to potential for chemical constituents to accumulate in the ponds and become trapped in the sediment (i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, or chemicals).

The handling and transport of these materials and exposure to contaminated soils for workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact. Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of offsite in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines.

MM HAZ-2 would further reduce these risks. Site grading also requires the removal of ASTs, where areas of staining were observed, and septic tanks prior to site development. A demolition permit from San Bernardino County Building & Safety Division will be required to remove the septic tank(s). MM HAZ-5 would be applied to these activities prior to the commencement of construction activities.

The historic and current use of the Project site as a dairy-production farm may produce methane gas in the subsurface from animal wastes. MM HAZ-1 would be applied in order to minimize risks associated with the risk of methane encountered on the Project site.

Demolition
Demolition of buildings and equipment on Project site has the potential to expose and disturb ACMs, PCBs, LBP, and mercury. Site buildings were constructed prior to bans on ACMs, PCBs, and LBP coming into effect. Such releases could pose significant risks to 2571
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 158 of 240 ends

persons living and working in and around the Project site, as well as to Project construction workers. Before demolition, a comprehensive ACM survey would be conducted to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures as part of MM HAZ-6.

MM HAZ-6 would be incorporated to reduce the risk from ACMs.

Survey of existing structures prior to demolition would assist in characterizing the potential exposure and further prevent impacts from the potential release of these materials. The removal of hazardous materials, such as PCBs, mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, shall be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273
(mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the HAZWOPER training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192. The removal of LBP material shall be implemented in accordance with CCR, Title 8 §1532.1, the CFR (Title 40, Part 745, and Title 29, Part 1926), the U.S. EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program Rules and Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Program, and §§402/404 and 403, and Title IV of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The potential for the exposure of construction workers to ACMs, PCBs, LBP, or mercury is a potentially significant impact. Survey of existing on-site structures prior to their demolition would be required to characterize the potential exposure and further prevent impacts from the potential release of these materials. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-16 through 4.7-18.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is characterized by agricultural and urban development consisting of single-family residential units, agricultural plots, vacant land, and some commercial uses. The SB330 Replacement Site had not been previously subject to a Phase I ESA. Once development is proposed, it will undergo the same processes as noted for the Project site.

Similar to the Project site, potential future development of the SB330 Replacement Site could result in impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, no specific development is proposed at this time, and the impacts would be similar to those evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site 2572
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 159 of 240 ends

area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process and existing local, state, and federal regulations as described under Regulatory Framework above, including the City Municipal Code and CEQA compliance. The proposed rezoning allows for a slight increase in residential density, which is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR.

MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 would also apply to the SB330 Replacement Site. In consideration of the above, and with implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6, a less than significant impact is anticipated would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-18 through 4.7-19.)
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with DTSC methane assessment guidelines. The Project Applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This survey and recommendation shall include a post-construction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 parts per million volume (ppmv), should any such levels occur.

MM HAZ-2 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project Applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animal-related wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/sampling shall be investigated, and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to 2573
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 160 of 240 ends

verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.

MM HAZ-3 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and include the following:
 A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that ESLs for nonresidential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the State to accept hazardous materials.  Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the DTSC Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (DTSC- SLi) and the U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (EPA- RSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
 The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection. Each contractor will be required to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general Project safety requirements. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
 The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and 2574
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 161 of 240 ends

sampling frequency. Anticipated testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, SCAQMD Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as
contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under SCAQMD Rule 1166,
contaminated soils shall be transported from the Project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed
storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.  All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and Project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.

MM HAZ-4 Construction period testing. Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface.

The CRMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and
groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations.

The CRMP shall:
 Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively.
 Require the preparation of a Project-specific HSP that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and training for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the personnel responsible for HSP implementation.
 Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously unknown hazardous materials be encountered during construction activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or 2575
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 162 of 240 ends

groundwater samples in the newly discovered affected area by a qualified environmental professional prior to further work, as appropriate. The analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency. The
environmental professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these
recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the County or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
 Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction and demolition permits. This measure would reduce the hazards and hazardous materials impact to a less-than-significant level.

MM HAZ-5 Prior to the commencement of any construction related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all ASTs shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required SBCFD Hazardous Materials Division regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I ESA dated October 11, 2018, soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment.

MM HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project Applicant shall conduct a comprehensive ACM survey to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures. The Project Applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403.
b. Accident or Upset
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
2576
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 163 of 240 ends

Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-22.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction
The construction of new developments such as the Project site could result in hazards to the public or the environment through the accidental upset or release of hazardous materials caused by accidental spillage of hazardous materials used during construction phases, or as a result of the exposure of contaminated soil during grading activities. Database searches did not reveal any USTs. The Project site itself is not on a Cortese list. The closest UST that is listed is a site 0.22 miles away, located at the Chino Road Yard at 7000 Merrill Avenue, which is currently under military evaluation and the status remains inactive. Additionally, the Project site has not been cited or issued violation notices by any environmental regulatory agency for improper use or disposal of hazardous materials.

Compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable regulations, such as RCRA, for the clean-up and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility under SCAQMD Rule 1166. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by San Bernardino County Fire Protection District would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Project construction workers would also be required to conduct safe handling of hazardous materials as proposed in MM HAZ-4.

Implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6 will further reduce the potential for accidental upset conditions by conducting additional site investigations to quantify, manage and mitigate hazardous materials conditions on the site. As a result, with the implementation of MMs, impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site is not anticipated to have any new or substantially more severe impacts than addressed under the City’s TOP EIR, or that would occur under current zoning, because the uses will be substantially the same as that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. These potential impacts are anticipated to be similar to that described above for the Project site. Rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site to provide slightly greater residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe 2577
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 164 of 240 ends

pollutants than would occur under current zoning. The SB330 Replacement site would be subject to MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ6, as well as other applicable local, state, and federal regulations as described in the DEIR, including the City’s standard discretionary review process, the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance. In consideration of the above, a less than significant impact is anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-22 through 4.7-23.)
c. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-25.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site contains approximately 19.0 acres of areas with stock/retention ponds and channels. These ponds and channels are man-made and fed by wells. The ponds are dry and dominated by upland species. However, as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes, this can pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). Therefore, with implementation of MM HAZ-2, the Project site shall have a Phase II subsurface assessment performed of the sediments after the ponds have been drained. If the Phase II subsurface assessment detects chemical risks to human health and the environment due to sediments in the ponds, the Project applicant is required to prepare a soils management plan, and any engineering or administrative controls or long‐term operations and maintenance plan that is required by DTSC. The Project site was not identified on the Waste Discharge System database as a site that would pose a significant threat to water quality. Furthermore, this site is not listed to have any Cortese List items. The nearest active facility to the Project site listed under the DTSC Cortese List is located approximately 5 miles north. Lastly, according to the SWRCB Geotracker for leaking underground storage tanks, the Project site is approximately half a mile north from an open Cleanup Program Site dedicated to remediation. Therefore, with incorporation of MM HAZ-2, the Project site would not create a significant impact to the public environment.

SB330 Replacement site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is characterized by agricultural and urban development consisting of single-family residential units, agricultural plots, and some commercial uses. The SB330 Replacement Site had not been previously subject to Phase I 2578
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 165 of 240 ends

Environmental Site Assessment. The present hazardous conditions of the SB330 Replacement Site are unknown, but because no new development has occurred, the existing structures have not been formally evaluated. The nearest facility to the SB330 Replacement Site listed under the DTSC Cortese List is located approximately 2 miles north. The SB330 Replacement Site is not near any other waste listed facilities.

Conclusion
Neither the Project site nor the SB330 Replacement Site contains sites that are listed on the Cortese List pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. With mitigation incorporated, a less than significant impact will occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-25 through 4.7-26.)

6. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-12.) Explanation: MCC’s search of the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) yielded negative results regarding the presence of tribal cultural resources. Since completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site. Therefore, the Project site is considered archaeologically sensitive and could cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible in the CRHR, should such resources be discovered during grading. Further, as required by MM TCR-1 a Qualified Archaeologist would consult with local experts and Native American Representatives for the preparation of a treatment plan, respectively, if significant unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction mass grading and trenching activities.
2579
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 166 of 240 ends

Implementation of the proposed Project could result in disturbance or destruction of unknown buried tribal cultural resources that were not identified during previous studies or site evaluation. MM CUL-6 and MM TCR-1 include provisions that will ensure the protection of any unknown or inadvertently discovered archaeological resources and human remains, or other cultural significant resources. All such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed increase in residential density is not anticipated to have any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. Any potential future residential development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process and CEQA compliance, including conducting site-specific cultural resource assessments. The local area is known to contain significant cultural resources, and as such the City anticipates construction monitoring for any new development. MM CUL-6 and MM TCR-1 would apply to any new development in the SB330 Replacement Site area. With
implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1, and in consideration of compliance with the City’s standard discretionary review and CEQA compliance process for new development, no significant impacts are anticipated.

Conclusion
Buildout of the Project and the future buildout of the SB330 Replacement Site would not cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible in the CRHR with proper mitigation implemented. All such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-12 through 4.14.-13.)
E. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT

CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
2580
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 167 of 240 ends

1. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-10.) Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase 1/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project proposes to convert the existing Prime Farmland, Grazing Land, and Other Land on-site into a 219.39-acre business park and industrial/warehousing usage. Impacts to the agricultural lands as a result of such conversion is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact for which the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in January 2010, as part of the City’s TOP EIR approval, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15093. Likewise, the implementation of the Land Use Plan of TOP would potentially convert all acres of the City’s Important Farmland to non-farmland uses, including residential, commercial, mixed-use, public, open space, and industrial. The City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses. While existing agricultural uses would be allowed to persist, the Land Use Plan does not designate these areas for agricultural land uses.

The Proposed Land Use Plan Map in the TOP EIR identifies the Specific Plan – Phase 2 Area, west of Bon View Avenue, within a Southern California Land Foundation (SoCALF) Preserve overlay.

Although the intent of the SoCALF Preserves is to preserve Important Farmland, the SoCALF Preserves do not guarantee that Important Farmland would not be converted to non-agricultural uses within the City. The Overlay Zoning provides for agricultural uses within the City on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with TOP occurs. TOP‘s primary focus from converting agricultural land is to develop land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population. Ontario’s future development emphasizes mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable. The Project would be consistent with TOP as it would support development of land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population but would convert Prime Farmland and the SoCALF Preserve for urban uses. Therefore, Project
implementation would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland to non2581 Resolution No. 2022-

Page 168 of 240 ends

agricultural use. Note, as stated previously, the City has previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural lands with full buildout of TOP, which allows the decision-making body of the City to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIR.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Portions of the 473-acre SB330 Replacement Site along Grove Avenue consist of approximately 80 acres of Prime Farmland. These areas historically and currently are used for agricultural purposes.

According to the CIFF, the SB330 Replacement Site mostly contains Other Land within its boundaries, which are not agriculturally significant. Construction and operation of the SB330 Replacement Site would convert Prime agricultural land to urban uses. However, conversion of agricultural land was already addressed in the City’s TOP EIR to be aligned with the City’s Land Use Plan, therefore accounting for the removal of agricultural land to no longer be economically infeasible. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site has no additional impacts that were not already evaluated in the TOP EIR, as there is no change in the development area. Therefore, consistent with Findings of the City’s TOP EIR, rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would result in potentially significant impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact is significant, unavoidable, and unmitigable.

Conclusion
As stated above, the City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population. Thus, the City’s future development emphasizes mixeduse, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable. Development and implementation of TOP would have significant impacts on agricultural resources in the City.

With the development of the Project site and SB330 Replacement Site, a significant and unavoidable impact will occur. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-10 through 4.1-11.)
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses.

This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. 2582
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 169 of 240 ends

The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying.

In accordance with the findings of the TOP EIR mitigation measures implemented, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts regarding agricultural conversion to levels that would be less than significant. According to the TOP EIR findings, while the City maintains a Right-to-Farm ordinance, use of farm equipment and odors associated with dairy farming in the Ontario Ranch area is not compatible with densities proposed in the City’s Land Use Plan. Furthermore, several mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of TOP on agriculture were considered; however the agriculture development within the City burdened the San Bernardino County region with air quality issues resulting from methane, water quality pollution, and hazardous emissions. None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The measures considered are discussed further below. Furthermore, conversion of agricultural lands and loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the Project have already been considered and addressed in the TOP EIR.

The Specific Plan build-out area is designated for urban development pursuant to the TOP. Existing agricultural uses are in various stages of converting to urban uses that are consistent with the TOP. As the agricultural uses diminish, so too are the necessary support uses such as feed stores, agricultural equipment sales and rentals, and manure services. In addition, as described previously, dairy farming has become less and less viable in the City’s region. The dairy industry in the County has consistently and sharply declined since 2000, and incentives to convert to urban uses are increasing. Existing agricultural uses within the City are becoming economically unsustainable and represent land uses that are increasingly incongruous with continuing urbanization of the City.

Transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the TOP. The TOP EIR considered various mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to agricultural resources but concluded that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the loss of agriculture to levels that would be less than significant. TOP EIR mitigation measures that were considered and rejected are described below.

Ontario Plan EIR Mitigation Measure: Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses.

Retention of agricultural uses within the City would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Moreover, TOP does not envision long-term use of City properties for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced in the adopted Land Use Plan, which does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City. Preservation of agricultural land uses would therefore conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. The “Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan.

Additionally, economic viability of agricultural uses in the City has declined as a result of losing many of the necessary support services. Increasing urbanization, rising land 2583
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 170 of 240 ends

values, and relatively high operational costs have also put City agricultural and dairy farming uses at a competitive disadvantage in regional markets. Ultimately, the long-term viability of agriculture within the City is limited due to the increasing land values, increased water costs, higher labor costs, higher property taxes, competition from other parts of the state, and the growing urbanization of the area. Based on the preceding, retention of onsite agricultural uses is considered economically infeasible.

Ontario Plan EIR Mitigation Measure: Replacement of Agricultural Resources OffSite. Replacement of agricultural resources at an off-site location would require the Project applicant to purchase off-site replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status. Creation of additional Farmland in the City is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. The potential to provide off-site mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural uses was considered but rejected as infeasible in the Policy Plan EIR. Using another area within the Project site area for mitigation of impacts related to the Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of on-site mitigation. Therefore, similar to the reasons why on-site mitigation is not feasible, off-site mitigation within the Project site is also infeasible. In addition, off-site mitigation within the region is also considered infeasible due to the decreasing economic vitality of agriculture in the Project area and southern California and increased urbanization pressures on existing agricultural lands.

Further, the creation of new Farmland-status properties outside the City is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.

Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site” mitigation strategy would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts. Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at off-site locations is considered infeasible.

Ontario Plan EIR Mitigation Measure: Relocation of Prime Farmland Topsoil.

Relocation of Farmland topsoil would entail removal of the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from Farmland properties and the placement of this soil at sites that have lesser quality soil. This would promote creation of new or additional Farmland status properties in the City, rather than provide for their transition to urban uses. This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor Project applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.

Further, creation of new Farmland-status properties by means of imported Farmland topsoil is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant's control. The Farmland status 2584
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 171 of 240 ends

at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.

Additionally, excavation and relocation of topsoil would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts affecting biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. Based on the preceding, relocation of Prime Farmland topsoil is considered infeasible.

Ontario Plan EIR Mitigation Measure: Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves. Establishment of conservation easements or preserves is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision providing for transition of agricultural uses to urban uses. This mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment to the Policy Plan. The City has not indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired and has initiated no such action. At the Project site, establishment of agricultural conservation easements or preserves would negate the Project, resulting in a No-Build condition.

Based on the preceding, the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.

Ontario Plan EIR Mitigation Measure: Payment in Lieu or Transfer of Development Rights. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provides the following summary of description and application of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs:

TDR “is a device by which the development potential of a site is severed from its title and made available for transfer to another location. The owner of a site within a transfer area retains property ownership, but not approval to develop. The owner of a site within a receiving area may purchase transferable development rights, allowing a receptor site to be developed at a greater density.”
TDR is most commonly used to preserve agricultural lands, but it can also be used for preserving natural, open space. TDR programs can vary depending on the need of the local jurisdiction but in general there are a few common factors that contribute to the success of a TDR program. These include having a donor site with development constraints, appropriate zoning regulations, and infrastructure requirements.

The Project site is not currently entitled for development absent an adopted Specific Plan, and it is unclear what, if any, development rights would be transferred under a TDR program. Further, there is no designated or contemplated receiving area to accept these development rights. Moreover, a TDR program would preserve agricultural uses at the Project site rather than further planned transition of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses as envisioned under TOP. This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously.
2585
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 172 of 240 ends

The City has not implemented a TDR Program. Implementation of a TDR program would require amending the City Development Code and comprehensive amendment of TOP.

Neither the City nor Project applicant has indicated that such amendments are warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such actions. Based on the preceding, implementation of a “Transfer of Development Rights Program” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.

The City has considered but rejected the collection of fees for off-site mitigation of agricultural impacts. Neither the City nor the adjoining counties have adopted fee programs. Absent viable programs in the region, the imposition of fees would not serve to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, an off-site fee mitigation program would not avoid the loss of farmland; would not minimize the effect of the Project; would not repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland; and, absent a viable fee program, would not replace affected farmland with substitute farmland. Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate or substantially lessen the significant impact of the Project, per State CEQA Guidelines § 15370. The same factors that make on-site mitigation infeasible would apply off-site in the region as well. The challenges to continued agricultural production in the Chino Basin area, also challenge agriculture throughout southern California.

Off-site mitigation would require the City to purchase replacement acreage for Important Farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland.

However, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City or the County. In addition, experience indicates a program consisting of the required purchase of agricultural easements on other land or through fee programs for the acquisition of agricultural easements would be of limited utility or benefit. Such a program is inherently dependent upon voluntary agreements by farm owners to sell such easements on their property for an agreed price, which, within the City, is largely driven by TOP land use designations, population growth, urbanization of the surrounding area, and the limited supply of suitable farmland. In remote areas not planned for development in the near-term, owners may be more willing to sell such an easement at a reasonable price but within the region much of the land is already subject to development pressure.

As a result, the most likely result would be a “patchwork” of easements, with some owners more willing than others to sell them, potentially creating a more dispersed development pattern and loss of viability of farmland over time, which would not serve as a feasible measure to mitigate the loss of farmland by the Project. Neither the City nor the County have adopted programs for the acquisition of off-site agricultural easements.

Consequently, for the reasons previously outlined, it is determined that off-site mitigation of agricultural resources is neither feasible nor effective in mitigating such impacts.

Overall, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified to substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland and conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This finding is consistent with the finding in TOP EIR 2586
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 173 of 240 ends

that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts on Important Farmland or the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and thus impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-12 through 4.1-16.) b. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-16.) Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is currently zoned Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay, according to the City’s Zoning Map. It also contains an operational dairy farm and other structures and equipment associated with agricultural use. Construction of this Project will remove the agricultural land, converting it to Business Park and Industrial General uses.

When the City annexed all of the land within the Ontario Ranch area, including the Specific Plan area, it was zoned Specific Plan, with an Agricultural Overlay Zoning District (Section F of Division 5.01 of the Ontario Development Code). The Overlay Zoning provides for agricultural uses within the City on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with TOP occurs. The operation of the on-site dairy and row crops and the urban development that is proposed by the Specific Plan are consistent with this ordinance. The Specific Plan will not conflict with the Agricultural Overlay Zoning, and impacts related to a conflict with the overlay will not occur.

According to the City’s Williamson Act Contracts Status Update, the Project site contains eight parcels under Williamson Act contracts.

These parcels encompass approximately 74 acres of land and will expire as of the year 2027. According to TOP EIR, a number of Williamson Act contracts exist within the City that have yet to expire.

As stated previously, any land held in a Williamson Act contract will have to be filed for nonrenewal and the contract will have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it. Since the adoption of TOP, notices of nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts have been filed by property owners of a large portion of the agricultural preserve property within Ontario Ranch. The filing of nonrenewal notices by the property owners is reflective of the lack of a long-term commitment to agricultural uses in this area. For the remaining active contracts, buildout of TOP would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of these contracts. The current use of these contracts would slow the rate of conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural land, but it would not prevent the conversion. Since the Project has active Williamson Act contracts, implementation of the Proposed Land Use Plan for TOP would conflict with these 2587
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 174 of 240 ends

contracts and cause a significant impact unless the contracts are canceled prior to development. With MM AG-1 applied, in order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan shall be provided with a notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent.

The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would affect lands that are zoned agricultural and could affect lands with Williamson Act contracts (depending on the specific site for future residential development, as no site-specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site as part of this Project). Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, although the loss of agricultural land was addressed in the City’s TOP EIR and discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the current TOP. As stated above, the impact is significant and unavoidable, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1.

Conclusion
Both the Project site and SB330 Replacement Site contain land with active Williamson Contracts. Each site will be developed on land with agricultural usage. The impact would be significant and unavoidable, although consistent with impacts addressed in the City’s TOP EIR and for which were addressed in the City's previously adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-18.)
c. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, 4.1-19.) Explanation: Specific Plan Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The development of the Project will result in the conversion of the existing agricultural uses that include over 150 acres of Prime 2588
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 175 of 240 ends

Farmland to an urban or non-agricultural use. The development of the Specific Plan, which is consistent with TOP, would occur as part of a wider pattern of development in the Ontario Ranch area and other agricultural land would likely be converted to non-agricultural use as allowed by TOP land use designations. The conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses was analyzed in the TOP EIR, which determined that there would be no agricultural land use designations in the City. The City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses.

While existing agricultural uses would be allowed to persist, the proposed land use plan for the City designates these areas for nonagricultural land uses provided that equivalent Important Farmland is preserved elsewhere, or funds associated with the 1988 Park Bond Act are returned. Therefore, these existing agricultural uses would be converted to nonagricultural uses upon buildout of TOP. Furthermore, although the intent of the SoCALF Preserves was to preserve Important Farmland in perpetuity in this area of the City, the preserves do not guarantee that Important Farmland would not be converted to nonagricultural uses. Important farmland outside of these preserves may be converted to nonagricultural uses without requiring the County to repay the funding to the state or relocating the farmland elsewhere in the San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserve. Development and implementation of the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources in the Project area.

The Specific Plan could promote and encourage urban growth by contributing to the urban development of other nearby agricultural lands. Development proposals for substantial portions of the area around the site are pending, and development of the Specific Plan could facilitate the conversion of other farmland within the Project vicinity through the extension of public infrastructure and increases in land values. The majority of properties surrounding the site are currently utilized for agricultural operations; however, there is encroaching land development consistent with TOP.

Although implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of agricultural land to other uses, it is occurring consistently with the previously identified policies in the TOP EIR.

Thus, consistent with the findings of the TOP EIR and which were acknowledged in a previously adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations, Project impacts related to other changes in the environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural would be significant and unavoidable.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
2589
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 176 of 240 ends

No portion of the SB330 Replacement Site is designated as a SoCALF Preserve. However, development and implementation of the SB330 Replacement Site would have significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources in the Project area, consistent with what was previously disclosed in the TOP EIR.

Conclusion
Altering the land from agricultural development will promote further growth and future development within the City, increasing economic prosperity. However, this conversion from agricultural land to business park and industrial will have significant and unavoidable impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-19 through 4.1-20.)

2. AIR QUALITY
a. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.) Explanation: The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB or SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP
establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S.

EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

Specific Plan – Phase 1
Consistency Criterion No. 1
As shown in Table 4.2-8 of the DEIR, Phase 1 of the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with the implementation of MM AQ-1. After MM AQ-1 is implemented, the maximum mitigated emissions are the following: 51.79 VOC, 99.13 CO, 0.59, 36.76 PM10,10.97 PM2.5. These emissions are the reduced result of MM AQ-1 through “super-compliant” low VOC paints.
2590
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 177 of 240 ends

However, as identified in Table 4.2-9 of the DEIR, Phase 1 operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD operational threshold of 55 for VOC and 55 for NOX. MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 are included to reduce operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible; however even with mitigation, VOC and NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds of 55 for each. The Project VOC and NOx emissions would be 82.28 and 295.28, respectively. Therefore, Phase 1 of the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.

Consistency Criterion No. 2
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Phase 1 of the Project would result in a change of land use designations not reflected in the AQMP. Therefore, Phase 1 of the Project is conservatively assumed to generate emissions not reflected within the current 2016 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, Phase 1 of the Project is not consistent with the second criterion.

Future Development Areas – Phase 2
Consistency Criterion No. 1
As shown in Table 4.2-10 of the DEIR, Phase 2 of the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with the implementation of MM AQ-1, which would reduce VOC emissions to 36.66, far below the 75 VOC emission limit. However, as identified in Table 4.2-11 of the DEIR, Phase 2 operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD operational threshold for VOC (55) and NOX (55). MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 are included to reduce operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible, however even with mitigation, VOC and NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold at a total of 57.43 emissions for VOC and 154.4 emissions for NOX.

Therefore, Phase 2 of the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.

Consistency Criterion No. 2
Similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 of the Project would also result in a change of land use designations not reflected in the AQMP.

Therefore, Phase 2 of the Project is also conservatively assumed to generate emissions not reflected within the current 2016 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, Phase 2 of the Project is not consistent with the second criterion.

Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)
2591
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 178 of 240 ends

Phase 1 and Phase 2 individually were not consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2) would also not be consistent with criterion 1 and criterion 2.

Conclusion
Implementation of the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds following completion of Phase 1 and at Project Buildout. Although Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would reduce project emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.

In addition, in accordance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points.

The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-16 through 4.2-19.)
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 through 4.2-27.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-9 of the DEIR. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.

As indicated in Table 4.2-9 of the DEIR, operation of Phase 1 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC and NOX. The majority of the Project’s VOC emissions are from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operational-source VOC emissions cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold.

The majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions 2592
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 179 of 240 ends

to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through AQ5 have been identified to reduce operational NOX emissions from Project mobile sources. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical offroad equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage. MM AQ4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce singleoccupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. Additionally, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Table 4.2-9 of the DEIR shows that with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s
thresholds, therefore impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-24 through 4.2-27.)
Future Development Areas - Phase 2
Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-11 of the DEIR. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.

As indicated in Table 4.2-11 of the DEIR, operation of Phase 2 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC and NOX. Similar to Phase 1, the majority of the Phase 2’s VOC emissions are from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operational-source VOC emissions cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold.

Similar to Phase 1, the majority of the Phase 2’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 have been identified to reduce operational NOX emissions from Project mobile sources. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage. MM AQ-4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit.

Additionally, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

Table 4.2-11 of the DEIR shows that with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-24 through 4.2-26.)
2593
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 180 of 240 ends

Overlapping Construction + Operation (Phase 1 Operation with Phase 2 Construction)
Phase 1 Operations
Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants from Phase 1 would be from motor vehicle use and area sources.
 Area Source Emissions and Energy Source Emissions.

Area source emissions and energy source emissions are
based on land use and the area of the buildings. Phase 1 air quality modeling is based on 601,128 square feet of business park, 334,315 square feet of refrigerated warehouse, and 2,237,337 square feet of unrefrigerated warehouse.
 Mobile Source Emissions. Project-generated vehicle
emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I of the DEIR) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the
SCAQMD. Per the Project Traffic Impact Analysis, Phase 1 of the Project would generate a total of 7,288 daily trips; 5,830 passenger vehicle trips from employees and 1,458 trips from trucks (2-axle, 3-axle, and 4+ axle delivery trucks) (Appendix I of the DEIR).
 Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) Emissions. Based on 125 trucks accessing refrigerated warehouse with TRUs per day.
 Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Modeling assumed 12
forklifts per building (total 96), each operating eight hours per day loading and unloading goods. Off-road emissions also include one hostler/yard truck per building (total eight), each operating four hours per day moving trailers.

Phase 2 Construction
Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer
program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction
requirements. See Appendix B1 of the DEIR for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis.

Predicted maximum daily emissions from overlapping Phase 2 construction with Phase 1 operations are summarized in Table

4.2-12a: Emissions from Overlapping Phase 1 Operation and Phase 2 Construction of the Final EIR.

Project emissions from the operation of Phase 1 combined with concurrent construction of Phase 2 could result in maximum worst case daily emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10 in excess of applicable SCAQMD thresholds (in accordance with SCAQMD recommendations, emissions form overlapping scenarios should be compared to the more stringent operational significance 2594
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 181 of 240 ends

thresholds). Overlapping emissions of CO, SOx, and PM2.5 would not exceed applicable thresholds
Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints to reduce maximum daily VOC emissions from surface coating phase of construction. The majority of NOX emissions during operation of Phase 1 are from on-road mobile sources; however, emissions from on-road motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 have been identified to reduce operational NOX
emissions from Project mobile sources. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage. MM AQ-4 requires the
implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. Additionally, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Even with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10 during overlapping operation and construction would remain in excess of applicable thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to impacts for project buildout, discussed below. (Final EIR, pp. 3-3 through 3-6.)
Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)
Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total Project are summarized in Table 4.2-12b of the Final EIR. (Final EIR, p. 3-6.) Total operation emissions for Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. The majority of the Project’s VOC emissions are from consumer products and cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold with mitigation.

The majority of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5emissions are from mobile sources. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 have been identified to reduce operational emissions from mobile sources. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit.

Additionally, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

Table 4.2-12b of the FEIR shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5, emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR, p. 3-6.) 2595
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 182 of 240 ends

3. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-20.) Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase 1/Future Development Areas Construction and Operation
Under CEQA, a project has a significant impact on a historical resource if it “would result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired” (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1)).

Material impairment would occur if the Project would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance (State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(2)).

Potential historical resources in the Project study area consist of the Borba main house, the manager’s house, the Boersma house, the Borba main dairy barn/milking parlor, the Borba auxiliary dairy barn/milking parlor, the Boersma dairy barn/milking parlor, four single-family residences, an older barn, and structures associated with a dairy farm operation. Potential historical resources were evaluated to determine if they are considered historically significant resources. Consistent with the direction provided by the City, the assessment of the Project site’s historical resources found significance of the dairy farm or its structures as they are recognized likely eligible for listing on the local inventory. As proposed, these buildings would be demolished to facilitate development of the Project.

Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant (impacts to residences and/or dairy properties) and mitigation would be required.

The application of MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5 that are in place for demolition of historic resources within the City and impact reducing Project features, would extend to the development and operations of the future development areas.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The City’s TOP EIR evaluated development of the SB330
Replacement Site. The Project proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330. However, the Project does not change the development area evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. In addition, the Project does not propose development of the SB330 Replacement Site. This action would neither include nor 2596
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 183 of 240 ends

require physical disturbance of the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, State and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Site-specific historic resource assessments as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. Furthermore, development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR.

MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of a building grading permit, every effort shall be made to relocate the following buildings:
 Boersma House – 14746 S. Grove Avenue
 Dairy/Milk Parlor (Boersma) – adjacent to above address  Borba House – 7955 Eucalyptus Avenue
The buildings shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate off-site. Advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the buildings shall be placed for a minimum of 45 days: onsite with temporary signage, in at least 3 local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards (realtor’s offices, local business). Applicant shall notify a minimum of 3 non-profit heritage organizations in writing of the building.

MM CUL-2 Full documentation, including as-built drawing of elevations, architectural details, floor plan and site plan, and photographs following Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards, of the historic resource shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval and subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room prior to issuance of demolition building permit. One archival and one non-archival copy submitted to the Planning Department is required.

MM CUL-3 A mitigation fee pursuant to § 7.01.030 of the Ontario Development Code shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to issuance of any building permit. The mitigation fee is equal to 10% (moderate) or 20% (high) of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data. The applicable percentage is determined by the level of integrity of the resource. The fee amount will be provided by the Planning Department at the time of payment.

MM CUL-4 A determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged shall be made by the Planning Department. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation and donation of such 2597
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 184 of 240 ends

items selected for salvaging. An inventory of salvaged items shall be provided by the applicant to the Planning Department prior to be to issuance of demolition permit.

MM CUL-5 Develop a historic context report for significant persons in the dairy farm industry such as the Borba family.

4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-16.) Explanation: Construction associated with the Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project Site. Construction-related emissions are only temporary and would cease once construction is complete. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions .

Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project.

GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.

Specific Plan – Phase 1
Construction
As shown in Table 4.6-2 of the DEIR, Phase 1 would result in the generation of approximately 3,298.72 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 109.86 MTCO2e per year.

Operations
Operational GHG emissions associated with the Phase 1 are summarized in Table 4.6-3 of the DEIR. Along with the emissions calculated by CalEEMod, Table 4.6-3 of the DEIR also includes emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRU). Table 4.6-3 of the DEIR shows that the unmitigated Project would generate
approximately 46,341 MTCO2e per year.
2598
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 185 of 240 ends

Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.2 (Air Quality) of the DEIR that would reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.6-3 of the DEIR under “mitigated.” Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks that would also reduce GHG emissions from combustion engines.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage to reduce GHG emissions from TRUs.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit, reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks.

With the implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-5, Phase 1 would generate approximately 44,526 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.

Phase 1 of the Project will comply with the City’s Community CAP.

Since emissions from Phase 1 of the Project exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, the Project is presumed to have a potentially significant GHG emissions impact. To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amount feasible, MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, Projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant.

At the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway.

Future Development Areas – Phase 2
Construction
The total GHG emissions generated during construction of Phase 2 are combined and are shown in Table 4.6-4, Phase 2 ConstructionRelated Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the DEIR. The Phase 2 2599
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 186 of 240 ends

would result in the generation of approximately 2,602.90 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 86.76 MTCO2e per year.

Operations
Total GHG emissions associated with the Phase 2 are summarized in Table 4.6-5, Phase 2 - Operational GHG Emissions of the DEIR.

Along with the emissions calculated by CalEEMod, Table 4.6-5 of the DEIR also includes emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRU). Table 4.6-5 of the DEIR shows that the unmitigated Project would generate approximately 33,406 MTCO2e per year.

Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.2 (Air Quality) of the DEIR that would also reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.6-5 of the DEIR under “mitigated.” MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks to that would reduce GHG emissions from combustion engines. MM AQ-3
requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage to reduce GHG emissions from TRUs. MM AQ-4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit, reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks.

With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 Phase 2 would generate approximately 26,562 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.

Phase 2 of the Project will also comply with the City’s Community CAP. Since emissions from Phase 2 of the Project exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, the Project is presumed to have a potentially significant GHG emissions impact. To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amount feasible, MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant.

At the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway.

Page 187 of 240 ends

Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 and MM GHG-1, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)
Construction
Project Buildout would result in the generation of approximately 5,902 MTCO2e over the course of construction. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 197 MTCO2e per year.

Operations
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project Buildout are summarized in Table 4.6-7 of the DEIR. Along with the emissions calculated by CalEEMod, Table 4.6-7 of the DEIR also includes emissions from TRU. Table 4.6-7 of the DEIR shows that the unmitigated Project would generate approximately 33,406 MTCO2e per year.

Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 4.2 (Air Quality) of the DEIR that would also reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible and are shown in Table 4.6-7 of the DEIR under “mitigated.” Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks that would reduce GHG emissions from combustion engines. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage to reduce GHG emissions from TRUs. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 requires the implementation of a TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit, reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use to reduce GHG emissions from trucks.

With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 the Project would generate approximately 26,562 MTCO2e annually from both construction and operations of Phase 1 and Phase 2. It should be noted that emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards.

Project Buildout will comply with the City’s Community CAP. Since Project emissions exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold, the Project is presumed to have a potentially significant GHG emissions impact.

To ensure that the Project reduces emissions by the maximum amount feasible, MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community 2601
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 188 of 240 ends

CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant.

At the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway.

However, potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1, this Project impact is
conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-16 through 4.6-24.)
MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant.

However, at the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 and MM GHG-1, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-25.) MM GHG-1 Project development proposals with building permit applications on file with the City prior to approval and adoption of updates to the December 16, 2014 CAP shall implement Screening Table
Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.

The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple
2602
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 189 of 240 ends

development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.
b. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-26.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1, Future Development Areas – Phase 2, SB330 Replacement Site
City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan
The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit, and decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT), increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.

Table 4.6-8 of the DEIR evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project to the applicable measures of the Community CAP. As discussed in Table 4.6-8 of the DEIR, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures. By using energy more efficiently, harnessing renewable energy to power buildings, recycling waste, and enhancing access to sustainable transportation modes, the City can keep dollars in local economy, create new green jobs, and improve community quality of life. As shown in Table 4.6-8 of the DEIR, the Project would not conflict with the goals of the Community CAP.

The CAP Appendix B, Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA
Thresholds and Screening Tables (CAP Screening Tables)
establishes a points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project. The CAP Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. Table 4.6-9 of the DEIR identifies potential design features and their associated scores.

The City is also considering additional design features but have not yet been assigned point values. The applicant may work with the City 2603
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 190 of 240 ends

to determine point values for additional design features with goal of achieving a minimum of 100 points. Table 4.6-9 of the DEIR shows that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables.

As noted above, implementation of MM GHG-1 would require future development accommodated under the proposed Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. This measure would ensure that future Project development is consistent with the City’s Community CAP and would reduce impacts to less than significant. However, there is the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions that would result in significant impacts on the environment, and it is therefore conservatively considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Conclusion
The Project would be consistent with applicable plan goals. In addition, the Project would include several sustainable design features as required by MM GHG-1 that would help reduce GHG emissions.

Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

The majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the Cap-and-Trade regulation. Assembly Bill 398 (2017) extends the state’s Cap-and-Trade program through 2030 and the Scoping Plan provide a comprehensive plan for the state to achieve its GHG targets through a variety of regulations enacted at the state level. Additional reductions are achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045), doubling the energy efficiency savings at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

Several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to a reduction in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, Executive Order N2604 Resolution No. 2022-

Page 191 of 240 ends

79-20, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation was approved in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero-emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8.

Executive Order N-79-20 establishes the goal for all new passenger cars and trucks, as well as all drayage/cargo trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment, sold in California, will be zero-emission by 2035 and all medium and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero-emission by 2045. It also directs CARB to develop and propose rulemaking for passenger vehicles and trucks, medium-and heavy-duty fleets where feasible, drayage trucks, and off-road vehicles and equipment “requiring increasing volumes” of new ZEVs “towards the target of 100 percent.”
CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy which includes increasing ZEV buses and trucks and their Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. This Plan applies to all trucks accessing the Project site and may include existing trucks or new trucks that are part of the statewide goods movement sector.

CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement identifies measures to improve goods movement efficiencies such as advanced combustion strategies, friction reduction, waste heat recovery, and electrification of accessories. While these measures are not directly applicable to the Project, any commercial activity associated with goods movement would be required to comply with these measures as adopted. As such, the Project would not interfere with their implementation.

The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or state efforts to improve system efficiency. As discussed above, MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 as identified in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment would reduce mobile source emissions and would support the State’s transition to ZEVs by requiring electrical hookups at all cold storage loading bays, promoting the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, requiring electric vehicle charging stations and/or infrastructure to support the future installation of truck charging stations. The Project would also benefit from
2605
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 192 of 240 ends

implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks.

The Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year despite the
implementation of MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality), as well as MM GHG-1, which requires the Project to achieve a minimum of 100 points on the CAP Screening Threshold Checklist.

Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050, but the potential Project GHG emissions remain a significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-37 through 4.6-39.)

5. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-21.) Explanation: Specific Plan Phase I/Future Development Areas Project Screening
Consistent with City Guidelines, projects that meet certain screening thresholds based on their location and project type may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. Consistent with the screening criteria recommended in OPR’s Technical Advisory, the City of Ontario utilizes the following project screening thresholds :
 Low VMT Area Screening
 Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
 Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
 Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening thresholds to be presumed to result in a less than significant impact under CEQA, pursuant to SB 743.

Low VMT Area Screening
The City Guidelines state that projects located within a low VMTgenerating area may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The SBCTA 2606
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 193 of 240 ends

screening tool was utilized to determine low VMT areas. The screening tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual traffic analysis zones (TAZ’s) within the region. Parcels containing the proposed Project were selected and the screening tool was run for the Origin/Destination (OD) VMT per service population (SP) measure of VMT. Based on the Screening Tool results (see Appendix I2 for VMT Screening Tool Analysis), the Project resides within TAZ 53653401 and that TAZ was shown to not be within a low VMT generating zone based on the OD method of calculating VMT. Thus, the Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met.

Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
The City Guidelines indicate that small development projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Based on information contained in the Project’s LOS based traffic study (see Appendix I2, VMT Analysis, Low Trip Generating Uses Screening), the Project is anticipated to generate more than 110 daily trips. The Low Trip Generating Uses screening threshold is not met.

Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a TPA (i.e., within ½ mile of 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 absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project site is not located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The TPA screening threshold is not met.

Project Type Screening
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., daycare centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, small projects anticipated to generate low traffic volumes and by association low GHG emissions 2607
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 194 of 240 ends

are also assumed to cause a less than significant impact. The Project consists of industrial and business park uses, which do not typically consist of local-serving or essential services. The Project Type screening threshold is not met.

Project Generated VMT
The City Guidelines state that projects not screened through the steps above should complete VMT analysis and forecasting through the SBTAM model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. The first step in the analysis is to calculate project generated VMT and compare it to the City’s adopted impact threshold. SBTAM is a useful tool to calculate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, employment, and other factors. It was also the tool used to establish the City’s impact threshold, so it is the appropriate tool to conduct the analysis to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of project generated VMT to the adopted threshold.

Project generated VMT has been calculated using the most current version of SBTAM, which was updated recently by SBCTA as part of the development of their recommended VMT guidelines.

Adjustments in socio-economic data (SED) (i.e., population, households, and employment) have been made to a separate TAZ to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses (i.e., employment). A separate TAZ is used to isolate project generated VMT from other land uses in the model.

At the time of this analysis future tenants are not known. Therefore, to perform a more conservative analysis, industrial land uses were assumed. Because the tenants of the Project’s buildings are not yet known, the number of jobs that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined; therefore, for purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using employment density factors of 0.65 employees/thousand square feet (TSF) for non-office portions and 2.86 employees/TSF for office portions of industrial and business park uses consistent with the City’s General Plan Buildout Methodology document . Based on these employment generation rates, the Project is expected to generate approximately 5,664 jobs.

Project-generated VMT using the OD trip matrix from SBTAM was calculated for both the base year model (2016) and cumulative year model (2040), and linear interpolation was used to determine the Project’s baseline (2020) VMT. The base year model and cumulative 2608
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 195 of 240 ends

year model were then run inclusive of the Project’s employment estimate.

The City has chosen the OD method of calculating VMT for purposes of establishing its impact threshold. The OD method of calculating VMT includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes (i.e., passenger cars and heavy trucks). Project generated VMT using the OD trip matrix from SBTAM was calculated for both the base year model (2016) and cumulative year model (2040), and linear interpolation was used to determine the Project’s baseline (2020) VMT. The VMT value was then normalized by dividing by the Project’s SP, which in this case is the number of Project employees.

The City of Ontario has selected a threshold based on the General Plan Buildout VMT performance in the City. More specifically, the City Guidelines state that a significant impact would occur if the project VMT per SP exceeds the citywide average for SP under General Plan Buildout Conditions.

Table 4.13-3 of the DEIR presents a comparison between baseline project generated VMT per SP to the City’s impact threshold. The baseline project generated VMT per SP is 38.65 or 6.77% above the City’s threshold; therefore, a significant impact would occur.

It is also recognized that as the Project area and city develop as envisioned under the City of Ontario Policy Plan, new residential, commercial/retail, and industrial development would be
implemented. These actions could collectively alter transportation patterns, improve the City’s jobs/housing ratio, diminish VMT/SP, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures.

There are no means however to quantify any VMT reductions that could result. Additionally, the effectiveness of the TDM strategies that have potential to reduce the Project VMT/SP are dependent on as yet unknown final Project building tenant(s); and as noted above, “VMT reductions from TDM strategies cannot be guaranteed in most cases.”
SB330 Replacement Site
Consistent with SBCTA Guidelines, VMT reduction strategies would be considered to address future project generated VMT that exceeds the City’s threshold as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process for the potential future development on the SB330 Replacement Site. TDM strategies for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts will be determined for each potential future development 2609
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 196 of 240 ends

Project on the SB330 Replacement Site. In addition, a VMT analysis will be performed in accordance with City guidelines.

As noted previously, a specific development project is not currently proposed for the reallocation of 1,352 dwelling units displaced by the proposed Project. However, information cited in both the Technical Advisory and City Guidelines describe that a project’s land use context, location and design characteristics all play a role in the resulting amount of VMT generated by an individual land use project.

As the proposed Project would include the reallocation of 1,352 low to moderate density residential dwelling units to a mixed-use corridor with higher density residential that would offer improved access to transit, there are numerous aspects of the proposed change that would reduce VMT compared to the “No Project” condition.

The Technical Advisory and City Guidelines each provide evidence that land use projects located within a transit priority area (TPA) or close to a high-quality transit corridor would tend to generate low VMT when compared to typical suburban residential areas characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns. In addition to proximity to transit, higher density projects located within walking distance of a diverse mix of land uses (e.g., shopping, office, government services, etc.) also generates lower VMT when compared to typical dispersed suburban development. The proximity of complementary land uses combined with safe and convenient bike and pedestrian networks are proven to reduce the need for automobile dependent travel and therefore a reduction in VMT. The Project’s reallocation of 1,352 low to moderate density residential dwelling units to a higher density transit-oriented corridor that includes a diverse mix of uses would result in lower net VMT when compared to standard low to moderate density residential development.

In addition, future land use development projects associated with the reallocation of the 1,352 units along the Grove Avenue Corridor will be required to follow standard development review process. In other words, future implementing projects associated with the reallocated 1,352 dwelling units along the Grove Avenue Corridor will need to evaluate site access driveways, parking, operational safety, and other factors as directed by the City Traffic Engineer.

In summary, the proposed Project includes the reallocation of 1,352 low to moderate density residential units to the Grove Avenue Corridor. The reallocated units will be located in a planned higher 2610
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 197 of 240 ends

density transit-oriented corridor that includes a diverse mix of uses, and due to these factors, is anticipated to generate lower VMT as compared to the lower density development plan assumed for the Project’s current location. As such, the Project’s potential transportation impact based on VMT is less than significant.

Conclusion
In summary, the Project was found to exceed the City’s adopted VMT threshold by 6.77%. Reductions in commute VMT through feasible TDM measures such as those described previously would be provided by the Project, and would be implemented as part of future Certificates of Occupancy for future tenants as noted in MM TRANS1. Inclusion of such VMT reduction measures in areas that are characteristically suburban in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 10%. However, as future Project design features and building tenants are not yet known, reductions in VMT related to the above TDM measures cannot be accurately estimated or guaranteed.

The reallocated 1,352 dwelling units will be located in a planned higher density transit-oriented corridor that includes a diverse mix of uses, and due to these factors, is anticipated to generate lower VMT as compared to the lower density development plan assumed for the Project’s current location. As such, the Project’s potential transportation impact based on VMT is less than significant.

Even though certain TDM measures may reduce VMT impacts from the Specific Plan site, and even though the higher density residential zoning at the SB330 Replacement Site is anticipated to reduce VMT, these VMT reductions are difficult to quantify and cannot be guaranteed. The VMT analysis determined that the Project’s impact on VMT would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Furthermore, VMT is not quantifiable for the SB 330 Replacement site at this time in the absence of specific development proposals, and therefore impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable. As stated previously, any future development on the SB 330 Replacement Site will be subject to project-specific discretionary process review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines to determine VMT-related impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-21 through 4.13-30.) MM TRANS-1 At the time of Certificate of Occupancy for future tenants, the future tenant shall demonstrate implementation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario Planning Director. Measures to be considered include, but are not 2611
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 198 of 240 ends

limited to VMT measures 1, 6 and 7 as described in EIR Appendix I2.

F. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

1. AESTHETICS
Construction of the Project site would result in alterations to the scenic vistas views.

However, while construction activities on the Project site would modify foreground views as observed by some viewers, construction is temporary and considering the existing nature of the Project site, developed nature of surrounding areas, and the current partially obscured views from existing off-site development, the changes the construction activities would represent are not considered to be substantial. Upon completion of construction on the Project site, the new structure would be a new permanent visual element in the environment. The new structures and operations associated with the Project would change the foreground views of the San Gabriel Mountains as observed from viewers looking north, across the site; however, most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration so views, as seen to the north, would not be significantly adversely affected. The SB330 Replacement Site would not substantially change the overall character of this area, nor would it alter views of any scenic vista in comparison to current zoning. The proposed Project and all related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations designed to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-1 through 7-2.)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The cumulative study area for agriculture includes the County of San Bernardino.

Throughout the County of San Bernardino, numerous related projects exist that would result in the additional conversion of agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. Important Farmland in San Bernardino County has continually declined and all of the prime agricultural land in the southern area of Ontario is planned for development by TOP. Continued conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City and the region. According to the TOP EIR, agricultural land within the Ontario Ranch area has the potential to be converted to non-agricultural uses, upon buildout of TOP and the Specific Plan overlay. This was identified as a significant cumulative impact in TOP EIR.

Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the region and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources.

Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region, the Ontario Ranch area, and the Project site, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural resources, which Section 4.1.8 below provides further discussion on the proper mitigation measures applied based off TOP and the City’s EIR. The City’s TOP EIR and the TOP CEQA Findings determined that implementation of the TOP would result in individual and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts to various resources including agricultural resources. (Draft EIR, p.

4.1-21.)
2612
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 199 of 240 ends

3. AIR QUALITY
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects in the local area include new development and general growth in the project area. The greatest source of emissions in the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SoCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.

Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under both the California and federal standards and nonattainment for PM10 and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the federal standards. Ozone is created by chemical reactions between NOX and volatile organic compounds; thus, NOX and VOCs are precursor to O3. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. The project would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to PM2.5 or PM10, but air quality from VOCs would potentially be impacted during construction activities. However, as discussed under Impact 4.2-2, implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce project-related construction emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds on a project and cumulative basis. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of mitigation.

Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact.

Operation of Phase 1 of the project, after incorporation of mitigation would still result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for VOC and NOX.

Operation of the Project at Buildout would result in emissions that exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant.

Localized
Under SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold of 10 in in-a a-million are considered to be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD 2003). Per the MATES IV study, the proposed project is in an area that has an estimated cancer risk of about 898.83 in a million. Project- related construction activities would result a cancer risk of 8.80 in a million to the MER. Development and operation of the proposed project would result in adding an additional cancer risk of 1.39 in a million to the MER, which would be below 10 in a million. As a result, the project would not cumulatively contribute to the overall elevated levels of DPM in the SoCAB. Therefore, the project’s contribution to health risk impacts in the SoCAB is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-44 through 4.2-45.)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County region. This area consists of a variety of land uses that includes 2613
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 200 of 240 ends

agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The agricultural areas may include sensitive habitats which may contain special-status plants, migratory bird species, and jurisdictional resources. However, as discussed above the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the identified species to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, and impacts would be less than cumulatively significant.

Project development would not involve the removal of critical habitat and is not expected to make a considerable contribution to the decline of wildlife species. The Project would remove potential raptor foraging habitat through development of the warehousing and business park structures. Although the existing agriculture may provide foraging habitat for raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained to minimize use by small mammals (prey for raptors) and active ground squirrel management programs are continually implemented. This loss of potential raptor foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors.

Mitigation has been incorporated into the project that would avoid direct impacts to nine sensitive wildlife species: the tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, great Great blue heron, swainson’s Swainson’s hawk, yellow rail, California horned lark, and merlin.

Therefore, the mitigation measures for the proposed project would mitigate the potential of the Project to cumulatively combine with other projects; and the Specific Plan would not contribute to the cumulative loss of any special status wildlife species.

According to the several field surveys, none of the potential burrows identified on the Project site were determined to be currently occupied by BUOW. MM BIO-2 would be implemented to further reduce potential BUOW impacts to less than significant levels.

The western mastiff bat has potential to roost at the Project site. The proposed Project has the potential to impact the western mastiff bat population by the removal of potential roosting/nursery habitat. However, the Project will fully mitigate its impacts through MM BIO-1, thereby avoiding Project impacts and avoiding the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on bat species.

The types of birds potentially affected are common to the region and the number of individuals would be limited given the type of vegetation proposed for removal (agriculture, ornamental plantings). Based on the types of species and expected limited number of nesting pairs potentially affected, development of the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of native nesting bird populations. However, because native birds are protected by MBTA, mortality to a single native bird due to the project would be in violation of both laws; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to nesting birds would be less than cumulatively significant.
2614
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 201 of 240 ends

The General Biological Assessment also indicated that the Project would not impact CDFW jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of jurisdictional waters.

Furthermore, according to the Arborist report, no trees of significance are located within Project boundaries, as such, the Project will not conflict any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Lastly, the Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to local policies and ordinances, as well as other approved habitat conservation plans, would be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-28 through 4.3-29.)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. In the immediate vicinity of the Project site, no significant cultural resources were identified that could combine with the effects of the Project to result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources. However, cultural resources investigations would be required for other projects before the City of Ontario would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would identify resources on the affected Project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve cultural resources. The Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of cultural resources on the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

The Project could result in potential site-specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological and cultural resources discovered during grading and trenching activities.

Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these resources. The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and County would be required to comply with all applicable state, federal, County, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation.

Similar to the Project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Although in the process of development, some known or unknown resources may be lost, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-6 and MM TCR-1 would reduce Project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-25 through 4.4-26.)

6. ENERGY
Quantifying and/or analyzing energy consumption by cumulative projects in the area would be speculative in nature, as the proposed land use types, intensities, and sizes of projects are unknown at this time. However, each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessment, which would address potential energy consumption impacts and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate.
2615
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 202 of 240 ends

Construction equipment would comply with the latest United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board engine emission standards designed to reduce pollutants and minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Energy use during construction of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. The operational phase of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Compliance with Mitigation Measures MM AQ-2 through AQ-5 will have the additional effect of reducing Project vehicle fuel consumption. The proposed Project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-5 through 7-6.) Thus, the project and identified cumulative projects are not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Geology and soils impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Like the Project, future development projects would be required to comply with applicable state and local building regulations, including the most recent CBC. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed in each project’s geotechnical investigation. Although the rezoning of the dwelling units to the SB330 Replacement Site would allow for the development of additional housing units, these developments are not necessitated or proposed by the Project. Further, future developments would be required to comply with environmental analysis and review. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur.

Additionally, other projects in the area would involve ground disturbance and could damage paleontological resources that could be buried in those project sites. As with the Project, other projects would require site specific paleontological analysis that could lead to mitigation requiring monitoring and recovery, identification, and curation of any resources discovered. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant, and Project contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-23.)

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts are not Project-specific impacts, but the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impact. Incorporation of mitigation would contribute in minimizing emissions, although implementation of the proposed Project would still result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr under the City’s CAP. Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-39.)

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Ontario and related projects.

Hazards and hazardous waste impacts are typically unique to each site and do not usually contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative development projects would be required to assess potential hazardous materials impacts on the development site prior to grading.

The Project and other cumulative projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used and generated 2616
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 203 of 240 ends

as described previously. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.

The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the AIAs of the ONT and Chino airports. Some Projects may be proposed within the safety compatibility zones of the ONT and Chino AIAs, and thus could expose the nearby population to potential hazards such as aircraft crashes. Airport land use planning agencies for the ONT and Chino airports regulate development within their safety compatibility zones.

Projects proposed within safety compatibility zones would be required to comply with each safety zone’s respective land use regulations set forth by the affected agencies.

After regulatory compliance, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-29.)

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Hydrology and Drainage
Cumulative projects within the Chino Creek Watershed would increase impervious areas and increase stormwater runoff rates. However, all projects within the watershed would be required to comply with all regulative framework and prepare and implement WQMPs that include provisions for the capture and infiltration of runoff or the temporary detention of stormwater runoff in HCOC areas so that post-development runoff discharges do not exceed pre-development runoff rates, in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Thus, no significant cumulative drainage impacts would occur, and Project drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Water Quality
Cumulative projects have the ability to generate pollutants during project construction and operation. All construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs in order to obtain coverage under the statewide GCP.

All projects within the watershed would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, that would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation.

Furthermore, all future development would be required to comply with applicable local, state and federal requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. This includes compliance with the City’s municipal code, which specifically addresses water quality (Municipal Code Article 5, Construction Requirements). Thus, no significant cumulative water quality impacts would occur, and project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-29.)

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The geographic context for this cumulative analysis includes the City in relation to the City’s General Plan. Cumulative development would result in substantial changes to existing land use patterns through conversion of agricultural and dairy lands into urban uses pursuant to the General Plan land use designations. Cumulative development would also be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, as well as with the City’s Development Code and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan policies. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with the General Plan and environmental policies that would result in adverse physical environmental effects. The cumulative projects as a whole would result 2617
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 204 of 240 ends

in a more intensely developed built environment than currently exists, as it currently exists as an underutilized portion of land and would be required to be consistent with local General Plan policies.

As explained below, the Project would eliminate the low-moderate density housing designation, thereby theoretically eliminating 1,352 units (as determined by the City’s density determinations to be 8.5 units per acre). The calculation is based on 159.04 acres of low/medium density residential land with the Specific Plan area. Although the Project would remove the authorization for 1,352 low-medium density residential units at a density of 8.5 dwelling units per acre, an affected city may change a land use designation if there is a concurrent change to development standards applicable to other parcels within the city so that there is no net loss of residential capacity. Here, the Project would include a concurrent General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to increase density elsewhere in the City to achieve no net loss of unit capacity per SB330. This would account for the loss of the potential for residential development on the Project site and conform to the requirements of SB330. The provision of replacement housing potential in the SB330 Replacement Site was found to create no inconsistencies with existing land use programs or regulations. The SB330 Replacement Site was also not identified as an existing community and would therefore not experience a separation through the implementation of the SB330 Replacement Site.

Cumulative projects could include General Plan amendments and/or zone changes, modifications to existing land uses. However, such amendments do not necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environment, particularly if the proposed changes involve changes in types and intensity of uses, rather than eliminating application of policies that were specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Past and present cumulative projects do not involve amendments that would eliminate application of policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. Thus, it is expected that the land uses of cumulative projects would be consistent with policies that avoid an environmental effect; therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts from cumulative projects related to policy consistency would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-29 through 4.9-30.)

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project site and SB330 Replacement Site are within the City and its Sphere of Influence is designated Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ)-3, which is defined as areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data.

Only areas in the far north of the City have been designated as areas where significant mineral deposits are present or there is a likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. Therefore, the development of the Project site would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.) No cumulative impact would occur.

13. NOISE
Construction Noise
Project-related construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise impacts would be periodic and temporary and 2618
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 205 of 240 ends

would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction Project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise. Activities would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the Project site and immediate vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed, and impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable.

Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the Project and other projects in the vicinity.

Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Future Without Project scenarios to the Future Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.

A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase.
 Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project.
 Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. 2619
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 206 of 240 ends

Table 4.10-17, Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels – Project Buildout of the DEIR, identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.

A significant cumulative traffic noise increase would be identified if project traffic were calculated to contribute more than 1 dBA under Cumulative Plus Project conditions to a significant traffic noise increase over existing conditions. That is, if a cumulative traffic noise increase of greater than the 3 dBA significance threshold of perceptibility is calculated, and the relative contribution from project traffic is calculated to contribute more than 1 dBA to this cumulative impact, it would be considered cumulatively considerable.

As shown in Table 4.10-17 of the DEIR, one roadway segment (Eucalyptus Avenue between Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue) would experience a cumulative traffic noise increase greater than 3 dBA and would also exceed the 1 dBA incremental increase threshold. However, this area is designated in the TOP as medium density residential and has a normally acceptable noise compatibility level between 60 to 65 CNEL. As shown in Table 4.10-17 of the DEIR, future traffic noise with project at Eucalyptus Avenue, between Bon View Avenue and Grove Avenue, would reach 62.8 CNEL and is within the normally acceptable range. Standard construction attenuates exterior to interior noise by approximately 25 dBA , which would reduce interior noise levels to 37.8 dBA, below the 45 dBA interior noise standard. Additionally, based on TOP requirements, future residential development in an area with normally acceptable noise levels are required to include air conditioning, this which is already required by current building code. Therefore the cumulative traffic noise at this roadway segment would be less than significant.

The proposed Project’s contribution to noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the Project would result in an incremental increase in non-transportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. However, as discussed above, operational noise caused by the Project would be less than significant.

Additionally, due to Project site’s distance to sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. Similar to the proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there would be a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact.

Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on-site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-32 through 4.10-36.
2620
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 207 of 240 ends

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the County of San Bernardino. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast. Development of the Project in conjunction with the related cumulative project list in Table 4-1, Related Approved and Pending Projects in Section 4.0 of the DEIR, would not result in cumulative citywide population and/or housing impacts, as business park projects would further improve the jobs-housing balance in the region. This would encourage alignment with objectives set by SCAG’s RTP/SCS as it would increase job opportunity in an area that is predominantly residential. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals set forth in TOP by providing long-term employment opportunities associated with the buildout of the Business Park and Industrial uses on site. Related projects would be reviewed by the City, and development would be required to be consistent with adopted state and City development standards, regulations, plans, and policies to minimize the effect of the increase in population on physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the indirect effect of Project employment on housing and population growth in the City has been anticipated in TOP, and therefore in regional housing and population forecasts. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively adverse growth impacts. Upon approval, the Project would improve the jobshousing balance in the County of San Bernardino which is notably considered a housingrich area. Therefore, the Project combined with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing as no substantial new unplanned growth would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-14.)

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Project Services
The cumulative study area for fire protection services is the City of Ontario. Future development projects are anticipated to occur throughout the City, specifically in the Ontario Ranch area, including the proposed Project. As indicated in the City’s TOP, development of the Ontario Ranch Area would generate a proportional increase in demand for additional fire protection and emergency medical services. The City is in the process of constructing two new fire stations with one proposed in the Ontario Ranch Area that would help accommodate cumulative increases to fire protection services in the southern portion of the City including the Project area.

Implementation of the Project would increase the demand for fire protection services through the incorporation of additional people on-site in addition to the cumulative development of projects within the City. Thus, a periodic review process would ensure that adequate service would be maintained throughout the City and would add staffing and equipment as necessary. The OFD can presently serve the Project site without the need for additional fire facilities with payment of Development Impact fees. In addition, the Project would result in a transfer of residential unit capacity from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Site designated along the Grove Avenue Corridor. Thus, the Project would not result in an overall net increase in City population and is likely in fact to result in a slight reduction in overall City population due to higher density residential development tending to have fewer occupants per dwelling unit.

Since the Project would be consistent with the buildout assumptions of the TOP and other applicable plans and regulations, payment of fees, and transfer of residential units capacity to the SB330 Replacement Site, implementation of the Project would not result 2621
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 208 of 240 ends

in a cumulatively considerable increase in the need for fire and emergency response facilities or personnel.

Police Project Services
Similarly, future development projects are anticipated to occur within the City. This overall development would generate a proportional increase in calls for police services. All future cumulative projects would be reviewed by OPD staff prior to issuance of any development permit to ensure adequate security measures are provided for each site-specific development in the City, including this Project. It is anticipated that future development would result in the need of additional sworn officers and equipment, but with payment of fees, implementation of the Project would not create a cumulatively considerable need for new or expanded police stations. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the Project would be less than significant.

Schools, Parks, and Other Public Services
The Project is not anticipated to cumulatively increase the need for school, park, and other public services in the City. The anticipated increase demands for public services for schools, parks, and other public services within the City was accounted for in the City’s General Plan and analyzed in TOP EIR, which accounts for the cumulative growth in the City. In addition, cumulative development projects would pay the required development fees that would be appropriately allocated, in this case, to schools and parks. In addition, the TOP concluded that additional library services would not be required with buildout of the TOP. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with schools, parks, and other public services from the Project would be less than cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12- 15 through 4.12-16.)

16. RECREATION
The Project site would be developed with an industrial use, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area. Buildout of the Project would not directly induce population growth or increase demand on parks and recreational resources, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. There will be a slight increase in residential density as a result of the SB330 Replacement Site, but it is not anticipated to require construction of additional recreational facilities to serve the SB330 Replacement Site beyond that envisioned in the City’s TOP EIR. Furthermore, any future development, such as the Project, would be required to comply with the City’s standard discretionary review process, including provision of adequate on-site recreational amenities, as well as payment of applicable DIF fees to offset impacts to recreational facilities. (See Draft EIR, pp. 7-7 through 7-8.) Thus, no cumulative impacts would occur.

17. TRANSPORTATION
Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed in the Project Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1 of the DEIR). The Project’s contribution to operational level of service deficiencies would be fully addressed through implementing the recommended measures and providing construction or funding for the identified improvements (note that operational level of service is no longer a significant impact under CEQA per SB743). There were no other LOS cumulative effects identified or cumulatively considerable contributions to significant cumulative impacts for the Project. The project’s VMT analysis (Appendix I2 of the DEIR) provides an analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on VMT. Cumulative analysis is based on the Project’s effect on VMT using total VMT within the City (boundary method). 2622
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 209 of 240 ends

The VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT increases with the Project resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact. Even with implementation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures (per MM TRANS-1), the VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT increases from the Project will result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-33.)

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cumulative impacts to TCRs would occur when the impacts of the Project, in conjunction with other projects and development in the region, result in multiple and/or cumulative impacts to TCRs in the area. No previously recorded fossil localities are located within one-mile radius of the Project area, and no sacred sites are documented within the Project site. Since completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site. Therefore, it is possible that buried prehistoric artifacts or TCRs could be present within the area. The proposed Project includes mitigation to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of TCRs. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for the Project’s adverse impacts on TCRs. Each future project considered for approval by the City would be required to include mitigation measures to protect resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. The Project would not combine with other projects in the region to create a cumulative impact to TCRs. Therefore, cumulative impacts to TCRs would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-14 through 4.14-15.)

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Wastewater Treatment
The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment is IEUA’s RP-5 service area. The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater conveyance systems is the OR area. Future growth in the OR, in accordance with the Ontario Plan, would result in increases in wastewater flow. These include increases in residential, commercial, and industrial effluent. Expansion and/or capacity upgrades to the existing sewer collection lines would be required due to the change in land use in the OR. The Sewer Master Plan projects daily wastewater generation in line with land use changes associated with the Ontario Plan. The sewer master plan presents preliminary sizes, alignments and construction cost estimates needed to mitigate existing drainage deficiencies and support future build-out conditions (AKM 2012a). Sewer collection system expansions would be based on the Sewer Master Plan and would be constructed with development in the OR. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the IEUA is able to maintain and expand its wastewater collection system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs associated with increased demand. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater collection.

The City wastewater effluent in the OR is directed mainly to RP-5. The 2035 projected quantities of wastewater that need to be treated at RP-5 is 18.4 mgd, an increase of 9.4 mgd from current production rates (IEUA 2018). The 20-year IEUA’s CIP includes expanding the capacity of RP-5 to 22.5 mgd. The CIP also developed a capacity fee charged to new development to fund the needed capacity. Furthermore, IEUA annually prepares a wastewater treatment master plan and flow projections for all its contracting agencies, including Ontario. The IEUA improvement plan is sequenced considering the rate of development to ensure adequate treatment capacity exists at time of building 2623
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 210 of 240 ends

permits but is phased to eliminate premature construction of unneeded capacity.

Assuming the proposed plant expansions would be completed prior to increased urban development and the treatment of water at these plants would continue to meet the water quality standards of the Santa Ana RWQCB, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-8.) Water Supply
The area considered for cumulative water supply impacts is the City of Ontario. Other projects in the service area would increase water demands. The City forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period (see “Water Demand” under Impact 4.15-3). Other projects of certain sizes and types would be required to have water supply assessments prepared to show reliability of water supplies for the project, considering normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year horizon. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-21.) Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Cumulative projects in the Santa Ana River basin hydrologic units could increase impervious areas and thus increase local runoff rates at those project sites. However, other projects in the region would be required to capture and infiltrate runoff, and many other projects in the region would be required to limit post-development runoff discharges to no greater than pre-development runoff rates, in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Thus, no significant cumulative drainage impact would occur, and project drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-23.) Solid Waste
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the area serviced by the Badlands and the El Sobrante landfills. Collectively, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills have a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 160 million cubic yards and El Sobrante landfill has a disposal capacity beyond the 15-year horizon, as required by AB 939. Thus, there is sufficient landfill capacity in the region for the cumulative increase in solid waste disposal.

Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-29.)

20. WILDFIRE
The project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone and is within a Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) zone. (Draft EIR, p. 7-9.) Cumulative projects near the project site would also be located within LRA zone, and therefore no impact would occur. Moreover, future projects, such as this project, would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, including applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code related to fire safety and emergency access. (See Draft EIR, p. 7-9.) The project would not result in significant wildfire hazard impacts following conformance with applicable local and state requirements. (Draft EIR, p. 7-9.) Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

G. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, 2624
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 211 of 240 ends

or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (§ 15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below (DEIR at pp. 5-1 through 5-2.):
 [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (§ 15126.6[b]).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (§ 15126.6[e][1])
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (§ 15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (§ 15126.6[f])  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (§ 15126.6[f][1]).
 “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (§ 15126.6[f][2][A])
 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (§ 15126.6[f][3])

1. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project 2625
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 212 of 240 ends

objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following is a discussion of the land use alternative considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why it was not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.
a. Alternative Site
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.
2626
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 213 of 240 ends

There are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project applicant. In the event land could be purchased of suitable size and developmental characteristics, based on the known general conditions in the southern portion of the City, an alternative site would likely have similar impacts after mitigation as the Project. Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be impractical and infeasible to propose the Project on an alternate site in the area with fewer environmental impacts.

Additionally, other land in the vicinity of the Project site or within the southern portion of the City are similarly used for agricultural purposes and include agricultural soils. The loss of prime farmland would still occur with an alternative site. Given the size and type of the proposed development, a similarly sized project and use elsewhere in the SCAB would result in the same project-level and cumulative air quality and GHG emission impacts.

VMT is not likely to be changed by a different location of the Project. Also, an alternative site would have similar traffic impacts in other jurisdictions that would be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee implementation of improvements outside of its jurisdiction. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed 5,333,518 square feet of warehouse and office uses is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-4 through 5.5) Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Site alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative does not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternative would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that there are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project applicant.

Therefore, the Alternative Site alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

3. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the Project objectives listed above in Section II, F, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.  Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
 Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative  Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
a. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(3)(B). Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Under this alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur, however, 2627
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 214 of 240 ends

the existing conditions would remain in operation. An SB330 site would not be required under this alternative.

The Project site contains an operational dairy farm, single-family residential structures, dairy barns, a storage structure, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. The dairy, structures, and single-family residential uses would remain. Accordingly, the No Project/No Build Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) Impacts: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing dairy uses on the Project site. Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction or demolition activities and related emissions would occur. In addition, by maintaining existing dairy and residential uses throughout the Project area, an increase in traffic operational related air emissions would not occur. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced, and the significant and unavoidable construction-related nitrogen oxides (NOx) and operational-related volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NOx emission impacts would be eliminated. Further, this alternative would remain consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). No impacts related to air quality would occur by the No Project/No Build Alternative and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and migratory and nesting birds that may be present on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid all on and off-site disturbances and impacts to biological resources would not occur. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Although no impacts to historical resources would occur under the 2628
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 215 of 240 ends

proposed Project, this alternative would reduce impacts to archaeological resources compared to the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
No new construction activities, including demolition and grading, would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, there would be no potential for additional workers, building and structures to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Specific Plan area. However, the buildings and structures that exist on the Project site were built before current seismic safety codes; therefore, this alternative, by retaining older buildings and structures, could expose some people to greater hazards from strong ground shaking than the proposed Project. Additionally, the proposed Project’s impacts to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant. This alternative would not result in impacts to paleontological resources since no grading would occur. Overall, the geologic hazard impacts from this alternative would be less than significant, and slightly less in comparison to the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction, demolition, or operational activities would generate GHG emissions. This alternative would not increase GHG emissions by 71,088 MTCO2e, unlike the proposed Project. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not exceed the SCAQMD bright line threshold.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. The dairy farming uses on the property would remain in place on-site.

Although this alternative would avoid the Project’s potential effects related to hazards and hazardous materials, no cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the property would occur as a result of the property’s redevelopment.

Remediation of on-site contamination is a benefit of the proposed Project that would not be realized under this alternative. Therefore, hazard impacts would be greater compared to the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff water amounts would remain “as is” under this alternative because no new development would occur. This alternative would not introduce new sources of water pollutants from either the construction or operation phases of development to the Project site, because no new development would occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require off-site storm drain facility improvements required by the proposed Project.

However, this alternative would not include installation of new low-impact development (LID), source control, site design, and treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff and water pollution, 2629
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 216 of 240 ends

which would occur under the proposed Project. The storm water leaving the site would not be filtered and would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants associated with the dairy, agricultural, and residential uses. The beneficial water quality improvements that would occur under the proposed Project would not occur and impacts would be greater compared to the proposed Project.

Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses, and the City’s existing Policy Plan land use and zoning designations for the Project site would remain unchanged. The Project site is located within an Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, which provides for agricultural uses within the City, until such time that urban development consistent with the Policy Plan occurs. The operation of the existing on-site dairy operation is consistent with this ordinance. Therefore, like the proposed Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative would result in a less than significant impact and would be similar in comparison to the proposed Project.

Noise
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in construction and, therefore, would not generate any noise associated with construction.

Mobile-source and stationary noise volumes would be lower under this alternative compared to the proposed Project, given the lack of urban development and associated vehicular traffic noise; noise from industrial warehousing uses; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and other noise sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
Employment growth would not occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative because no new businesses, or other infrastructure would be constructed. Employees on the Project site would remain as is under this alternative, resulting in no impact to population and housing. However, the proposed Project was determined to be within the growth projections for the area and impacts to population and housing were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, population and housing impacts would be less than significant and similar to the proposed Project.

Public Services
The existing number of residents and workers on the Project site would remain under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, there would be no increase in demand for fire or police services. Although the proposed Project’s impacts related to fire and police services were determined to be less than significant, the public services impacts would be slightly reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.

Transportation
2630
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 217 of 240 ends

Under this alternative, no new employees or industrial warehouse uses would be introduced on the Project site. The existing daily trips would remain at current conditions and all roadway segments and intersections would maintain existing levels of service (LOS) and vehicle miles travelled (VMT).

Therefore, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level under this alternative and the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts that are anticipated to occur from the proposed Project would be eliminated. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface tribal cultural resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid site disturbances on the Project site and the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
Because no new development and employee increases would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the existing on-site water well and septic systems would continue to be used, and no water or wastewater infrastructure would be constructed. No additional demand for regional water supplies would occur, and no additional wastewater would be conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, the impacts related to water supplies and wastewater would be reduced compared to the Project and less than significant.

Similarly, no additional drainage infrastructure would be developed by the No Project/No Build Alternative, and runoff in the Project area would remain in its current condition and would not connect to or require capacity in the regional storm water system. Solid waste generation would remain the same as existing conditions and increases in solid waste generation would not occur with the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced compared to the proposed Project and less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-5 through 5-9.) Attainment of Project Objectives: Ability to Reduce Impacts The No Project/No Build Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. This alternative would also reduce impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utility and service systems. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative; impacts to population and housing and land use would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
2631
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 218 of 240 ends

Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development is assumed to not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not create a professional, wellmaintained and attractive environment for the development of a multipurpose business park, industrial and warehousing/office space complex (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 5.4 million square feet of business park and industrial general (Objective 2); provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3); facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area (Objective 4); expand the City’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 5); nor would it create an economic engine to drive future growth in the Project area, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision (Objective 6). (Draft EIR, p. 5-9.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and would not provide any of the Project benefits that would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, including creating a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for development; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality.
b. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Description: State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the Project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the current general plan land uses, and zoning would remain in effect. Development in accordance with the existing general plan and zoning would occur. Furthermore, an SB330 site would not be required under this alternative. The City’s Policy Plan designates the Project site for development of Business Park at a maximum 0.6 FAR and LowMedium Density Residential at 5.1-11 dwelling units per acre (du/acre). The existing land use designations would allow approximately 1,646,568 square feet of Business Park and 1,352 dwelling units at 8.5 du/acre. This alternative would generate 2,889 employees and 5,404 residents. This proposed alternative is anticipated to generate a total of 5,550 actual trip‐ ends per day, with 659 AM peak hour trips. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-9 through 5-10.) Impacts: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
2632
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 219 of 240 ends

The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same development area as the proposed Project. The existing dairy farming uses would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.

Air Quality
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment generating building square footage and would result in a decrease in the number of employees by 2,775. This alternative would result in 1,352 dwelling units and 5,404 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a decrease in vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project, and is anticipated to generate a total of 5,550 actual trip‐ends per day, with 659 AM peak hour trips. Therefore, construction and operation related air quality emissions would decrease. Overall, impacts would be less than the proposed Project, but the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Biological Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be similar to compared to the proposed Project.

Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources on the Project site as the proposed Project. However, like the proposed Project mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources from the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project area would still occur under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, and therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be similar to those that would be generated from the proposed Project. The new structures under this alternative would still result in additional persons and structures in the Project area that would be subject to risks associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic hazards. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources during grading as the proposed Project. 2633
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 220 of 240 ends

Therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant and similar to the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of the number of employees by 2,775. This alternative would result in 1,352 dwelling units and 5,404 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project, and is anticipated to generate a total of 5,550 actual trip‐ends per day, with 659 AM peak hour trips. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions will decrease when compared to the proposed Project. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/Existing General Plan would develop the Project site for business park and office space, which would have less potential to use hazardous wastes on-site. However, the use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, state, and local laws and permitting requirements as would be done by the proposed Project. In addition, this alternative would include cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the site during construction activities and would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures that are included in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. However, this alternative would place residences within Safety Zone III, Traffic Pattern/Overflight Zone of the Chino Airport. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review of all residential development exceeding two du/ac is required to determine consistency. Due to the increased risk of aircraft accident within this zone, restrictions on residential development may be imposed. Therefore, impacts with respect to Chino Airport’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) would be greater compared to the proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the area of impervious surfaces would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Therefore, this alternative would result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the proposed Project.

Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
2634
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 221 of 240 ends

Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the development on-site would conform with the general plan and zoning code and would not require any general plan amendment or zone change. Therefore, impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Relative to Senate Bill (SB) 330, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would retain the current residential land use, but as described in Utilities and Service Systems, below, residential development is not feasible on the Project site; therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project.

Noise
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment generating building square footage and would decrease of the number of employees by 2,775. This alternative would result in 1,352 dwelling units and 5,404 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, construction and operational noise impacts would be less under this alternative.

Population and Housing
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would increase employees and residents on the Project site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and similar to the proposed Project.

Public Services
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would introduce new residents at the Project site which would increase the demand for public services, including fire, police, schools, and parks. The proposed Project would have no impact on schools or parks and less than significant impacts to fire and police services. This alternative would result in slightly greater impacts to public services compared to the proposed Project.

Transportation
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, transportation impacts would be decreased when compared to the proposed Project due to the decrease in vehicle trips associated with business park, office spaces, and residential uses. This alternative would result in the decrease of the number of vehicle trips, as the number of employees would be reduced by 2,775. The Project under this alternative is anticipated to generate a total of 5,550 actual trip‐ends per day, with 659 AM peak hour trips, resulting in a decrease of 6,896 daily trips and 332 peak hour trips when compared to the proposed Project. However, similar roadway improvements would be 2635
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 222 of 240 ends

necessary for project implementation. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect tribal cultural resources on the Project site as the proposed Project. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to utilities and service systems due to the increase in water demand and sewer generation associated with development of business park, office uses, and residential development allowed by the General Plan. This increase in water demand and sewer generation and the extensive length and amount of water and sewer infrastructure that is required to serve the site and the proposed Project would render the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative infeasible due to lack of market demand for the low-medium density residential units and business park. Residential uses would not be feasible due to the cost of the infrastructure that would be funded in whole or in part by the residential development depending on development phasing, and the current City and New Model Colony development impact fee structure, which are greater than could be absorbed by home pricing in the area (ORBP EIR). (Draft EIR, pp. 5-10 through 5-13.) Attainment of Project Objectives: Ability to Reduce Impacts The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in reduced impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. This alternative will have greater impacts compared to the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, transportation and tribal cultural resources would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet four of the six Project objectives. For example this alternative would not create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, industrial and warehousing/office space complex (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 5.4 million square feet of business park and industrial general (Objective 2); expand the City’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation 2636
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 223 of 240 ends

networks (Objective 5); nor would it create an economic engine to drive future growth in the Project area, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision (Objective 6). This alternative would provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3) and facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area (Objective 4). (Draft EIR, pp. 5-13 through 5-14.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet four of the six Project objectives because it would not create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex, nor create an economic engine for future growth; (2)the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions; (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials, and public services; and (4) the alternative is infeasible.
c. Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description: A 25 percent reduction in building area of the proposed industrial warehousing and business park uses is considered under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Under this alternative, a total of 4,059,443 square feet of business park, industrial and warehouse uses, a reduction of 1,353,148 square feet, would be developed, with 3,253,017 square feet of warehouse and 806,426 square feet of business park uses. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the proposed Project. This alternative would generate approximately 4,248 employees. Access to the site would be similar to the proposed Project with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. (Draft EIR, p. 5-14.)
Impacts: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses and have the same impact area. The existing dairy farming uses would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.

Air Quality
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and the related emissions would occur, resulting in 2637
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 224 of 240 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Ontario City Council
March 1, 2022