Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 1, 2022 (part 11 of 16)

an elimination of the significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impact from the exceedance of NOx emissions. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site and less transportation-related air emissions than the proposed Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Specific Plan. However, the volume of VOC and Nox emissions from operational vehicular and truck trips generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable due to the volume of vehicular and truck trips that would occur from operation of 4,059,443 sf industrial warehousing space and business park use. After mitigation measures, the proposed Project would generate a maximum of 140 pounds per day of VOC and 450 pounds per day of NOx, which would be reduced to approximately 105 and 337.5 pounds per day with mitigation, respectively. The SCAQMD threshold for VOC and NOx is

55. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceedance of VOC and NOx emissions would continue to occur. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project but would remain significant and unavoidable.

Biological Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the amount of building area and associated parking stalls proposed for the Project site. However, the development would continue to cover the same impact area as the Project site. 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources on the Project site as the proposed Project, despite the reduction in building area and associated surface parking. 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 Reduced Intensity 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 Reduced Intensity 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. This alternative 2638
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 225 of 240 ends

would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources during grading, as the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to geology and soils would be less than significant, which is the same as the proposed Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for industrial warehousing uses less densely than the proposed Project.

Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and associated GHG emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced square footage would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site, and less trafficrelated GHG emissions than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in a net increase of 71,088.28 MTCO2e per year, which would be reduced by approximately 25 percent to 53,316.21 MTCO2e per year under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. This alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, since it would exceed the brightline threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and reductions measures would not result in less than significant emissions. Therefore, the development and operation of 4,059,443 sf industrial warehousing and business park space would require implementation of the same GHG reduction features that are required for the proposed Project; impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for business park and industrial warehousing uses, and therefore the same type of hazardous materials typically used for construction and operation of the proposed Project would be used under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Similarly, 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 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, like the proposed Specific Plan, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures and impacts that would occur by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the total building square footage; however, 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 2639
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 226 of 240 ends

BMPs. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity 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
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would require a general plan amendment and zone change to implement the Specific Plan. This alternative would have the same type of consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS policies, the City’s General Plan, the City’s Development Code, and consistency with airport plans. Therefore, like the proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to land use and would be similar compared to the proposed Project.

Noise
Construction and operation noise impacts would be reduced under the Reduced Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the development area by 1,353,148 sf. Although construction of this alternative would generate the same peak noise volumes and similar type and volume of construction noise as the proposed Project, the length of time of construction and the associated noise would be marginally shorter.

Operational noise would also be reduced under this alternative as trafficgenerated and stationary noise sources would decrease in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing square footage. Noise impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and reduced compared to the proposed Project.

Population and Housing
Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in an approximate 25 percent reduction in employees on site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in SCAG’s RTP/SCS.

However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would provide fewer employment opportunities. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and similar to the proposed Project.

Public Services
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce buildout of the industrial and business park portions of the Project area by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project site in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing and business park square footage. However, as with the proposed Project, this alternative is not anticipated to result in new residences that could demand new services, and would include design features to lessen the need for services. Impacts therefore would be less than significant. Overall, the need 2640
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 227 of 240 ends

for public services would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.

Transportation
Construction and operation-related traffic and truck trips would be reduced under the Reduced Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the industrial and business park development area by 1,353,148 square feet. The daily trips would be reduced in relation to the reduction of the building area, which would reduce volumes on all roadway segments and intersections. As a result, under this alternative, there would be 8,376 daily trips, with 875 AM peak hour trips. However, due to the existing VMT in the traffic study area and the volume of traffic that would be generated by the 4,059,443 sf industrial warehousing space and business park use that would be developed under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, this alternative would still require implementation of the mitigation measures that involve roadway improvements. As a result, traffic volumes generated from this alternative would be less, however, impacts from implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also be significant and unavoidable.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any tribal cultural resources on the Project site as the proposed Project, despite the reduction in building area and associated surface parking. 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 Reduced Intensity Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce buildout of the Project site by 1,353,148 sf compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project site in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing and business park square footage and would also reduce the demand for utilities and service systems.

The demand for regional water supplies and generation of wastewater would be approximately 25 percent less than the proposed Project. Thus, the impacts related to water supplies and wastewater would be less than the significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. Similarly, solid waste generation would be less than the proposed Project and require less landfill capacity. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service system would be less under this alternative than significant impacts that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-14 through 5-18.)
Attainment of Project Objectives:

Ability to Reduce Impacts
2641
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 228 of 240 ends

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public service, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced Intensity Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, industrial and warehousing/office complex (Objective 1); 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); and 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). However, the reduction of 1,353,148 square feet would attract fewer or smaller businesses and less employment opportunities to area residents. In addition, the smaller development would provide less flexibility to meet the needs of an ever-changing business market. In addition, given the extraordinary infrastructure cost, including off-site improvements and required fees, a 25 percent reduction in density is not considered financially viable for the applicant. This alternative would not fully meet Objective 2 to provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 5.4 million square feet of business park and industrial general uses. (Draft EIR, p. 5-18.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would not achieve the project benefits to the extent the proposed Project does since a reduction in intensity would generate less job opportunities in the City; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agriculture, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.
2642
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 229 of 240 ends

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Based on the analysis contained within the Draft EIR, the Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the “environmentally superior” to the proposed Project.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public service, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “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, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[c]). (Draft EIR, pp. 5-18 through 5-

19.)
H. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

1. Significant Irreversible Changes due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented. Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; 2643
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 230 of 240 ends

 The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

In the case of the proposed Project, its implementation would involve a land use, development, and implementation framework to support up to 5,333,518 square feet of business park, warehouse and ancillary office space with the City of Ontario. Significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of the Project would be:
 Construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels.
 Operation that would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleumbased fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the operation of the Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project. o Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.13, Transportation of the DEIR);
o Emissions of air pollutants associated with operations (see Section 4.2, Air Quality of the DEIR); and
o Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with operation of the Specific Plan due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, and appliances (See Section 7, Energy and Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the DEIR).
 An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.  Employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the SCAB’s nonattainment designations for ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS.

Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. However, the Project is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies would be determined for each phase of the Specific Plan area. Strategies include, but are not limited to:

Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
2644
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 231 of 240 ends

 Design and construct energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.  Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.  Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies. In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity.
 Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible.
 Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand.  Use energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) (or similar) products.  Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code.
 Use drought-tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.
 Employ high-performance dual-pane window glazing in office storefronts.

Water Quality
 Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins, or employ bio-treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.
 Select native and drought-tolerant plants to reduce water demand.  Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the Project area as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration, and control runoff.
 Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible.  Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydro zone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.
 Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City Recycled Water Master Plan.

The commitment of resources to the Project is not unusual or inconsistent with projects of this type and scope. However, once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the Project area would revert back to its current condition. Thus, the Project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of the structures. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-1 through 6-3.)

2. Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
Pursuant to §§ 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the 2645
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 232 of 240 ends

surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
 Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?  Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
 Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?  Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of the DEIR.

1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
The removal of a physical obstacle to growth, such as the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that are not presently in the area, would be considered a potentially growth inducing impact. The Project would include various new infrastructure improvements on-site and off-site, including water, wastewater, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, and dry utilities (natural gas, electricity, telecommunications).

Implementation of the Project would require the construction and improvement of roadways and extension of major infrastructure into areas off-site that will facilitate additional planned growth pursuant to TOP. Although the infrastructure improvements are planned for in the City’s master plans, the improvements would allow further development to occur within the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, the Project would remove obstacles to growth to accommodate the demands of this Project at full buildout, which could allow for future development in the area once adequate infrastructure is in place and would be considered growth inducing.

2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
Generally, as the City continues to develop, it requires further commitment of public services in the form of fire and police protection and series, and other public facilities.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would be consistent with the TOP for Business Park and Industrial uses as well as permitted FARs. Thus, fire service needs for the Project and surrounding area have been anticipated in the development of the planned fire service facilities. Therefore, fire protection and emergency services to the Project would be accommodated within the City’s new and existing fire service facilities, and buildout of 2646
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 233 of 240 ends

the Project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to maintain adequate level of fire protection service to the area. Regarding Police Services, the Ontario Police Department (OPD) has prepared for growth of the Ontario Ranch area, where the Project site is located, and is expected to have adequate facilities and personnel to serve the proposed development. The OPD would continue to add staff and equipment on an asneeded basis in order to accommodate the incremental increasing demands from buildout of land uses, as was identified in the TOP. Furthermore, buildout of the Project would not require construction of additional police facilities to maintain adequate police protection service. Regarding schools, development in the Specific Plan buildout area in accordance with TOP would require payments to the corresponding school district for the construction of new schools. Each school district that serves the City charges a different amount for development impact fees, which is usually dependent on the student generation rates for that district. Lastly, the construction and operation of the Project site would not result in a substantial increase in demand for these services such that a significant deterioration of the existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required.

Regardless of any added level of use to existing libraries or other public facilities, the Project applicant would be required to pay its fair share of development Impact fees to help offset incremental impacts to libraries by helping fund capital improvements and expenditures.

3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During Project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. However, construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region and the construction phase would be temporary. The proposed Project would result in the creation of approximately 5,664 new long-term jobs. The majority of new jobs that would be created by implementation of the Specific Plan would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City and surrounding areas.

Thus, it is anticipated that new jobs would primarily be filled by people within Ontario and the surrounding communities and would not induce an unanticipated influx of new labor into the region. Although the proposed Project would result in new permanent employment opportunities and stimulate economic activity, it would meet future employment demands anticipated in SCAG’s regional growth projections.

As the number of employees in the Specific Plan area grows, these employees would seek shopping, entertainment, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would facilitate economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs. However, the increase in opportunities for employees would not create substantial growth inducement because growth could be accommodated within regional and local projections, and jobs would be filled by the local workforce.

With respect to the SB330 aspect of the Project, there would be no substantial net change in population or employment, other than a slight increase in population due to replacing the lower density residential zoning at the Project site with higher density zoning at the SB330 Replacement Site.
2647
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 234 of 240 ends

Overall, the Project would not encourage or facilitate economic effects that could significantly affect the environment. Therefore, this is not considered a significant growthinducing impact.

4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
The Project consists of General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan, Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map(s), and a Development Agreement to allow for a business park and industrial development on 23 parcels covering approximately 219.39 acres in the City. The development would include eight concrete tilt-up buildings totaling up to 5,333,518 SF of business park, warehouse, and ancillary office space. The Project is proposed in two phases. Phase 1, comprised of Planning Areas (PA) 1 and 2, would allow approximately 3,174,518 SF of industrial and business park uses.

Although the requirement of the GPA may be considered a precedent-setting action, the impacts of subsequent similar actions would require environmental analysis and associated mitigation to ensure that such subsequent impacts would not significantly affect the environment. Pressures to develop other land in the surrounding area would derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial, and industrial land uses that are not directly or indirectly influenced by zoning actions on a particular property. Therefore, approval of the Project would not involve a precedentsetting action that could be applied to the surrounding properties and thereby encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur.

Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth
Implementation of the Project would provide development to accommodate regional and City forecasted employment demands. All physical environmental effects from construction of development have been analyzed in all technical sections of the DEIR.

For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed industrial warehousing and office uses were analyzed throughout the DEIR, including Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 4.10, Noise; and

4.13, Transportation. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project has been analyzed in the DEIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of PPPs and/or mitigation measures contained within Section 4.0 of the DEIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-3 through 6-6.)
SECTION V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines § 15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2648
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 235 of 240 ends

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City identifies the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed project:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources
 Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
 Impact 4.1-2: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
 Impact 4.1-5: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Air Quality
 Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
 Impact 4.2-2: 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?
Cultural Resources
 Impact 4.4-1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Impact 4.6-1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?  Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions? Transportation and Traffic
 Impact 4.13-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
2649
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 236 of 240 ends

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the proposed Project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the Project acceptable even though the FEIR has indicated that there will be nine significant and unavoidable project impacts if the mitigation measures for Impacts 4.1-1, 4.1-2, 4.1- 5, 4.2-1, 4.2-2, 4.4-1, 4.6-1, 4.6-2, and 4.13-2, are implemented. Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, as set forth below, has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the Project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein, and balancing the benefits of the proposed Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons:

1. Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The Project objectives include creating a professional, well-maintained, and attractive environment for development; providing entitlements and framework for development of business park and light industrial uses; providing employment opportunities for community residents; facilitating the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure; expanding Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks; and creating an economic engine to drive future growth and spur improvements in the area.

2. Provides Employment Opportunities
The Project would provide for high-quality industrial uses within the City and the TOP area and would increase employment opportunities for City and area residents. The proposed Project would include eight warehouse buildings totaling a maximum development of 5,333,518 square feet of warehouse and office uses and would generate 5,459 employment opportunities.

3. Provides Substantial Infrastructure Improvements
The Project will be responsible for the construction of area-wide infrastructure construction within the Ontario Ranch area, including roadway, water, and sewer and storm drains as set forth in the DEIR and South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan.

The Project would construct improvements and infrastructure consistent with the TOP and the City’s various master plans for roadways and sewers, among others. 2650
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 237 of 240 ends

4. Consistency with the Regional Goals in the RTP/SCS
SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands.

The proposed Project would create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land. The implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate the construction of roads and other major infrastructure investments that will ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The Specific Plan would expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional networks, and the vehicular and pedestrian improvements called for in the Specific Plan would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and visitors. Additionally, all modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by state, regional, and local regulations. The proposed Specific Plan would preserve and ensure access to the local public transportation near the Project site. The proposed project would improve and maintain local and area-serving transportation systems to maximize efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the proposed Project would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability strategies.

5. Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan The Project will implement GHG emissions reduction measures specified in the DEIR and will comply with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, which strives to achieve GHG reductions City-wide that comply with the State’s reduction requirements. 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 GHG emissions reduction target established under the CAP is 30 percent under year 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels. To meet this goal and to supplement statewide initiatives, the City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City before 2020. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.

Table 4.6-8 in the DEIR evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project to the applicable measures of the Community CAP. As discussed in the Table, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable measures. Additionally, the Project would be consistent with the CAP Appendix B, Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables (CAP Screening Tables), which 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 2651
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 238 of 240 ends

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.

6. Remediates On-site Contamination
The Project would remediate existing site conditions, which consist of historic agricultural and dairy-related uses that contributed to on site contamination.

C. Conclusion
The City Council of Ontario has balanced the Project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the proposed Project’s benefits, which aim to meet the goals and policies of the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP), outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in the light of the Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable impact.

SECTION VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.

SECTION VII. PROJECT APPROVAL
Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, City Council hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION VIII.STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
2652
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 239 of 240 ends

_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
2653
Resolution No. 2022-

Page 240 of 240 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 1, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 1, 2022. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
2654

Page 241 of 240 ends

EXHIBIT A:

South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program follow this page) 2655
FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

SOUTH ONTARIO LOGISTICS CENTER

SPECIFIC PLAN
SCH No. 2021010318

LEAD AGENCY
City of Ontario

ALEXIS VAUGHN, ASSISTANT PLANNER
303 EAST “B” STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91761
(909) 395-2036

CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

CONTACT: KEVIN THOMAS, CEP, ENV SP
3880 LEMON STREET, SUITE 420
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
February 2022
2656
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Ontario i February 2022
Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Organization of the FEIR.........................................................................................1-1

1.2 CEQA Requirements for a FEIR.................................................................................1-1

1.3 Clarifications, Amplifications and Modifications to the DEIR.........................................1-3

2.0 Response to Comments.................................................................................................2-1

2.1 List Of DEIR Comments...........................................................................................2-1 State Agency Letters
- Comment Letter S1 - California Department of Fish and Wildlife................................2-3 Responses to Comment Letter S1.........................................................................2-18 Attachment S1– CDFW Reliance Letter for Burrowing Owl...................................2-25 - Comment Letter S2 - Jacob K. Mathew, Department of Transportation (Caltrans).......2-27 Responses to Comment Letter S2.........................................................................2-28 Local Agency Letters
- Comment Letter L1 - Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.......................2-30 Responses to Comment Letter L1.........................................................................2-31 - Comment Letter L2 - City of Ontario, Integrated Waste Department, Municipal Utilities Company...............................................................................2-32 Responses to Comment Letter L2.........................................................................2-33 - Comment Letter L3 - South Coast Air Quality Management District..........................2-34 Responses to Comment Letter L3.........................................................................2-42 - Comment Letter L4 -City of Chino.......................................................................2-48 Responses to Comment Letter L4.........................................................................2-50 Organization Letters
- Comment Letter O1 - Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance...........................2-53 Responses to Comment Letter O1........................................................................2-68 Attachment O1 - REDA-Ontario Ranch Economic Benefit Analysis and Key Fiscal Revenue Summary..................................................................................2-83 - Comment Letter O2 - Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo.................................... 2-102 Responses to Comment Letter O2...................................................................... 2-246

3.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 DEIR Revisions in Response to Written Comments......................................................3-2 - Executive Summary.............................................................................................3-2 - Section 3.0, Project Description ............................................................................3-2 2657
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Ontario ii February 2022
- Section 4.2, Air Quality ........................................................................................3-4 - Section 4.3, Biological Resources...........................................................................3-7 - Section 4.4, Cultural Resources...........................................................................3-10 - Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................3-10 - Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gases...........................................................................3-11 - Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning .....................................................................3-11 Attachment A: Revised Draft EIR Figures..........................................................................3-13 Attachment B: Revised Appendix B2: Health Risk Assessment.............................................3-17 2658
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 | Introduction City of Ontario 1-1 February 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Ontario (City), as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code [PCR] §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§ 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (Project) during the public review period, which began November 15, 2021 and closed January 3, 2022. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this document, in conjunction with the circulated DEIR, comprise the FEIR.

1.1 ORGANIZATION OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:
• Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. • Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.
• Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2 of this FEIR, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review.

1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FEIR
As described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089, 15090 and 15132, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments received on the DEIR and prepare written responses and consider the information contained in a FEIR before approving a project.
2659
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 | Introduction City of Ontario 1-2 February 2022
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be:
…on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204(d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” State CEQA Guidelines §15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contain in the text of the DEIR, that the Lead Agency either revise the text of the DEIR or include marginal notes showing that information. The FEIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines §15132 indicates that the contents of a FEIR shall consist of:
• “The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
• Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; • A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
The City has evaluatedcomments on environmental issues from persons who reviewed the DEIR and has prepared a written response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(a). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the City provided written responses to comments to any public agency that commented on the DEIR, at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council consideration of certifying the EIR as adequate under CEQA. Written responses to comments will also be provided to non-public agency individuals, organizations, and entities that commended on the DEIR. In addition, the FEIR will be made available to the general public at the City’s Planning Division office and on the City’s website a minimum of 10 days prior to the City Council public hearing.
2660
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 | Introduction City of Ontario 1-3 February 2022
The FEIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, will be considered by the City’s Council.

1.3 CLARIFICATIONS, AMPLIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEIR
Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, details the proposed changes to the DEIR. In response to public comments, text changes have been made to DEIR sections to clarify and amplify the analysis or mitigation measures, and to make insignificant modifications to the DEIR. This information does not rise to the level of significant new information as the resulting impact analysis and alternatives considered remain essentially unchanged, and no new or more severe impacts have been identified. These changes do not warrant DEIR recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.

CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when an EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
“(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” As discussed herein and as elaborated upon in the respective Response to Comments, none of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new 2661
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1.0 | Introduction City of Ontario 1-4 February 2022
feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted, nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” DEIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments, master responses and DEIR Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Here, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or an unadopted feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters. Therefore, this FEIR is not subject to recirculation prior to certification.
2662
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2‐1 February 2022

2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that: “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments that were received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this section of the FEIR provides the City of Ontario’s responses to each of the comments on the DEIR received during the public comment period.

Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.

The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period.

2.1 LIST OF DEIR COMMENTS
Comments have been numbered as shown below, with responses to each comment following the respective comment letter.

Lett Date Received Organization/Name
State Agencies
S1 December 23, 2021 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) S2 December 27, 2021 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Local
L1 November 23, 2021 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) L2 December 22, 2021 Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) L3 December 29, 2021 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) L4 January 3, 2022 City of Chino
Organizations
O1 December 16, 2021 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA)1 O2 January 3, 2022
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
c/o CARECA (Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy)

1 Note that on January 27th, 2022 GSEJA submitted a letter withdrawing its comments and expressing support for the Project. 2663
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-2 February 2022
Response to Comments
State Agency Letters
2664
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-3 February 2022
Comment Letter S1
2665
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-4 February 2022
2666
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-5 February 2022
2667
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-6 February 2022
2668
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-7 February 2022
2669
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-8 February 2022
2670
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-9 February 2022
2671
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-10 February 2022
2672
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-11 February 2022
2673
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-12 February 2022
2674
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-13 February 2022
2675
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-14 February 2022
2676
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-15 February 2022
2677
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-16 February 2022
2678
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-17 February 2022
2679
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-18 February 2022
Letter S1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
December 23, 2021
Response S1-a
Comment is noted. No response is required.

Response S1-b
The General Biological Assessment (GBA) prepared for the Project included a literature review and field survey of the Project site and surrounding areas. The Prado Dam 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles were used to identify sensitive species in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the CNDDB, the nearest recorded occurrence of western pond turtle lies approximately 3.7 miles to the southeast of the Project area within the Santa Ana River floodplain.

Further, the western pond turtle was not observed during the field survey. The onsite stock ponds collect waste from livestock and dairy activities. The stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year and are routinely dredged to remove waste and sediment. The stock ponds are designed to hold water for no more than 72 hours; therefore, the ponds do not provide a permanent source of open water necessary for the species. Although the GBA determined that the onsite stock ponds may potentially provide suitable habitat for western pond turtle, it is unlikely that this species occurs within the project area. The proposed mitigation measure MM BIO-1 was intended to ensure that no impacts to the species occurs in the unlikely event that western pond turtle is found onsite. Based on CDFW’s recommendationand as noted in Section

3.0, Revisions to the DEIR, of this Final EIR, MM BIO-1 will be revised to the following (indicated in bold underline for additions and strikethrough to deletions):

MM BIO-1 The following measures shall be implemented for the indicated species, prior to commencement of ground disturbance at the Project site:
…
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 2680
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-19 February 2022
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.

Within 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for western pond turtle within all areas that fall within 100 feet of any suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat for this species (stock/retention ponds). If western pond turtles are observed during the pre-construction survey, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted. If no Western pond turtles are observed during the preconstruction survey, then construction activities may begin. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 30 days, another preconstruction 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

During construction, a qualified biological monitor who has been approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 on-site 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.

The revised MM BIO-1, as specified above, will ensure that no take of western pond turtle will result from Project implementation. CDFW’s recommendation that the Project should create suitable, breeding, and foraging habitat at a minimum 2:1 replacement to impact ratio if western pond turtle are found during pre-construction surveys is not necessary due to the fact that the onsite stock ponds to be impacted by the Project do not provide habitat necessary for the species, as described above. As previously stated, it is unlikely that the species will be found onsite during pre-construction trapping surveys and the proposed mitigation measure is merely precautionary.

Response S1-c
Development is only proposed on the ±130-acre site that is located north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, east of Bon View Avenue, and west of Grove Avenue (Phase 1). The additional parcels to the west of Bon View Avenue are associated with Phase 2 of Project development, and there is no specific development proposed at this time on those parcels. As stated on page 3-3 of Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, there is an active Williamson Contract (Contract #72-392) on APN 1054-051-01, 02 and 1054-061-01, 02. As there is no development proposed on the Phase 2 parcels, 2681
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-20 February 2022
the surveys were not completed west of Bon View Avenue. See Response S1-d below regarding revisions to MM BIO-2.

Regarding the funding and legislation changes, the Draft EIR is not required, under the CEQA Guidelines, to provide information regarding funding for conservation as the funds would not result in an environmental impact. The Project would implement the stated mitigation measures to ensure that there would be no direct impacts to the sensitive species. Additional information related to the agricultural lands and preservation through the Williamson Contract are provided in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry, of the Draft EIR.

Response S1-d
A reliance letter was prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on January 14, 2022 confirming there is no change in the existing site conditions compared to the time of the initial burrowing owl surveys prepared in 2019 (see Attachment S1). Therefore, the conditions as analyzed in the Draft EIR are accurate.

Response S1-e
The City disagrees with the assertion in that the Draft EIR does address site-specific and regionally significant and cumulative impacts, as well as providing mitigation where necessary to reduce impacts to a lessthan significant level. As stated on page 4.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the site-specific analysis states that the observations during the BUOW surveys indicated there were no direct BUOW identifications, and none of the potential burrows inspected were determined to be occupied. However, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to require an avoidance survey, and avoidance and minimization approaches would be evaluated by monitoring the burrowing owls if they are present on-site. Therefore, as there were no indications of burrowing owls, and with implementation of MM BIO-2, the Draft EIR is not required to address permanent conservation of occupied burrowing owl habitat. Regarding regionally significant and cumulative impacts, as stated on page 4.3-27 of the Draft EIR, the cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County region. As further stated therein, the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the identified species, including the BUOW, 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. Therefore, the Draft EIR adequately analyzes site-specific and regionally significant and cumulative impacts, as well as mitigation.

Response S1-f
See Response S1-e. As impacts to burrowing owl habitat have been reduced to less than significant levels, no additional mitigation measures are required. However, MM BIO-2 has been revised for clarification and to include the commenter’s requested mitigation language (indicated in bold underline for additions and strikethrough to deletions):

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.

Furthermore, subsequent to the adoption in 1998 of the Sphere of Influence (SOI) General Plan and EIR, a lawsuit was filed against the City of Ontario (City) by the Endangered Habitats League, Inc., and the 2683
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-22 February 2022
Sierra Club, challenging the City’s CEQA compliance and approval of the SOI General Plan Amendment. A Settlement Agreement was reached and agreed to by all parties that set forth revised mitigation measures for potential impacts in the New Model Colony (referred to as Annexation Area 163 in the agreement) to the burrowing owl, the DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, actual and potential habitat and agricultural land, and sensitive (listed and nonlisted) species. These measures will be in effect until all the developable acres in the New Model Colony (Ontario Ranch) reach full buildout, as determined by the City.

Since the Settlement Agreement, the City has established a habitat mitigation fee to cover potential environmental impacts to the Burrowing Owl, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, raptor foraging, loss of open space, and agricultural lands. Mitigation fees have been collected by the City and have been deposited into a trust fund to be used for the acquisition, restoration, rehabilitation, and maintenance of lands deemed to have long-term conservation value. In 2010, the Ontario City Council approved the selection of the Riverside Land Conservancy (today known as River and Land Conservancy) as the administrator of the habitat mitigation fees and to create a habitat program pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement between the City of Ontario, the Endangered Habitats League, Inc., and the Sierra Club. However, due to the economic downturn shortly after 2010, the contract between the City and the Riverside Land Conservancy was never ratified. It was anticipated that once development in Ontario Ranch began to commence, the City would ratify the contract.

In 2022, the City will be going out with a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a non-profit land trusts and/or organization specializing in habitat conservation. The selected non-profit and/or organization will be responsible for the administration of the habitat mitigation fees and create a habitat program pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement between the City of Ontario, the Endangered Habitats League, Inc., and the Sierra Club. In partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the City will work with the selected non-profit and/or organization to maintain an interactive mapping and current inventory of the burrowing owl occurrences and in the selection of adequate lands for passive relocation.

Response S1-g
The Draft EIR includes MM BIO-1 to reduce Project impacts to State special-status avian species (tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, great blue heron, Swainson’s hawk, yellow rail, California horned lark, and merlin) to a less than significant level. The Draft EIR’s MM BIO-1 already contains the CDFW’s recommended measures.

Response S1-h
The Project site consists of an active dairy farm and agricultural fields. Ongoing dairy and agricultural operations include implementation of rodent control programs, which include the removal of rodent burrows and use of rodenticides. Based upon the level of ongoing disturbance and implementation of rodent control programs, the site would be considered low-quality foraging habitat for raptors; therefore, impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be considered less than significant. The measures included in MM BIO-1 are intended to reduce potential impacts to foraging raptors to a less than significant level. 2684
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-23 February 2022
Although the agriculture fields and stock/retention ponds may provide foraging habitat for special-status raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained and in use. This loss of potential foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors; therefore, replacement of foraging habitat would not be required.

Response S1-i
According to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), tricolored blackbird colonies have been recorded within the vicinity of the Project site. Tricolored blackbirds require open accessible water, a secure substrate in which to place their nests, and suitable nearby foraging areas that provide adequate food sources for breeding. If any one of these required elements is missing, the species will not breed in that location. Although the GBA prepared for the Project found that suitable habitat for this species occurs on the Project site; breeding habitat is contingent upon the onsite waste filled stock ponds.

However, the onsite stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year; therefore, the ponds do not provide a reliable source of open water necessary for breeding/nesting habitat. The species’ preferred foraging habitats include agricultural crops such as rice, alfalfa, irrigated pastures, and ripening or cut grain fields, as well as annual grasslands, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Therefore, the site does provide potentially suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird.

The site was not occupied by tricolored blackbird individuals or colonies at the time of the GBA. Further, suitable breeding/nesting habitat does not occur on the site. As such, protocol surveys are not warranted.

Furthermore, the tricolored blackbird is not a federally listed species. Tricolored blackbird is a State-listed species, and a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental Take Permit (ITP) is only required to be obtained from CDFW for potential “take” of the species. “Take” is defined by Fish and Game Code Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” There is no occupied tricolored blackbird habitat on the site. Therefore, the Project is not expected to result in “take” of tricolored blackbird.

Measures included in MM BIO-1 are intended to avoid permanent direct impacts to nesting birds, which includes tricolored blackbird, year-round. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.

Response S1-j
See Response S1-i related to the CDFW’s proposed mitigation measure. See also Response S1-I regarding the tricolored blackbird.

MM BIO-1 in the Draft EIR requires vegetation removal conducted outside of the nesting season and to ensure no sensitive species are impacted, thereby avoiding permanent direct impacts to nesting birds, which includes tricolored blackbird, year-round. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.

Response S1-k
Comment is noted. No further response is required.
2685
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-24 February 2022
Response S1-l
Comment is noted. No further response is required.

Response S1-m
Comment is noted. No further response is required.
2686
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-25 February 2022
Attachment S1– CDFW Reliance Letter for Burrowing Owl
2687
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-26 February 2022
2688
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-27 February 2022
Comment Letter S2
2689
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-28 February 2022
Letter S2 Jacob K. Mathew, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) January 4, 2022
Response S2-a
Comment noted. The Traffic Impact Analyses (TIA) and associated appendices were provided to Caltrans for review on November 15, 2021. Additionally, the TIA was posted to the City’s website on November 15, 2021, at the following URL:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact.

As such, all requested documents have been provided to Caltrans for review.

A TIA (Appendix I1 of the Draft EIR) was prepared for the Project in accordance with the City’s most recent Traffic and Transportation Guidelines (adopted June 2020), which documents the City’s traffic analysis methodology, traffic safety, and impact thresholds. The TIA has been prepared in accordance with the 6 th Edition Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Reports, and through consultation with City of Ontario staff during the TIA scoping process. Additionally, the TIA is based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Model. The Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis (Appendix I2 of the EIR) is based on the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Guidelines, which include a Countywide Senate Bill (SB) 743 VMT Implementation Study. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the Institution of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017) and the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study.

The TIA was prepared in accordance with Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target Level of Service (LOS) at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway System (SHS) facilities. The TIA addresses traffic safety reviews for the proposed land uses for the Project and the surrounding projects and plans affecting the nearby SHS. The Project will be consistent with all program plans, ordinances, or policies, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as described in Impact 4.13-1 of the Draft EIR.
2690
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-29 February 2022
Response to Comments
Local Agency Letters
2691
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-30 February 2022
Comment Letter L1
2692
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-31 February 2022
Letter L1 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
November 23, 2021
Response L1
Comment Noted. Page 4.9-11 of Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR acknowledges the Project site’s location within the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Project’s compliance with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Chino Airport is discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Airport Influence Areas of the Project’s Specific Plan.
2693
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-32 February 2022
Comment Letter L2
2694
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-33 February 2022
Letter L2 City of Ontario, Integrated Waste Department, Municipal Utilities Company December 22, 2021
Response L2-a
The Draft EIR addresses solid waste and the Project’s compliance with applicable regulations related to solid waste in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. Specifically, PPP SW-2 of page 4.15-26 states that the Project will store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341. As stated on page 4.15-28, the Project would also implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated waste Department’s Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service.

The Project would comply with Chapter 3 of the Ontario Municipal Code, which requires that the Project comply with all applicable State and federal laws. AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste, and that local jurisdictions must implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses. SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead on planning for necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations. The City’s Solid Waste Department offers the Food waste Recycling Program to provide food waste collection services to assist businesses in complying with AB 1826 and SB 1383. Therefore, the Draft EIR does include a section demonstrating how the Project would meet the recycling and organics regulations listed in the comment. 2695
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-34 February 2022
Comment Letter L3
2696
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-35 February 2022
2697
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-36 February 2022
2698
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-37 February 2022
2699
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-38 February 2022
2700
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-39 February 2022
2701
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-40 February 2022
2702
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-41 February 2022
2703
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-42 February 2022
Letter L3 South Coast Air Quality Management District
December 29, 2021
Response L3-a
Comment is introductory and general in nature. No further action needed.

Response L3-b
Excavated materials will be transported off-site. See additional discussion under response to comment L3-i.

Response L3-c
The Draft EIR evaluated impacts based on, amongst other data, the assumption, as stated on page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR, “…that construction of Phase 1 would occur from mid-2022 to mid-2023 and the construction of Phase 2 would occur from mid-2023 to mid-2024”. Thus, the City has analyzed sequential construction of Phase 1 with Phase 2 in the EIR.

The commenter’s recommendation to combine overlapping construction emissions with operational emissions is not consistent with other SCAQMD guidance documents, recommendations, and impact analyses. For example, neither the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, or Air Quality Significance Thresholds imply or explicitly recommend combining emissions from distinct construction and operational activities into a single lump sum emissions total. Rather, each of these documents discusses potential sources, mitigation measures, and thresholds of significance for construction and operational emissions separately.

It should be noted that specific details regarding development of the parcels in Phase 2 are not known at this time. The DEIR’s air quality analysis assumed construction of Phase 2 would begin in 2023. In addition, the analysis assumed all Phase 2 parcels would be developed at the same time, and that construction activities associated with all Phase 2 parcels would overlap. Actual development would be subject to market conditions. It is possible that only one of the parcels in Phase 2 could be developed beginning in 2023, or that construction could start later than 2023, which would affect emissions estimates. It is not possible to know the specific timing and characteristics of potential future projects occurring in the planning area and, therefore, evaluating potential combined emissions scenarios would be speculative and would not provide meaningful information or analyses.

Nonetheless, the Final EIR will include the following discussion on impacts from the potential overlapping of Phase 1 operational activities with Phase 2 construction activities:
2704
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-43 February 2022
Table 4.2-12a - Emissions from Overlapping Phase 1 Operation and Phase 2 Construction Sources
Pollutants (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Phase 1 Operations1 100.47 386.27 390.69 2.10 132.86 42.19 Phase 2 Construction (2024)2 130.58 75.54 107.97 0.42 24.86 7.96 Total Unmitigated Overlapping Emissions 231.05 461.81 498.66 2.52 157.72 50.15 SCAQMD Operational Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes No No Yes No
Mitigated Emissions
Phase 1 Operations1 82.28 295.28 272.12 1.91 125.83 36.37 Phase 2 Construction (2024) 2 36.66 75.54 107.97 0.42 24.86 7.96 Total Mitigated Overlapping Emissions 118.94 370.82 380.09 2.33 150.69 44.33 SCAQMD Operational Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes No No Yes No

1. Refer to Draft EIR Table 4.2-9 (Phase 1 – Maximum Daily Operation Emissions).

2. Refer to Draft EIR Table 4.2-10 (Phase 2 – Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions). Note that Phase 2 construction would occur in 2023 and 2024. This table provides the maximum daily emissions, which would occur in 2024.

As shown 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. Overlapping emissions of CO, SOx, and PM2.5 would not exceed. Even with implementation of applicable mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR, mitigated emissions of VOC, NOx, and PM10 would remain in excess of applicable thresholds.

Comparing the results summarized on Table 4.2-12a of the Final EIR, with the total Project buildout emissions as reported in DEIR Table 4.2-12 demonstrates that emissions for all six criteria pollutants studied are less during the overlapping scenario than at Project buildout. PM2.5 impacts from the overlapping scenario are less than significant, while long-term operational impacts exceed thresholds.

Therefore, the temporary impacts from the overlapping Phase 1 operations / Phase 2 construction are less than those predicted to occur with Project buildout. As such, DEIR Table 4.2-12 presents the worstcase maximum daily emissions from the Project (i.e., exceedances of the ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 regional daily mass emissions thresholds). The DEIR identifies all feasible mitigation to reduce construction and operational impacts. Combining Phase 2 construction with Phase 1 operations (i.e., the phases that would potentially overlap) would not result in a new threshold exceedance, would not make additional mitigation feasible, and a new impact would not occur.

Response L3-d
The commenter is correct that the air dispersion modeling performed in support of the Draft EIR used discrete receptors, and a discrepancy in idling emission rates from trucks in the EIR documentation. As discussed in detail below (see responses to comments L3-k and L3-l below). As discussed therein, the City contends the use of discrete receptors is justified and disagrees with the assertion that the modeling underestimated project emissions from idling.
2705
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-44 February 2022
Response L3-e
See detailed response to comment L3-m below.

Response L3-f
Comment is general in nature. See related response to comment L3-n below.

Response L3-g
Comment is general in nature. No further action needed.

Response L3-h
Comment is general in nature. No further action needed.

Response L3-i
The comment summarizes statements in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for soil contamination to be present on the Project site. The comment also summarizes Mitigation Measures (MM) HAZ-2 and -3 requiring the performance of a Phase II subsurface soil assessment and development of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) prior to receiving a grading permit. Because the presence of impacted soils is speculative at this time, the Draft EIR could not reasonably contain detailed data regarding the potential compound(s) of concern, the lateral or vertical extent of any impacted material, and the need for removal and disposal. Therefore, specific soil removal and disposal measures cannot reasonably be known at this time, and the City mandated that the SMP developed after certification of the Final EIR, pursuant to MM HAZ-2, include disposal protocols.

The City agrees to include a commitment to require the evaluation of the air quality impacts from soil removal and hauling activities when the protocols become known and prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal and hauling activities at the Proposed Project. See revisions to MM HAZ-2 in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR and reproduced below.

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 nonresidential 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 2706
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-45 February 2022
exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.

Response L3-j
See detailed response to comment L3-c above.

Response L3-k
The City agrees with the comment summary that the modeling performed to analyze impacts from the proposed Project did not use a uniform Cartesian grid and instead placed 458 discrete receptors within the modeling domain. The City disagrees with the assertion this method may not have identified the maximum impacted receptor(s) and that the analyses be revised. The choice to use discrete receptors was simply to increase the efficiency of the computer modeling and includes discrete receptors at 50-meter intervals (more refined than the suggested 100 meter spacing) covering a 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter area.

Response L3-l
The City acknowledges the discrepancy noted in the comment. Copies of the AERMOD modeling files contained in the Appendix to the Draft EIR do not accurately reflect those upon which the City relied in determining impacts. The results in the Draft EIR are from AERMOD modeling runs that match the emission rates identified by the City, which were inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIR Appendix.

Therefore, dispersion modeling results used to calculate impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR are consistent and accurate and do not underestimate impacts. Replacement pages are identified in the Errata section of the Final EIR.

Response L3-m
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant levels of emissions during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR also includes a number of Plans, Programs, and Policies, standard conditions, and Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts from the proposed Project. The City disagrees that the suggested performance standards must be adopted in the Final EIR The City designed the five air quality mitigation measures to require strategies which can reasonably be seen as feasible at the time Project operations are expected to begin. Especially, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 have been identified to reduce operational emissions from 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.

The six suggested measures contained in the comment related to ZE or NZE vehicles are not feasible to implement, because the availability of vehicles equipped with such technology in 2024 is speculative.

Even with adoption of CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Rule, CARB acknowledges that it will take time for zero- and near-zero emission (ZE and NZE) vehicles to become commercially available and to penetrate 2707
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-46 February 2022
the market. For example, CARB’s EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 model provides detailed vehicle registration information and estimates the official emissions inventories of on-road mobile sources, vehicle population, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. The EMFAC2021 data for South Coast portion of San Bernardino County shows that in 2024 (the Project’s opening year), approximately 85 percent of heavy trucks would still be powered by diesel and 91 percent of the VMT would occur from diesel trucks. Electric vehicles would make up approximately 0.29 percent of the heavy-duty fleet and

0.25 percent of the heavy truck VMT. The EMFAC data shows that penetration of ZE and NZE vehicles into commercial fleets will be slow. For example, for 2030, the model predicts that 81 percent of heavy trucks would be diesel-powered and that 88 percent of the heavy truck VMT would be from diesel trucks.

Therefore, as CARB data anticipates that the vast majority of trucks of trucks to be diesel-powered in the Project opening year and in 2030, it would not be feasible to develop numeric targets, to establish preferential occupancy policies, or require purchasing policies applicable to future, unknown tenants.

The Final EIR does not need to specify the technology choices by which emissions reductions from the operations of future, unknown tenants will be achieved. South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 establishes performance standards applicable to future tenants and offers flexible compliance options, allowing each future operator at the proposed Project site to adopt the feasible strategies applicable to their operations.

Although compliance with proposed Rule 2305 could reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed, conservatively, the EIR did not take credit for these potential additional reductions.

The City disagrees with the suggestion that the Final EIR should include a limit on the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels that were analyzed in the Final EIR (2,438 daily truck tips) and require re-evaluating impacts through CEQA should daily truck trips from the Proposed Project be anticipated to exceed those levels. The EIR is based on a set of realistic, but conservative, s et of assumptions regarding the magnitude of potential activities resulting from the proposed Project, including truck trip estimates. As stated on page 4.13-12 of the Draft EIR, “From a trip generation perspective, these land use assumptions are conservative in that trip generation would likely be overstated as opposed to understated.” Therefore, the City does not anticipate truck trips to exceed those, and future re-evaluation is not necessary.

The City agrees to include a commitment to require Project operators to “…mark truck routes with trailblazer signs to ensure truck travel utilizes these routes analyzed in the Draft EIR….”. See revisions to MM AQ-5 in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR and reproduced below:

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. 2708
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-47 February 2022
In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.

Response L3-n
Refer to Response O2-f for Comment Letter O2. The proposed Project is being developed for as-of-yet unknown future tenants, to fulfill their specific, but speculative business needs. As such, and in accordance with CEQA guidelines, the Draft EIR did not anticipate the installation and operation of diesel emergency generators, fire pumps, or other equipment needing permits from the SCAQMD. Thus, the City disagrees that the SCAQMD should be listed as a responsible agency. 2709
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-48 February 2022
Comment Letter L4
2710
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-49 February 2022
2711
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-50 February 2022
Letter L4 City of Chino
January 4, 2022
Response L4-a
The Development Agreement (DA) prepared for the Draft EIR is discussed within Section 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR. The DA follows the improvements identified within the Specific Plan and will not include any new physical construction or any new significant impact that was not already analyzed and addressed within the Draft EIR.

Response L4-b
Figure 4.9-1, Surrounding Land Uses Map, of the Draft EIR, identifies existing surrounding land uses adjacent to the Project site and existing surrounding land uses located in the City of Chino.

Response L4-c
As stated on page 112 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), provided in Appendix I of the Draft EIR, the cumulative project list was prepared through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Ontario. The cumulative projects listed are those that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to Project area intersections. The neighboring jurisdictions such as the City of Chino were contacted to include key projects in their respective cities that would generate traffic and would contribute traffic to Project area intersections. Additionally, page 122 of the TIA describes the model growth for the Project.

Through a conservative analysis approach and in conjunction with the addition of cumulative projects that are not consistent with the General Plan, additional growth has also been applied on a movement-bymovement basis, where applicable, to estimate reasonable traffic volume forecasts. Therefore, the additional growth would account for any potential cumulative projects that are not located on the project list. Furthermore, according to the Initial Study prepared for the City of Chino’s Eagle’s Nest V and VI airport hangar project, buildout of the hangar project would result in a less than significant to no impact to traffic and transportation.2 Therefore, buildout of the Eagle’s Nest V and VI airport hangar project would not result generate increased traffic volumes, nor contribute traffic to its area’s intersections.

Based on the reasons above, cumulative impacts from nearby cumulative projects, including those either planned, under environmental review, approved, or under construction, as well as an applied growth factor, were accounted for in the cumulative analyses for the Draft EIR.

Response L4-d
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR, analyzes and discusses infrastructure related improvements relating to drainage, potable water demand, sewer, etc., for the Project and surrounding area and includes. The Draft EIR identifies plans, programs, and policies which will be implemented upon buildout of the Project to further reduce runoff to the surrounding area. As discussed on page 4.8-17 through 4.8-18 of the Draft EIR, an extensive drainage plan would be in place which includes on-site storm drains, culverts, catch basins and detention basins. The basins would be designed to lessen the flow of 2 City of Chino, Initial Study for the Eagle’s Nest V and VI Aviation Business Park Project. September 2020. Retrieved from:
http://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Departments/Community%20Development/Environ mental%20Documents/Eagle's%20Nest%20Project/Eagles%20Nest%20V%20and%20VI%20IS_MND%20with%20Attachments.pdf 2712
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-51 February 2022
post-development runoff to pre-development conditions, and would be designed to treat runoff for pollutants, pursuant to SWRCB regulations. Furthermore, a preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), provided in Appendix G2 of the Draft EIR, has been created for this Project. The preliminary WQMP has incorporated combined Low Impact Development (LID) treatment, source control Best Management Practices (BMPs), and treatment control BMPs. Through implementation of these BMPs, mitigation volume will be contained, thus, operational water quality impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would comply with all State, county, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during construction and operational phases of the Project. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Downstream and potential off-site impacts to the City of Chino would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Response L4-e
Comment noted. No further response required.

Response L4-f
In accordance with the City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Streets and Highways, the City plans on building Merrill Avenue the full width, including the Chino (south) side, but only to the curb and gutter. The City will not build sidewalks or landscape the south side or put other Chino utilities under the street. The City only intends on paving so there is a full drivable width for two lanes in each direction.

Response L4-g
As stated on page 70 of the TIA, traffic counts were collected in January 2019. Due to the closures associated with COVID-19, a growth rate per year for movements were utilized to conservatively reflect 2021 conditions. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(3), the existing conditions baseline shall not include hypothetical conditions. Therefore, as the counts were taken prior to the completion of the inbound and outbound on the south leg, the traffic count once the improvement was completed is speculative. Furthermore, the TIA’s future and cumulative scenarios correctly account for planned roadway improvements. Lastly, under SB 743, level of service (LOS) is no longer utilized for determining significance for transportation impacts under CEQA. Therefore, no update is required. However, the City of Ontario will continue to coordinate improvements and projects with the City of Chino.

Response L4-h
See Response L4-g as it applies to traffic counts and LOS.

Response L4-i
See Response L4-g as it applies to traffic counts and LOS. 2713
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-52 February 2022
Response to Comments
Organization Letters
2714
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-53 February 2022
Comment Letter O1
2715
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-54 February 2022
2716
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-55 February 2022
2717
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-56 February 2022
2718
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-57 February 2022
2719
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-58 February 2022
2720
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-59 February 2022
2721
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-60 February 2022
2722
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-61 February 2022
2723
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-62 February 2022
2724
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-63 February 2022
2725
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-64 February 2022
2726
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-65 February 2022
2727
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-66 February 2022
2728
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-67 February 2022
2729
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-68 February 2022
Letter O1 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance
December 22, 2021
Response O1-a
Comment noted. No response is required.

Response O1-b
The City disagrees with the assertion that the proposed South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (Project) “is a piecemealed portion of a larger overall project,” which the commenter incorrectly calls the “REDA Industrial Center.” The Project was never a reasonably foreseeable result of any prior-approved development, and the Project’s use, financing, and entitlement processing are independent from any other development. Thus, the Project does not constitute a piecemealed portion of a larger development.

An EIR can only analyze possible future actions that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project that the EIR studies. Here, the Project was never a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any previous project, including the projects referenced by the commenter, i.e., the West Ontario Commerce Center Specific Plan (WOCC); the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (ORBP); and the Merrill Commerce Center Specific Plan (MCC), the latter of which was a project developed by Prologis (an entity with no connection or association with the Applicant). The City approved the WOCC in July 2018 and the ORBP in October 2020. The City issued this Project’s Notice of Preparation in December 2020.

A project is not a piecemealed portion of a larger development if the project has independent utility or serves an independent purpose, and it is not dependent on or compelled by the completion of another development. The SOLC Project has been designed and is being processed by the City as an independent project, and can move forward independent of any other project in Ontario.

As the commenter notes, the Draft EIR states that “all off-site improvements identified for this Project have already been addressed in prior CEQA documents . . . or are part of the City’s planned regional infrastructure system, for which the Project will participate in funding.” (Draft EIR, p. 3-8.) These offsite improvements include “asphalt demolition, fine grading, utility trenching, asphalt paving, finishing and landscaping.” (Ibid.) That the Project will utilize these offsite improvements does not make it dependent upon any other development because: (1) the Project’s conditions of approval require the Project to bear the independent, fair-share cost of these improvements; and (2) these improvements would be constructed by the Project to the extent needed even if no other development were built because the Project has independent utility.

Finally, it should be noted that the Draft EIR specifically includes the WOCC, the ORBP, and the MCC developments in its cumulative impact analysis. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-2, 4-4 to 4-5; Appendix I [Traffic Impact Analysis Report].) The cumulative impacts analysis ensures that all applicable past, present, and probable future developments are appropriately analyzed for environmental impacts that may not be individually significant but may be cumulatively significant. In summary, no analysis was “piecemealed.” No additional analysis beyond that provided in the Draft EIR and this Final EIR is required. 2730
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-69 February 2022
Response O1-c
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion, in that the Draft EIR provides adequate analysis of the contents within the Specific Plan and directly analyzes all potential impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan. Specific assertions are addressed in the responses below.

Response O1-d.1
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to “provide meaningful information and analysis regarding the proposed SB 330 Replacement Site.” No discrepancy exists as the text of the Draft EIR consistently describes the SB 330 Replacement Site as having six land use designations, the same six designations that are shown in Figure 3-3. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-35, 4.1-5, 4.9-5, 4.9-13, 4.11-1.) Second, the City disagrees with the assertion that the public and decision-makers cannot determine from the Draft EIR what parcels in the SB 330 Replacement Site will be subject to a residential density increase.

Under CEQA, an adequate project description need only include an aerial and regional map of the project location. (Guidelines, §15124(a).) Figure 3-3 of the Draft EIR satisfies CEQA by depicting the boundaries of the SB 330 Replacement Site, which will be subject to the Overlay District. Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR further describes the boundaries of the SB 330 Replacement Site as being “bound by Cucamonga Avenue to the west, East Riverside Drive to the north, Comet Avenue to the east, and Edison Avenue to the south.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-1.) The Draft EIR’s description of the SB 330 Replacement Site is therefore adequate. In response to this comment, two additional maps have been added to the Final EIR: Figure 3-4, Regional Map, depicting both the Project Site and SB 330 Replacement Site, and Figure 3-5, SB330 Replacement Site Aerial Vicinity Map, map of the SB 330 Replacement Site showing APNs. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because these additions merely clarify information already provided and does not constitute new information. (Guidelines, § 15088.5(b).) Response O1-d.2
The City disagrees with the assertion that the SB 330 Replacement Site is “also being evaluated for substantial additional density (beyond what is required for this Project’s SB 330 compliance) as part of the City’s The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Update EIR and also as part of the City’s Housing Element Update EIR.” (Draft EIR, p. 3-1.) In fact, the City’s Draft Housing Element Update clearly shows multiple land use designation changes throughout the SB 330 Replacement Site, all of which significantly increase residential density above and beyond what is proposed as part of this Project. The land use changes are shown in the City’s Proposed Housing Strategy and Land Use Scenario – Draft interactive map (Housing Strategy Map), which is available on the City’s website. 3 The Draft EIR’s reference to the City’s
proposed land use changes for the SB 330 Replacement Site is adequate. In response to this comment, an excerpt of the City’s Housing Strategy Map showing the SB 330 Replacement Site has been added to the Final EIR as Figure 3-6, City of Ontario Housing Strategy Map. 3 City of Ontario. Proposed Housing Strategy and Land Use Scenario Map Draft. (2022). Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0208aaa14e5f4d71b0bcde77c1deda57. 2731
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-70 February 2022
Response O1-d.3
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR “utilizes conflicting language” in its discussion of how the Overlay District will be applied to the SB 330 Replacement Site. The only way to apply the Overlay District to the SB 330 Replacement Site is through a rezoning, which is stated in the Draft EIR: “The Project also includes rezoning of the SB 330 Replacement Site through use of an Overlay District.” (Draft EIR, p. 3-6.)
Response O1-d.4
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to acknowledge that application of the Overlay District to the SB 330 Replacement Site will also require changes to TOP and Zoning Code. In fact, the Draft EIR explicitly and consistently addresses this issue: “In order for this Overlay District to be approved, a Zone Change and [General Plan Amendment] will be implemented by the City in order to effectively rezone the site to accommodate increased residential density to ensure compliance with SB 330.” (Draft EIR, pp. 1-5, 3-1, 3-3, 3-6.)
Response O1-d.5
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not adequately describe the Overlay District.

Contrary to these claims, the Draft EIR clearly states that “the Project will create an Overlay District” (Draft EIR, pp. 3-1, 4.1-5; emphasis added), and it also states that the Overlay District will increase the residential zoning capacity of the SB 330 Replacement Site “by 1,352 dwelling units or an overall increase of approximately 37% in dwelling units for this 473-acre area.” (Id., pp, 3-3.) In response to the comment, additional information is added to Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR and replicated below. Recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because these additions merely clarify information already provided and does not constitute new information. (Guidelines, § 15088.5(b).) In order to demonstrate “no net loss of residential capacity,” the Project will be required to demonstrate increased residential zoning capacity on a “SB330 Replacement Site” by 1,352 units to off-set the Project site loss of zoning capacity (Low Medium Density, 5.1 to 11 du/ac). In tandem with the City’s adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, scheduled to go before the City Council for its consideration in February 2022, the City is also adopting an Affordable Housing Overlay zone and applying this zone to all parcels in the sites inventory that are south of Riverside Drive or are zoned MU-2 along Holt Boulevard.

Relevant to the Project, the Affordable Housing Overlay zone will establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for all development (regardless of Policy Plan designation or underlying zoning district), and increase the maximum density from 25 to 30 units per acre for parcels that are designated in the Policy Plan for Medium Density Residential (“MDR”) when an affordable housing project is proposed with at least 25 percent of proposed units are restricted for lower-income households. The creation of the Affordable Housing Overlay zone and increased maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre will increase residential capacity on 473.7 acres of such parcels currently designated MDR, by 2,368 dwelling units. On December 20, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended to the February 15, 2022, CityCouncil hearing for approval a General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA21-004) for the Housing Element update to the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, to address State mandates regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), as well as to modify the Policy Plan 2732
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-71 February 2022
Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) to establish a Zone Change (File No. PZC21-002). The Project EIR addresses the potential impacts associated with relocating residential density from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Sites located north of the Project site, along Grove Avenue, pursuant to SB330. With the City adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated Affordable Housing Overlay zone, no net loss of residential capacity will occur as a result of the Project. The SB 330 Replacement Site is located approximately 0.3 miles north of the Project site and is generally bound by Cucamonga Avenue to the west, East Riverside Drive to the north, Walker Avenue to the east, and Edison Avenue to the south.

Response O1-e
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion in that the Draft EIR provides inadequate analysis of the contents within the Specific Plan as it relates to floor plan, grading plan, or elevations for the proposed buildings. The intent of the Draft EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project. The intent and purpose of the Project is to provide zoning regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land use, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, architectural character, and landscape within the community, ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development.

Because the purpose of a specific plan is to provide development regulations and serve as design guidelines for an entire project site, floor plans and building elevations are not typically included as part of a specific plan. As such, the Draft EIR, as an informational document evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project, does not include floor plans or building elevations. The Specific Plan establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site and does not serve as land entitlement approval for each development project on-site. The Project is considered under a Legislative Action Application by the City of Ontario. Any new development within the Specific Plan area would be required to submit a discretionary permit/action application and obtain approval from the City.

Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR discusses the conceptual grading plan and earthwork analysis (see pages 3-16 and 3-17). The information provided in Section 3.0 regarding grading plan and earthwork analysis are adequate analysis of the contents within the Specific Plan, and no revisions or recirculation of the EIR is required.

Response O1-f
Comment noted. The use of non-default values is common practice, and the comments provided through the CalEEMod outputs in Appendix B of the Draft EIR substantiate the uses of non-default values. Further, 2733
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-72 February 2022
as noted in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod provides default data if site-specific information is not available and encourages the use of site-specific data if it is provided.4 Response O1-g
The City disagrees with the assertion that information from a licensed Engineer is necessary to support the grading plan as presented in the Draft EIR or to verify that the grading schedule is possible. Grading estimates were provided by Thienes Engineering, licensed engineers, who prepared the Concept Plan and are preparing the Development Plan. Furthermore, the term over-excavation was chosen by the project engineer, to describe excavation that goes beyond the depth required, which may be necessary if the site-specific soil conditions at the desired level do not have sufficient stability or load-bearing capacity to support the proposed structures. Once any stability concerns are addressed, the soil removed during overexcavation is returned and recompacted to meet the final design depth. Therefore, the City disagrees with the assertion that over-excavated materials will be transported off-site.

Response O1-h
The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that “…the EIR states the overall length of project construction would be approximately 12 months….”. The Draft EIR clearly states “The duration of construction activities associated with Phase 1 of the Project is estimated to last approximately twelve months” and “The duration of construction activities associated with Phase 2 of the Project were modeled to last approximately twelve months.” [Draft EIR, pages 4.2-20 and 4.2-22]. And as stated on page 4.2-15 of the Draft EIR, “It is assumed that construction of Phase 1 would occur from mid-2022 to mid-2023 and the construction of Phase 2 would occur from mid-2023 to mid-2024”, meaning construction would last total 24 months. Furthermore, construction phase (e.g., demolition, site preparation, etc.) lengths are provided within the CalEEMod outputs provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Thus, the comment is incorrect.

As shown in the Draft EIR [page 4.2-12], the applicable significance thresholds for criteria pollutant analyses in the South Coast Air Basin are based on the maximum daily emissions. Thus, the length of construction does not directly impact the determination of significance of a project’s air quality impacts, and the City disagrees with the assertion that reductions to the default construction phase lengths underestimates the Project’s emissions.

Response O1-i
The off-road equipment included in the operational emissions inventory are eight “yard trucks,” used intermittently to move trailers around the yard. Given that moving trailers is not a continuous task, the City believes four hours per day per yard truck is a reasonable and appropriately conservative assumption.

This estimate was provided by the project engineer, Thienes Engineering, and verified by the applicant, both of whom have extensive experience in site grading and construction. The City disagrees with the assertion that the model underestimates Project emissions from these sources of air pollutants. 4 CalEEMod User Guide. (2021). Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-sguide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, page 1. 2734
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-73 February 2022
Response O1-j
The City disagrees that the EIR must include analysis of potential environmental justice issues, as Environmental Justice is not listed amongst the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. 5 The remainder of the comment presents data from CalEPA’s CalEnviroScreen which the City does not dispute. The City disagrees with the assertion that additional risk analyses are needed. Given the short-term construction schedule of approximately one year, Project construction would not result in a long-term (e.g., 30 or 70 years) source of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not recommend analysis of TACs from short-term construction activities associated with land use development projects.

A construction health risk assessment (HRA) is not required by SCAQMD and no guidance for HRAs for construction has been adopted by SCAQMD or the City. Although SCAQMD’s CEQA guidance does not require an HRA for short-term construction emissions, a construction HRA was conservatively prepared for the Project and provided in the Draft EIR. As analyzed in Draft EIR pages 4.2-35 and 4.2-36, Project construction activities, including TACs from equipment exhaust would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project-related TAC impacts during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

The operational HRA results contained in the Draft EIR are calculated for the recommended 30-year residential exposure, in accordance with OEHHA’s 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual) which states “…the 30-year exposure duration is recommended for use as the basis for estimating cancer risk at the MEIR [Maximally Exposed Individual Resident] in all HRAs. Population-wide impacts should use the 70-year exposure duration.”6 The 30-year exposure used in the Draft EIR for operations is consistent with OEHHA guidance because it “…assume[s] exposure begins in the last trimester of pregnancy and progresses through the exposure duration of interest…”7 Assessment of risk in the Project-specific HRA for each of the age bins was based on OEHHA’s recommended assumptions for exposure variables such as age sensitivity factor (ASF), breathing rate, and body mass. According to OEHHA, HRAs performed for 30 years in accordance with these assumptions “…are thus protective of children.”8 Therefore, the HRA appropriately assesses and reports lifetime risk for the 30-year exposure scenario at the MEIR, which includes ASFs and other childspecific factors known to increase operational risk values as compared to adult exposure parameters.

Adult worker and school child exposure scenarios, which are defined as experiencing fewer exposure hours per day and fewer total years of exposure than a 30-year residential scenario, would result in lower lifetime cancer risk values.

Response O1-k
The OEHHA guidelines state “The intent in developing this Guidance Manual is to provide HRA procedures for use in the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary 5 Title 14. Natural Resources. (2018). Retrieved from: http://files.resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. 6 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. (2015). Pages 2-4 and 2-5. Retrieved from:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 7 Ibid
8 Ibid.
2735
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-74 February 2022
sources.”
9 The HRA contained in the Draft EIR is not intended to meet the prescribed requirements of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program or for the permitting of existing, new, or modified stationary sources (since, for example, emissions studied in the Draft EIR are primarily from mobile sources, which are not stationary sources subject to permitting). Thus, the City disagrees that the EIR must be revised in strict accordance with the Guidance Manual to be used as a meaningful measure of potential impacts under CEQA. As stated above, the 30-year residential exposure scenario is recommended by OEHHA, and the methodology upon which the HRA is based produces analyses that are protective of children. Therefore, no revisions are warranted.

Response O1-l
Development is only proposed on the ±130-acre site that is located north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, east of Bon View Avenue, and west of Grove Avenue (Phase 1). A reliance letter has been prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. confirming there is no change in the existing site conditions compared to the time of the initial burrowing owl surveys prepared in 2019.

The remaining portion of the Specific Plan (Phase 2) as well as the SB 330 Replacement Site, are only programmatically analyzed in the Draft EIR, and future development located outside of the proposed development on Phase 1 would have to conduct biological surveys and burrowing owl surveys prior to site-specific development. MM BIO-2 of the Draft EIR has revised for clarification based on a comment received on the Draft EIR from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (see Comment S1 of this Final EIR). Changes to MM BIO-2 are provided in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR of this Final EIR and are replicated below. Changes are indicated in bold underline for additions and strikethrough to deletions:

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 for burrowing owls within The Project Applicant shall complete an initial BUOW take avoidance survey no less than 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. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., eliminating actions that reduce burrowing owl forage and burrowing surrogates (e.g., ground squirrel), or introduce/facilitate burrowing owl predators) would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where Project activities would occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be evaluated by monitoring burrowing owls (if present on-site). BUOW may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between Project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. 9 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. (2015). Page 1-2;Retrieved from: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf; 2736
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-75 February 2022
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.

Response O1-m
The Project site is located within the Airport Influence area of Chino Airport and was reviewed to be consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics per City of Ontario requirements.

Prior to Final Project Plan approvals (including but not limited to: Site Plans, Building Plans, Landscape Plans, Utility Plans, and Roadway Plans), the Applicant or successor(s) in interest shall document compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Ontario’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport and correlating provisions of the South Ontario Logistics Specific Plan. 10 Overflight Deed Notices will be provided for any properties identified in the Compatibility Plan as subject routine aircraft 10 City of Ontario. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. (2011). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf. 2737
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-76 February 2022
overflight(s), as part of the TTM conditions of approval and as part of the City’s standard development review process.11 Therefore, no revisions are warranted.

Response O1-n
Refer to Response O1-d.

Response O1-o
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion in that the EIR provides adequate consistency analysis that focuses on the broad policy-oriented goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The consistency analysis serves to determine the Project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The Project is consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals 5, 6, and 7. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 5 aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve air quality. The Project is consistent with Goal 5because the reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures. Further, the Specific Plan area is within walking distance of the Eucalyptus and Euclid Omnitrans Bus Route 83. Omnitrans Bus Route 83 directly connects the site to the cities of Chino and Upland and to several stops in the City of Ontario, as well as the Chino Transit Center and Ontario Civic Center Transfer Station. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 6 aims to support healthy and equitable communities. The Project is consistent with Goal 6 as it would be constructed to comply with the current building codes, State and federal requirements, including Green Building Standards.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 7 to adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. The Project is consistent with Goal 7 as it would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes, State and federal requirements including Green Building Standards. In addition, as discussed in Goal 5, the Project would be located within walking distance of public transit, thereby reducing the potential use of vehicles.

Response O1-p
Per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15131 and 15384, CEQA analysis addresses a project’s potential impacts on the physical environment; economic or social issues of a project are not treated as significant effects on the environment, or as substantial evidence if they do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment. Therefore, General Plan Policies CE3-1 and CE3-2 are not necessary to be addressed as part of this EIR. These policies may be considered by the City Council as part of Project deliberations.
11 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (2011). Page 4-14. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook -a11y.pdf. 2738
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-77 February 2022
The consistency analysis in the Draft EIR will be expanded to show consistency with the following goals and policies:

ER5-1 Habitat Conservation Areas. We support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.

Consistent: The Specific Plan would be implemented in compliance with federal, State, and regional regulations related to protected species and biological resources. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy ER5-1.

LU5-7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use airport.

Consistent: The Specific Plan area is within the Ontario International Airport Influence Area and the Chino Airport Influence Area. As mentioned above, both Chino and Ontario International Airports have established Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans promoting compatibility with surrounding land uses. As the Project would be required to be compliant with the plans, the Project would be consistent with Policy LU5-7.

ER4-1: Land Use. We reduce GHG and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance.

Consistent: As stated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, the Project would provide an increase in employment-generating uses on the Project site, which would assist in the jobs to housing regional balance. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy ER4-1.

ER4-6: Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.

Consistent: As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the Project would be implemented in compliance with all SCAQMD rules related to the reduction of particulate matter, and would meet both State and federal clean air standards. Therefore, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy ER4-6.

CE2-4: Protection of Investment.We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.

Consistent: The Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards ensure high quality, cohesive, attractive, and appropriately-scaled development that complements and integrates into the Ontario Ranch community and adds value to the City. Therefore, the Project is consistent with Policy CE2-4.

ER5-2: Entitlement and Permitting Process. We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.

Consistent: The Specific Plan would be implemented in compliance with federal, State, and regional regulations related to protected species. Therefore, the Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy ER5-2.
2739
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-78 February 2022
Response O1-q
Refer to Attachment O1, Ontario Ranch Economic Benefit Analysis and Key Fiscal Revenue Summary, as it addresses the entire industrial corridor and not just the Project.

Response O1-r
See Response O1-c.

Response O1-s
The City disagrees with this assertion in that the EIR provides adequate findings of consistency with respect to traffic and GHG emissions impacts.

General Plan Policy M1-2: Mitigation of Impacts requires development to mitigate its traffic impacts. The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy M1-2 as it would comply with all mitigation measures, conditions, and project design features identified in the Draft EIR. As stated in 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, the Project would exceed the City’s adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. MM TRANS-1 requires the incorporation of reasonable and feasible VMT reduction measures as part of future Certificates of Occupancy of future tenants of the Specific Plan area. Implementation of MM TRANS-1 would ensure the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy M1-2.

General Plan Policy ER4-3 aims to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, State, and federal regulations. The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy ER4-3 as it would be constructed in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code; including but not limited to, using energyefficient LED products, choosing roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity, and employing high-performance dual-pane window glazing in office storefronts. As such, the Project would help reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, State, and federal regulations and be consistent with General Plan Policy ER4-3.

Response O1-t
The City disagrees with this assertion, in that the EIR provides adequate analysis of the application of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to mitigate deficient level of service (LOS) intersections.

One of the General Plan Policy M1-2 Roadway Design and Maintenance requirements requires roadways to maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all intersections. The Project would comply with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan of the Mobility Element which aims to comply with federal, State, and local design and safety standards, meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users, and maintain a LOS of E or better at all intersections addressed in the Draft EIR. The Project would be required to comply with the City’s DIF program, which helps fund transportation improvements.

The City’s DIF includes regional improvements to comply with Measure I. If roadway improvements are not included in the DIF program, the Project would be required to provide funding on a fair share basis where appropriate, as determined by the City. These fees shall be collected by the City, with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial 2740
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-79 February 2022
expansions keep pace with the projected population increases. Therefore, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy M1-2.

Response O1-u
The default assumption in square footages of land uses from the TOP EIR (which would result in 5,664 employees) were used rather than the Project-specific square footages (which would result in 5,459 employees) to allow for Project flexibility due to the speculative nature of the future tenants. The analysis conservatively assumed a mix of non-office and office uses to generate a higher employment number and VMT analysis.

Response O1-v
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion, in that the EIR provides adequate analysis of unplanned population growth resulting from the Project implementation. The EIR determines that the Project would not introduce new population or housing to the Project site as the development would include business park and industrial uses, which would result in jobs for residents in the surrounding area.

As stated in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, the Project’s construction and operations will result in up to 5,333,518 square feet of industrial/warehouse, business park, and ancillary office space, which has the potential to result in 5,459 jobs.

The construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. Further, the forecast increase in Project employment is well within SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City of 55,400 and the forecast employment increase for the County of 273,000 by 2045. Implementation of the Project would increase jobs in the City, which would have the potential to increase the demand for housing in the City and surrounding areas. As previously stated, the proposed increase in 5,333,518 square feet of business park and industrial uses has the potential to result in 5,459 jobs. The San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) region is housing-rich. The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing-balance for the County. Because the region is housing-rich, it is expected that jobs at the Project site would be drawn from the local and regional labor force. However, even if the Project increase in employees added equivalent population to the Project site, growth of 5,459 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.11-2, SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino County) and not result in unplanned population growth.

Cumulative 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 EIR, 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. 2741
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-80 February 2022
Response O1-w
See Response O1-v. CEQA does not require that an EIR provide demographic and geographic on qualified workers. As discussed on page 4.11-10 of the Draft EIR, construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. Because many of the employment opportunities are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy and the unemployment rate is approximately 7.2 percent within the jurisdictions in the Project vicinity ofthe Riverside-San BernardinoOntario Metropolitan Area as of May 2021. Therefore, future occupancy and qualified workers are not part of the SOLC SP’s intent and purpose and cannot be determined.

Response O1-x
The City disagrees with the assertion that the VMT impacts are misrepresented by the SBTAM model. The VMT analysis was prepared consistent with the City of Ontario’s adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds as adopted by City Council in June 2020 (File No.: SB 743 VMT Thresholds). The City’s resolution states that SBTAM is the appropriate tool to use when preparing a VMT analysis. As SBTAM was utilized to formulate and establish the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold it is appropriate for land us e projects follow the methodologies used to establish these thresholds.12 In addition, the City disagrees with the assertion that the VMT analysis does not adequately or accurately represent the VMT impacts of the Project. As part of the preparation of the VMT analysis, 5,664 new industrial/warehouse employees were added to the Project’s TAZ to ensure the inclusion of the Project’s industrial warehouse uses; therefore, the analysis includes the additional traffic from both passenger cars and trucks associated with the Project’s proposed land uses. Furthermore, as noted in the VMT analysis, the City’s VMT analysis guidelines require the calculation of total VMT as derived from the SBTAM model’s origin/destination (OD) trip matrices. These matrices include internal to internal (II), internal to external (IX), and external to internal (XI) vehicle trips for all vehicle types (i.e., passenger car and commercial vehicles).

Lastly, the City disagrees with the assertion that the VMT results reported in the Project’s air quality analysis is exponentially higher than the VMT reported for each analysis group in the TAZ. The VMT analysis reported an average daily VMT of 221,751, which is very similar to the average daily VMT of 250,482 reported by the Project’s air quality analysis. In addition, it is not uncommon for there to be differences between the VMT values calculated for a project from the SBTAM model compared to those estimated by CalEEMod. For example, CalEEMod typically utilizes rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as a method of estimating vehicle trip generation. Although a reasonable approximation of vehicle trips for purposes of emissions estimation, a regional travel demand model such as SBTAM utilizes a different set of factors to estimate vehicle trips, mode split, internal interaction between other uses within the same TAZ, interaction with other land uses in nearby TAZ’s, etc. Therefore, the SBTAM model does not look at an individual project’s trip generation in a vacuum. As such, the total 12 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 2018. Page 30-31. Retrieved from: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf
2742
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-81 February 2022
number of trips assigned to a single development project may be slightly different when comparing between the SBTAM model and CalEEMod. In addition, the trip lengths for each vehicle type from the SBTAM model are derived through a number of factors that cannot be accounted for in CalEEMod.

Conversely, CalEEMod applies various estimated “average” trip lengths that may not be reflective of the geographic context and proximity to transportation features and complementary land uses. Therefore, overall, some differences between the two modeling tools should be expected. In terms of the VMT analysis, it is important to note that consistent with OPR’s recommendations in the Technical Advisory, the VMT analysis should be prepared utilizing the same methods and tools used by the lead agency to establish its VMT impact threshold. In this case, the City of Ontario used SBTAM to establish its impact threshold, therefore, SBTAM is the appropriate tool to estimate the Project-generated VMT for purposes of capering to the City’s adopted impact threshold. Therefore, the analysis does not need to be revised.

The VMT analysis, consistent with the City Guidelines, does analyze the Project’s cumulative effect on VMT and the results of this analysis does state that there is an increase in total VMT in the “With Project” condition as compared to the “No Project” condition.

Response O1-y
The City disagrees with this assertion, in that the EIR provides adequate analysis of alternatives that meets the project objectives. These alternatives are analyzed in Section 5.0, Alternatives, and include analyses of the no project/no build alternative, no project/existing general plan alternative, and reduced intensity alternative. Therefore, the Draft EIR analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives.

Response O1-z
The City disagrees with this assertion, in that the EIR provides adequate analysis of growth-inducing impacts, pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, under the EIR Section 6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project. Furthermore, the Draft EIR addresses growth in Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR. See Response O1-b regarding piecemealing.

Response O1-aa
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR must use one of three approved compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings and that the EIR does not comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The software listed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) are to be utilized for performance approach (energy budget) method of compliance for the 2019 Energy Standards and are to be used for demonstrating performance compliance. As stated in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions combined with default data.

The sources for the methodologies include studies commissioned by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and also utilize energy conservation standards subject to Title 24. 13 The energy analysis and associated thresholds are provided on Draft EIR pages 7-4 through 7-6. The analysis specifically responds to the guidance for energy analysis in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which requires a determination on if a project would increase the need for new energy supplies. The analysis is used to 13 CalEEMod User’s Guide. (2021). Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-sguide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 2743
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-82 February 2022
disclose the amount of energy that the Project would require, and is not utilized to demonstrate compliance for performance. Additionally, the Draft EIR discloses the Project’s electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuel consumption and determined that the Project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful as the Project will be required by the CALGreen Code to comply with the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Nonresidential) published by the CEC, which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Therefore, the Project used the appropriate model to calculate and disclose the Project’s energy use, and also demonstrated that the Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code and Title 24.

Response O1-bb
This comment concludes the letter. No response is required. 2744
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-83 February 2022
Attachment O1 - REDA-Ontario Ranch Economic Benefit Analysis and Key Fiscal Revenue Summary 2745
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-84 February 2022
2746
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-85 February 2022
2747
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-86 February 2022
2748
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-87 February 2022
2749
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-88 February 2022
2750
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-89 February 2022
2751
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-90 February 2022
2752
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-91 February 2022
2753
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-92 February 2022
2754
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-93 February 2022
2755
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-94 February 2022
2756
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-95 February 2022
2757
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-96 February 2022
2758
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-97 February 2022
2759
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-98 February 2022
2760
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-99 February 2022
2761
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-100 February 2022
2762
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-101 February 2022
2763
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-102 February 2022
Comment Letter O2
2764
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-103 February 2022
2765
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-104 February 2022
2766
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-105 February 2022
2767
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-106 February 2022
2768
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-107 February 2022
2769
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-108 February 2022
2770
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-109 February 2022
2771
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-110 February 2022
2772
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-111 February 2022
2773
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-112 February 2022
2774
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-113 February 2022
2775
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-114 February 2022
2776
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-115 February 2022
2777
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-116 February 2022
2778
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-117 February 2022
2779
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-118 February 2022
2780
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-119 February 2022
2781
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-120 February 2022
2782
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-121 February 2022
2783
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-122 February 2022
2784
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-123 February 2022
2785
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-124 February 2022
2786
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-125 February 2022
2787
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-126 February 2022
2788
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-127 February 2022
2789
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-128 February 2022
2790
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-129 February 2022
2791
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-130 February 2022
2792
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-131 February 2022
2793
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-132 February 2022
2794
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-133 February 2022
2795
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-134 February 2022
2796
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-135 February 2022
2797
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-136 February 2022
2798
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-137 February 2022
2799
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-138 February 2022
2800
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-139 February 2022
2801
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-140 February 2022
2802
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-141 February 2022
2803
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-142 February 2022
2804
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-143 February 2022
2805
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-144 February 2022
2806
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-145 February 2022
2807
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-146 February 2022
2808
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-147 February 2022
2809
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-148 February 2022
2810
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-149 February 2022
2811
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-150 February 2022
2812
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-151 February 2022
2813
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-152 February 2022
2814
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-153 February 2022
2815
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-154 February 2022
2816
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-155 February 2022
2817
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-156 February 2022
2818
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-157 February 2022
2819
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-158 February 2022
2820
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-159 February 2022
2821
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-160 February 2022
2822
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-161 February 2022
2823
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-162 February 2022
2824
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-163 February 2022
2825
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-164 February 2022
2826
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-165 February 2022
2827
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-166 February 2022
2828
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-167 February 2022
2829
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-168 February 2022
2830
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-169 February 2022
2831
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-170 February 2022
2832
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-171 February 2022
2833
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-172 February 2022
2834
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-173 February 2022
2835
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-174 February 2022
2836
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-175 February 2022
2837
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-176 February 2022
2838
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-177 February 2022
2839
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-178 February 2022
2840
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-179 February 2022
2841
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-180 February 2022
2842
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-181 February 2022
2843
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-182 February 2022
2844
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-183 February 2022
2845
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-184 February 2022
2846
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-185 February 2022
2847
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-186 February 2022
2848
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-187 February 2022
2849
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-188 February 2022
2850
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-189 February 2022
2851
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-190 February 2022
2852
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-191 February 2022
2853
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-192 February 2022
2854
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-193 February 2022
2855
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-194 February 2022
2856
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-195 February 2022
2857
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-196 February 2022
2858
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-197 February 2022
2859
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-198 February 2022
2860
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-199 February 2022
2861
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-200 February 2022
2862
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-201 February 2022
2863
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-202 February 2022
2864
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-203 February 2022
2865
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-204 February 2022
2866
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-205 February 2022
2867
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-206 February 2022
2868
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-207 February 2022
2869
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-208 February 2022
2870
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-209 February 2022
2871
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-210 February 2022
2872
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-211 February 2022
2873
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-212 February 2022
2874
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-213 February 2022
2875
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-214 February 2022
2876
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-215 February 2022
2877
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-216 February 2022
2878
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-217 February 2022
2879
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-218 February 2022
2880
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-219 February 2022
2881
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-220 February 2022
2882
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-221 February 2022
2883
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-222 February 2022
2884
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-223 February 2022
2885
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-224 February 2022
2886
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-225 February 2022
2887
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-226 February 2022
2888
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-227 February 2022
2889
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-228 February 2022
2890
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-229 February 2022
2891
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-230 February 2022
2892
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-231 February 2022
2893
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-232 February 2022
2894
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-233 February 2022
2895
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-234 February 2022
2896
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-235 February 2022
2897
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-236 February 2022
2898
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-237 February 2022
2899
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-238 February 2022
2900
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-239 February 2022
2901
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-240 February 2022
2902
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-241 February 2022
2903
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-242 February 2022
2904
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-243 February 2022
2905
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-244 February 2022
2906
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-245 February 2022
2907
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-246 February 2022
Letter O2 Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
January 3, 2022
Response O2-a
This comment is an introductory statement from the Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARECA), which describes and summarizes the South Ontario Logistics Center Project with accompanying SB 330 Replacement Site. No response is required.

Response O2-b
This comment generally describes CARECA’s concerns with the Draft EIR and its technical appendices, including the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR regarding impacts to air quality, public health, greenhouse gas (GHG), energy, transportation, and biological resources. Responses to the specifically identified concerns and issues in subsequent comments are provided in Responses O2-c through O2-xxx below.

Response O2-c
This comment introduces CARECA and its representative members, and asserts CARECA’s interest in enforcing environmental laws. No response is required.

Response O2-d
This comment provides a discussion of CEQA’s requirements in the view of the commenter. The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and lacks substantial evidence to support the proposed findings of the Draft EIR. Responses to the specifics identified in this comment are provided in Responses O2-e through O2-xxx below.

Response O2-e
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not include an accurate and complete Project description. The comment contains no specific examples in support of this assertion. Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR provides a description of the Project sufficient to meet CEQA’s informational requirements. Since the comment does not identify the alleged grounds for its assertion that the Draft EIR’s Project description fails under CEQA, no further response can be provided.

Response O2-f
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not disclose whether the Project will require backup generators and must analyze the use of generators. The Project proposes the development of industrial speculative warehouse buildings and the end users are not known at this time. It should be noted that the Project is anticipated to be built out over several years (Project development would be determined by the landowner and/or developer based upon real estate market conditions) and only a Development Plan application is proposed for Phase 1. Phase 2 is only programmatically planned, and no specific development is proposed at this time. As the end users of the Project have not been identified, it is not known if backup generators would be needed for any of the potential buildings. Backup generators 2908
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-247 February 2022
would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. If backup generators are required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) prior to installation. Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions. As the end users and future tenants of the proposed Project are unknown, the need for emergency backup generators is speculative. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is not credible, and evidence of social and economic impacts does not constitute substantial evidence.

The comment also requests that all backup generators be required to use non-dieselfuel. As the proposed Project involves speculative warehouse buildings and the end users are unknown, prohibiting specific fuels for backup generators is not feasible, because it is unknown what the specific needs of an end user would be. Although the potential use of emergency backup generators is speculative, Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 has been revised to mitigation requiring applicants to explore the potential for generators to use non-diesel fuel will be added to the Final EIR.

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 electric-powered/zero emissions offroad 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 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.
2909
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-248 February 2022
Response O2-g
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze, quantify, and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The comment contains no specific examples in support of this assertion. Since the comment does not identify the alleged grounds for its assertion, no further response can be provided.

Response O2-h
This comment correctly states that the Draft EIR concluded that the Project’s operational emissions associated with Phase 1, Phase 2, and Project Buildout would be significant and unavoidable. However, the City disagrees with the commenter’s claim that the Draft EIR has not identified all feasible mitigation to reduce air quality and GHG impacts. While this specific comment does not identify or propose feasible mitigation, see Response O2-i, below for a discussion of additional mitigation measures.

Response O2-i
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not identified all feasible mitigation and suggests additional mitigation including 1) the use of fuel-efficient mobile sources, 2) requiring on-road heavy duty trucks to be model year 2010 or newer, and 3) requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operating on the Project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030. It should be noted that these suggested mitigation measures are already part of the existing regulatory environment and would not be considered mitigation under CEQA. For example, CARB already regulates truck emissions with the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, the Mobile Source Strategy (including the low-NOX engine emissions standard), the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and the Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, among others.

Despite these strategies, CARB acknowledges that it will take time for zero- and near-zero emission (ZE and NZE) vehicles to become commercially available and to penetrate the market. For example, CARB’s EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 model provides detailed vehicle registration information and estimates the official emissions inventories of on-road mobile sources, vehicle population, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California. The EMFAC2021 data for South Coast portion of San Bernardino County shows that in 2024 (the Project’s opening year), approximately 85 percent of heavy trucks would still be powered by diesel and 91 percent of the VMT would occur from diesel trucks. Electric vehicles would make up approximately 0.29 percent of the heavy-duty fleet and 0.25 percent of the heavy truck VMT.

For 2030, the EMFAC data shows that 81 percent of heavy trucks would be diesel-powered and that 88 percent of the heavy truck VMT would be from diesel trucks. Therefore, as CARB data anticipates that the vast majority of trucks to be diesel-powered in the Project opening year and in 2030, it would not be feasible to require all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operating on the Project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.

ZE and NZE truck technologies include battery-electric trucks, fuel cell trucks, dual-mode (hybrid) electric trucks with all-electric range and, potentially, other technologies. While heavy duty ZE vehicles are available, they are not commercially available yet in great numbers in the classifications needed to serve the future users of this site a mere seven years from now. The majority of ZE and NZE emissions trucks 2910
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-249 February 2022
are limited in range of less than 100 miles per charge and require hours to charge. 14 These trucks are better suited to operate in urban areas for stop-and-go driving for fleets that operate locally and have predictable daily use and return to base to be charged.15 Longer range, heavy duty ZE vehicles currently are limited in availability.
16 To require a project to use ZE heavy duty trucks when the nature of the trips is unknown these types of technologies is not feasible because they are not widely available, and it is unknown when or if they will become widely available in the future. As such, it is not feasible to require ZE and NZE trucks because future tenants/operators are currently unknown. As the timeline for ZE and NZE incorporation into the fleet is not known and the end users and truck fleets are not known, the additional mitigation is not feasible, and assumptions on the available of ZE and NZE vehicles would be speculative at best. CEQA Guidelines § 15041 specifically requires all mitigation to be feasible and fully enforceable, and all feasible mitigation must be imposed by lead agencies.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Draft EIR determined that the Project’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) would be less than significant (refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-32 and pages 4.2-39 through

4.2-40) and health risk impacts would be less than significant (refer to Draft EIR pages 4.2-36 through

4.2-38), which indicates that the regional increases shown in Draft EIR Tables 4.2-9, 4.2-11, and 4.2-12 are over counting truck emissions since not all these trips are in reality new to the air basin.

Although as noted above, ZE and NZE trucks are not commercially available at this time, current state regulations would accelerate availability of this technology in future years. CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024 and by 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission.

CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy takes an integrated planning approach to identify the level of transition to cleaner mobile source technologies needed to achieve all of California’s targets by increasing the adoption of zero emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks. A key measure in the Mobile Source Strategy is the low NOX emission standards that reduces NOX emissions by 90 percent. 17 The Sustainable Freight Action Plan which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks. The Sustainable Freight Action 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.

Regarding the use of model year 2010 trucks or newer, the CARB Truck and Bus Regulation requires trucks to be upgraded to 2010 or new model year engines. The Truck and Bus regulation has been in effect since December 2008 and final deadline for the last replacement phase of the regulation is January 1, 2023, before operation of the initial Project phase is anticipated. Based on data from CARB, most heavy‐duty trucks entering the Project site will meet or exceed 2010 model year emission standards in 2024 as all trucks registered in California are required meet or exceed such standards by 2023. Specifically, according to CARB EMFAC inventories, approximately 50 percent of all instate heavy‐heavy duty trucks met the 2010 14 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf 15 Ibid.
16 https://www.trucknews.com/sustainability/zero-emission-truck-models-surge-orders-hold-steady-during-covid-19/1003141253/ 17 California Air Resources Board, Heavy Duty Low NOX, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/heavy-duty-low-nox. 2911
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-250 February 2022
engine standard in 2019, 59 percent in 2020, 62 percent in 2021. Additionally, 65 percent and 90 percent of trucks are projected to meet the 2010 engine standard in 2022 and 2023 respectively. 18 Regarding the suggested requirement for trucks to be zero-emissions beginning in 2030, as discussed above, the CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024 and by 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. It is not feasible for the Project or City of Ontario to effectively regulate trucks from entering the property that are otherwise permitted to operate in California and access other properties in the County, region, and State. Even if the County were to apply such a restriction, it would cause warehouse operators using older truck fleets to travel to other facilities in the SCAB where the restriction does not apply, thereby resulting in no improvement to regional air quality.

Therefore, the commenter’s suggested mitigation measures are already addressed as part of the regulatory environment or are not feasible. No further analysis is necessary.

Response O2-j
Refer to Response O2-f regarding emergency backup generators. As noted above, the Project proposes speculative warehouse buildings, and the end users are not known. Therefore, for the purposes of full disclosure the worst-case scenario that includes cold storage was analyzed.

Response O2-k
Refer to Response O2-i. As noted above, the mitigation measures identified in the comment are already addressed by existing regulation that the Project would be required to comply with. The Draft EIR’s air quality analysis uses CARB’s EMFAC emissions data, which incorporate these regulations into the emissions inventories and rates. As noted in the response above, the suggested mitigation measures are part of existing regulations that the Project is already required to comply with. Therefore, these measures do not represent CEQA mitigation and would not reduce emissions below what has been evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Response O2-l
The comment generally cites the CEQA Guidelines requirements for the analysis of GHG emissions and notes the requirements for considering a timeframe and for reflecting evolving scientific knowledge and regulatory schemes. GHG emissions and impacts were fully analyzed within Draft EIR Section 4.6. The Draft EIR’s GHG analysis quantifies the Project’s GHG emissions and analyzes the emissions against the City’s screening threshold. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. According to the CAP, projects that exceed the threshold would need either to use the “Screening Tables” in the CAP or quantify GHG emissions and provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent emissions reduction. The Screening Tables provide a menu of options that both ensures implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility. The Draft EIR evaluates the Project in accordance with the City’s CAP. However, as noted in the Draft EIR, the City is currently updating its CAP and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update 18 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017, An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory, November 9, 2017. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017_workshop_11_09_2017_final.pdf, accessed January 17, 2022. 2912
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-251 February 2022
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. Additionally, it should be noted that due to the State’s post-2020 GHG emissions reduction targets, the City CAP’s 25 percent emissions reduction threshold is also no longer a viable option. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1, the Project’s impact on GHG emissions was conservatively determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Response O2-m
The comment summarizes California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the thresholds identified in the City’s CAP, and also summarizes California Senate Bill (SB) 32. The comment does not specifically address the Draft EIR.

However, as noted above in Response O2-l, the City’s CAP is currently being updated to address the State’s SB 32 reduction targets. As such, although the Project would achieve 100 points on the City’s screening tables, the Draft EIR conservatively identifies all feasible mitigation and determines that the Project’s GHG impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Response O2-n
Refer to Responses O2-l and O2-m. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with the applicable GHG reduction plans (as required by the CEQA Appendix G checklist and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(3)). The Draft EIR evaluates consistency with the City’s CAP, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals, as well as the CARB Scoping Plan. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR relies solely on the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan as the relevant GHG significance threshold. Additionally, the comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR relies on achieving 100 points on the City’s CAP Checklist for determining consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan. Consistency with the City’s CAP, SCAG RTP/SCS, and CARB Scoping Plan are each evaluated separately with a detailed policy consistency analysis (refer to Draft EIR Table 4.6-8 through Table 4.6-11). Despite consistency with the applicable plans, the Draft EIR conservatively determines that GHG impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation.

Response O2-o
Refer to Responses O2-l and O2-m. As noted above, the City has adopted 3,000 MTCO2e/year as a screening threshold and 100 points on the Consistency Checklist for projects exceeding the screening threshold. The Draft EIR conservatively determines that although the Project would be required to comply with State and City requirements and implement all feasible mitigation measures that would ensure that the Project maintains reductions consistent with the States post-2020 GHG targets (refer to Draft EIR Impact Discussion 4.6-2), impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as the City’s CAP currently does not address post-2020 reduction targets and the CAP update has not been adopted yet. 2913
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-252 February 2022
Specifically, Draft EIR page 4.6-22 notes that 71 percent of emissions are from mobile sources. As noted on Draft EIR page 4.6-35, several of the State’s plans and policies would contribute to post-2020 reductions in mobile source emissions from the Project. These include the CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, Executive Order N-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 zeroemission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. Also, refer to Response O2-i regarding the various mobile source emissions reduction programs that would affect the Project’s emissions.

Furthermore, the majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation. AB 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 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

Response O2-p
The comment summarizes CEQA requirements for mitigation in the view of the commenter. Responses to the specifics are provided in Response O2-q, below.

Response O2-q
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM GHG-1 only applies to components of the Project with permit applications preceding the adoption of the 2014 CAP. The 2014 CAP was adopted on December 16, 2014 and is currently in effect. MM GHG-1 states that applications on file prior to adoption of the updates to the 2014 CAP must achieve 100 points from the Screening Tables. Project applications received after adoption of the CAP update would be required to comply with the latest CAP in effect, which in this case, would be the 2014 CAP. As the comment incorrectly interprets MM GHG-1, the conclusion that MM GHG-1 is not binding enforceable mitigation is also incorrect. Therefore, MM GHG-1 is binding and serves as enforceable mitigation. However, in order to provide clarification MM GHG-1 will be revised in the Final EIR as follows:

MM GHG-1. All project 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 2914
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-253 February 2022
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 development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.

Response O2-r
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM GHG-1 improperly defers mitigation. In Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 844, the court held that the lead agency does not have to commit to any particular mitigation measure as long as it commits to mitigate impacts. Additionally, the details of exactly how mitigation will be achieved can properly be deferred pending completion of a future study as long as significant impact determinations and formulation of mitigation measures occur before project approval. The GHG reductions measures selected on the City’s checklist and required by MM GHG-1 must be implemented prior to the issuance of Project permits. MM GHG-1 has been designed to be flexible since Project development would occur over two phases with Phase 2 occurring on a programmatic level. The mitigation is tied to the City’s CAP, which is a qualified GHG reduction plan and establishes project-level thresholds in order to achieve the State’s GHG reduction targets and to determine significance under CEQA.

Response O2-s
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to calculate the reductions from mitigation.

Draft EIR Table 4.6-7 includes both unmitigated and mitigated emissions.

Response O2-t
Refer to Response O2-s. Emissions reductions are quantified in Draft EIR Table 4.6-7. This comment incorrectly states that the emissions reduction of MM GHG-1 is undefined. As noted in Draft EIR pages 4.6-13 and 4.6-28, as well as in the CAP Appendix B (CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables), the point values correspond to the minimum emissions reduction from each feature. Projects that garner a total of 100 points or greater would not require quantification of project specific emissions and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.19 The City’s CAP addresses GHG emissions reduction in concert with State reduction efforts and includes specific local requirements that will substantially lessen the cumulative problem. Compliance with the CAP fulfills the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) and 15183.5 description of mitigation.20 The CAP provides community wide GHG emissions reduction target, reduction measures that new development projects must follow to meet the City’s reduction target, community wide inventories that provide quantitative facts and analysis of how the CAP measures meet the reduction target, as well as an implementation, monitoring, and update program to ensure the reduction target is met.
19 City of Ontario, Community Climate Action Plan, Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables, December 2014. 20 Ibid.
2915
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-254 February 2022
Response O2-u
Refer to Response O2-o. Additionally, the comment states that all feasible mitigation was not included in the Draft EIR and references a list of mitigation measures provided in Exhibit A to the comment letter.

These measures were considered below and have been either incorporated into the Draft EIR, deemed infeasible, determined not be required by CEQA, or would not reduce impacts. • Requiring off-road construction equipment to be
zero-emission, where available, and all dieselfueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or
better, and including this requirement in applicable
bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts,
with successful contractors demonstrating the
ability to supply the compliant construction
equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing
and construction activities.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, mitigation requiring Tier 4 equipment is not required. Additionally, CalEEMod/OFFROAD emissions
rates incorporate equipment turnover which results in
incrementally cleaner fleets (i.e., more Tier 4
equipment) in future years.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment
from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.

This measure is not quantifiable and may not be
realistic or feasible. Construction equipment is used
and actively operating for a full day to maximize
efficiency. Limiting the workday can inadvertently
result in greater overall emissions, since additional
workdays could be required and resulting in additional
equipment startup emissions and additional worker
trip emissions.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be
model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Additionally, the CARB Truck and Bus Regulation
requires all trucks to meet 2010 model year or newer
standards by January 1, 2023. The CARB Truck and Bus
Regulations are already incorporated into the EMFAC
emissions rate data used to calculate the Project’s
mobile source emissions.
• Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid,
rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for
electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and
compressors, and using electric tools whenever
feasible.

There is no impact/threshold exceedance to
necessitate this. However, this is standard practice
where feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance
area.

There is no impact/threshold exceedance to
necessitate this. Construction and ground disturbance
would be conducted in an efficient manner to minimize
cost and schedule. Construction would comply with
SCAQMD rules, including Rule 402 and 403, which
prohibit nuisances and reduce dust (Draft EIR Standard
Condition SC AQ-1).
2916
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-255 February 2022
• Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality
Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates
or ozone for the project area.

The emissions analysis for the Project determined that
regional and localized emissions would not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not
have the potential to influence localized pollutant
concentrations and implementation of this measure is
not necessary.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more
than two minutes.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, limiting idling to two minutes would not be
required to reduce an impact. Project would comply
with the 5-minute limit per CARB regulation/state law
(California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3,
Article 1, Chapter 10, Section 2449 [General
Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled
Fleets]).
• Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or
other regulators upon request, all equipment
maintenance records and data sheets, including
design specifications and emission control tier
classifications.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, this measure would not be required.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify
compliance with construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to further reduce
construction impacts.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds,
and no mitigation is required. Therefore, compliance
verification is not required. CARB’s In-Use Off-Road
Diesel Vehicle Regulation ensures equipment meets
standards. Only compliance with SCAQMD rules
required as standard condition.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial
maintenance coatings that have volatile organic
compound levels of less than 10 g/L.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds
and MM AQ-1 would be required per CEQA. MM AQ-1
requires architectural coatings to meet this 10 g/L
standard.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing
programs and services to construction employees.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds
and no mitigation measures are required to reduce
construction mobile source emissions.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between
the facility and nearby meal destinations for
construction employees.

Construction emissions are below SCAQMD thresholds
and no mitigation measures are required to reduce
construction mobile source emissions.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet
equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site
meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions
equivalent engine standards as currently defined in
California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3,
Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility
This is a construction measure on the Attorney
General’s best practices list. Construction emissions
are below SCAQMD thresholds and no mitigation
measures are required to reduce construction mobile
source emissions. Trucks with a gross vehicle weight
rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site
2917
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-256 February 2022
operators shall maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance with this requirement
and shall make records available for inspection by
the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon
request.
must meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions
equivalent engine standards by January 1, 2023.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or
operated on the project site to be zero-emission
beginning in 2030.

This measure is not required because construction
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The
project is a speculative warehouse and the end user’s
fleet is currently unknown.

The CARB Advanced Clean Trucks Rule requires electric
truck sales starting in 2024, with the goal of every new truck sold in California to be zero-emission by 2045.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and
yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary
electrical charging stations provided.

MM AQ-2 requires on-site equipment to be electrically
powered.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and
medium-duty vehicles as part of business
operations.

The Project is a speculative warehouse and the end
user’s fleet is currently unknown. The CARB Advanced
Clean Trucks Rule requires electric truck sales starting in 2024, with the goal of every new truck sold in
California to be zero-emission by 2045.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two
minutes and requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.

Project would comply with the 5-minute limit per CARB
regulation/state law. Implementation of this measure
is not quantifiable because CalEEMod does not allow
for the adjustment of idle times.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs,
including signs directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact
information to report violations to CARB, the air
district, and the building manager.

MM AQ-5 requires signage stating that drivers turn off
engines when not in use, identifying the State’s 5-
minute idling limit (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Section 2485
[Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled
Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling]), and including
telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s
recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration
systems at sensitive receptors within a certain
radius of facility for the life of the project.

Installing air filtration systems at sensitive receptors is not required because impacts at sensitive receptors are less than significant. The Project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD’s Localized Sensitive
Thresholds or an exceedance of health risk thresholds.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s
recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive
receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in
CARB currently operates the Ontario Monitoring
Station and the Upland Monitoring Station located
approximately 2.9 miles north and 8 miles north of the
Project site, respectively. As the Project emissions
modeling did not exceed SCAQMD’s Localized Sensitive
2918
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-257 February 2022
real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate
the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a
facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected
community by providing information that can be
used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to
unhealthy air.

Thresholds, the Project would not affect the ambient
air quality in the area. This measure is not required per CEQA and would not reduce the Project’s operational
emissions.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations
proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.

The Project would comply with all 2019 CALGreen Title
24 electric vehicle infrastructure requirements.

Therefore, this is already incorporated into the Draft
EIR calculations.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport
refrigeration units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include refrigeration.

The Project would comply with all 2019 CALGreen Title
24 electric vehicle infrastructure requirements.

Therefore, this is already incorporated into the Draft
EIR calculations.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging
stations proportional to the number of parking
spaces at the project.

The Project would include electric vehicle charging
stations as required per building code requirements
(Title 24).
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project
site of a specified electrical generation capacity,
such as equal to the building’s projected energy
needs.

Draft EIR Table 4.2-8 and Table 4.-3 show that the
majority of the Project’s emissions are from mobile
sources. California Title 24 Standards require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area solar ready. Additionally, solar photovoltaic panels are an
option for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305
(Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). The Project would
be required to earn Warehouse Actions and
Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points,
which include solar, to reduce emissions.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be
powered by a non-diesel fuel.

As discussed in Response O2-f, future tenants of the
proposed Project are unknown at the time of this
writing; therefore, the need for emergency backup
generators is speculative. However, MM AQ-6 has been
added to the Final EIR to require any proposed
emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel
fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and
employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing
and idling of trucks.

This measure would not result in a quantifiable
reduction in emissions. However, facility operators are financially incentivized to maximize efficiency.
• Requiring operators to establish and promote a
rideshare program that discourages singlO2-
occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial
This measure is already required per MM AQ-4.
2919
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-258 February 2022
incentives for alternate modes of transportation,
including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards,
including all provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle
charging, and bicycle parking.

The Project would comply with CALGreen, but Tier 1.

Tier 2 voluntary measures are not assumed in the
analysis. These voluntary measures would not
substantially reduce the Project’s impacts which occur
primarily from mobile sources. MM AQ-4 requires a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
that would promote bicycling and walking, provide onsite car share amenities, promote carpool/vanpool, etc. to reduce mobile source emissions.
• Achieving certification of compliance with LEED
green building standards.

As noted above, the majority of emissions are from
mobile sources. Improvements to energy efficiency
that would occur with LEED would not reduce the
Project’s mobile source emissions. The current (2019)
Title 24 is 30 percent more efficient than the 2016
version, mainly due to lighting efficiency.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between
the facility and nearby meal destinations.

MM AQ-4 requires a TDM program to minimize vehicle
trips.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing
directional information to the truck route.

The Project is in close proximity to the State Route (SR) 83 with direct access to major arterials. This measure
would not reduce mobile source emissions.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree
canopy for residents in and around the project
area.

The Project would include landscaping consistent with
City design requirements.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies
and compliance with CARB regulations, by
attending CARB-approved courses. Also require
facility operators to maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance and make records
available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.

Reductions from implementation of this measure are
not quantifiable. However, facility operators are
financially incentivized to maximize efficiency and
would be required by law to comply with CARB
regulations.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay
program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that
are SmartWay carriers.

EPA’s SmartWay program helps companies advance
supply chain sustainability by measuring,
benchmarking, and improving freight transportation
efficiency. Enrollment in the EPA’s Smart Way program
is not incorporated as mitigation because emissions
reductions are not quantifiable. However, facility
operators are financially incentivized to maximize
efficiency.
2920
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-259 February 2022
• Providing tenants with information on incentive
programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their
fleets.

The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funding for
cleaner-than-required engines, equipment, and other
sources of air pollution. As noted in Draft EIR page 4.2- 10, under SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect
Source Rule) warehouse operators are required to
implement emissions reduction measures, including
fleet upgrades.

Response O2-v
The comment summarizes CEQA requirements and case law in the view of the commenter regarding evaluating health effects from criteria pollutants. The comment does not specifically raise an issue with the analysis in the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. However, health effects from criteria pollutants were addressed on Draft EIR pages 4.2-33 to 4.2-35.

Response O2-w
The comment summarizes CEQA case law in the view of the commenter regarding health effects from toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure. The comment summarizes the Draft EIR’s health risk assessment and notes that the Draft EIR determined that health effects from TAC exposure would be less than significant. This comment does not specifically raise an issue with the analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.

Response O2-x
According to SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. Additionally, the cancer risk is expressed in the SCAQMD thresholds 21 as “incremental cancer risk.” Individual cancer and incremental cancer risk are the likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs over a lifetime will contract cancer based on the use of standard risk assessment methodology. The comment incorrectly applies the SCAQMD’s 10 in one million cancer risk threshold as a cumulative threshold. The SCAQMD’s 10 in one million threshold is an incremental threshold and it is, therefore, inappropriate to combine construction and operational risk levels and compare to the SCAQMD’s threshold as presented in the comment. The method of simply adding the construction and operational risk levels as conducted in the comment is also incorrect because both risk levels assume that the exposure duration starts in the first trimester. The calculated health risk is based on a lifetime TAC exposure that accounts for different age sensitivity factors for age bins (i.e., third trimester, 0-2, 2-16, and 16-30 years). The younger age bins include a higher age sensitivity factor that increases risk. As construction of Phase 1 would be complete before operations, it would be impossible for a receptor to be exposed to both construction and operational emissions both starting in the third trimester. The construction and operational health risk calculations each conservatively assume that exposure would start at the third trimester. Therefore, the commenter’s approach of adding the 21 SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. 2921
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-260 February 2022
construction and operational risk levels presented in the Draft EIR together overestimates risk because the age sensitivity factors are double counted.

Given the short-term construction schedule of approximately one year, Project construction would not result in a long-term (e.g., 30 or 70 years) source of TAC emissions. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not recommend analysis of TACs from short-term construction activities associated with land use development projects. A construction health risk assessment is not required by SCAQMD and no guidance for health risk assessments for construction has been adopted by SCAQMD or the City. Although SCAQMD’s CEQA guidance does not require a health risk assessment for short-term construction emissions, a construction health risk assessment was conservatively prepared for the Project and provided in the Draft EIR. As analyzed in Draft EIR pages 4.2-35 and 4.2-36, Project construction activities, including TACs from equipment exhaust would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project-related TAC impacts during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Although as discussed above, conducting a construction health risk assessment is not required and combining construction and operational risk is not required by the SCAQMD, a more appropriate conservative approach would be to assume an exposure duration for construction to start at the first trimester and for operational exposure to conservatively begin at age 2.

However, for informational purposes, using the approach of combining construction and operations described above would result in a construction risk of 8.80 in one million and an operational risk of 0.84 in one million for a combined risk of 9.64 in one million, which is below the 10 in one million threshold. This risk calculations were conducted consistent with California OEHHA methodology. Therefore, even when combining construction and operational, health risks would remain below SCAQMD thresholds.

Response O2-y
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not address consistency with all applicable plans, programs, and policies. The General Biological Assessment (GBA) states that there is no Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Approved, Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan that the Project site falls under. The Project site would be subject to the Ontario Plan and the City’s Municipal Code. The Ontario Plan has incorporated policies and measures for potential impacts associated with the Annexation Area 163, as required by the Settlement Agreement. Since the Project is consistent with the Ontario Plan and the Ontario Plan includes the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement, it is not necessary for the GBA to include a discussion of the Settlement Agreement.

Response O2-z
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately establish the biological resources baseline. The GBA discloses the existing conditions and results of the field surveys in Section 3.0 of the GBA. These existing conditions are reiterated in Section 4.3.1, Environmental Setting, of the Draft EIR. The GBA included a biological assessment of the Project site that includes field surveys that were conducted to document existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal speciesinformation, view the 2922
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-261 February 2022
surrounding uses, assess the potential for State and federal waters, assess potential for wildlife movement corridors, and assess for the presence of critical habitat constituent elements. Field surveys included habitat assessments for sensitive species for which potential habitat was found to be present on the site.

Since the comment does not identify the alleged grounds for its assertion that the Draft EIR fails to establish the biological resources baseline, no further response can be provided.

Response O2-aa
The Settlement Agreement states that focused protocol surveys are required “if a [habitat] assessment determines there is potential habitat for sensitive species.” The GBA found that the Project site potentially supported suitable habitat for tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, great blue heron, yellow rail, California horned lark, merlin, burrowing owl, western pond turtle, western mastiff bat, and California glossy snake; however, due to the disturbed nature of the Project site, the presence and occurrence of these species would be reduced. Because of the reduced likelihood of occurrence, the GBA and the Draft EIR includes recommendations in the form of mitigation measures for each sensitive animal species that has the potential to occur on the Project site (see revised MM BIO-1 as presented in Section 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR). The recommendations for tricolored blackbird, grasshopper sparrow, great blue heron, yellow rail, California horned lark, and merlin demonstrate compliance with the federal MBTA and Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario. Protocol surveys were completed for the burrowing owl. Preconstruction surveys, as recommended under MM BIO-1, to be conducted in accordance with adopted protocol were recommended for the western pond turtle, western mastiff bat, and California glossy snake to determine the presence or absence of the species and to avoid any direct take. Therefore, each sensitive species for which potential habitat was found to be present on the site is adequately covered by protocol guidelines and MM BIO-1.

Response O2-bb
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately describe burrowing owl use of the Project site.

The GBA found potential habitat for the burrowing owl is present on the Project site. Focused, protocol burrowing owl surveys determined the absence of burrowing owl and burrowing owl evidence.

The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation from the CDFG states the following:
“Non-breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain.

Burrowing owls detected during non-breeding season surveys may be year-round residents, young from the previous breeding season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients or new colonizers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions, non-breeding season surveys may be warranted 2923
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-262 February 2022
(i.e., if the site is believed to be a wintering site only based on negative breeding season results).”
From interpreting this information, burrowing owl surveys shall not be required during the non-nesting season. The Project site is not a wintering site for burrowing owls and therefore was not warranted for non-breeding season surveys. The biological baseline is more accurate during the breeding season when the surveys were completed. No evidence of burrowing owlwas found on-site during the breeding season, and non-breeding season survey results are typically inconclusive. In addition, no burrowing owls have been historically recorded near the Project site since 2006. Therefore, focused surveys during the nonbreeding season are not required. Further, the implementation of MM BIO-2 would require an avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities before construction starts.

Pursuant to MM BIO-2, the development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be evaluated by monitoring the owls if they are present on-site.

Response O2-cc
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate essential habitat for burrowing owls on the future development areas.

As impacts to burrowing owl habitat have been reduced to less than significant levels, no additional mitigation measures are required. However, MM BIO-2 has been revised for clarification and to include the commenter’s requested mitigation language (indicated in bold underline for additions and strikethrough to deletions):

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 2924
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-263 February 2022
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.

See Response O2-y regarding the Settlement Agreement.

Response O2-ee
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately survey for Swainson’s Hawk.

The GBA report states that the Swainson’s Hawk is not known to occur within the Project area but potential foraging habitat for this species is present on the Project site. The Project site consists of an active dairy farm and agricultural fields. Ongoing dairy and agricultural operations include implementation of rodent control programs, which include the removal of rodent burrows and use of rodenticides. Based upon the level of ongoing disturbance and implementation of rodent control programs, the site would be considered low-quality foraging habitat for raptors; therefore, impacts to raptor foraging habitat would be considered less than significant. The measures included in MM BIO-1 are intended to reduce potential impacts to foraging raptors to a less than significant level. Although the agriculture fields and stock/retention ponds may provide foraging habitat for special-status raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained and in use. This loss of potential foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors; therefore, replacement of foraging habitat would not be required.

According to the CDFWStaff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, projects should be assessed to determine whether take of nests or foraging habitat surrounding nests will be impacted. 2925
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-264 February 2022
There have been two historical sightings of this species within 4.56 miles of the Project site and the agricultural habitat is considered potentially suitable foraging habitat. Therefore, the GBA recommends implementation of MM BIO-1, which requires pre-construction nesting bird surveys to identify nests onsite and within the vicinity of the site which will determine whether the disturbance of the onsite foraging habitat would result in the take of nesting hawks. No additional mitigation or surveys are required.

Response O2-ff
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to accurately characterize potential for Western Spadefoot habitat. Due to the nature of the Project site habitat, this species does not have any potential to occur. The onsite stock ponds collect waste from livestock and dairy activities. The stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year and are routinely dredged to remove waste and sediment. The stock ponds are designed to hold water for no more than 72 hours; therefore, the ponds do not provide a suitable source of open water necessary for western spadefoot larvae to develop.

According to the California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern it was estimated that the minimum time for larval development is 14 days and on average lasts 58 days (Thomson et al. 2016). The stock/retention ponds in the Project area are not sufficient breeding grounds for this species.

All historical sightings within a 5-mile radius for this species exist within or adjacent to woodland habitats and slopes of the Angeles National Forest, Chino Hills State Park, and the Cleveland National Forest. The Project area contains agricultural fields with no native trees. No sightings of this species occur within

4.49miles, and there is no woodland habitat or slopes within miles of the Project site. Therefore, this species is not present.

Response O2-gg
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR failed to consult all available biological resources databases to establish the environmental setting. The GBA utilizes the CNDDB to determine the potential occurrence of special status species. The GBA also utilizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered Species Lists, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory, regional Natural Communities Conservation Plans or Habitat Conservation Plans, regional Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCPs), and federal critical habitat maps to determine whether sensitive species have the potential to occur on or within the vicinity of the Project site. The long-billed curlew, mountain plover, white-faced ibis, northern harrier, ferruginous hawk, white-tailed kite, and loggerhead shrike have not been historically documented within miles of the Project area and no suitable nesting habitat for the species occurs within Project boundaries.

Response O2-hh
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to accurately describe ponded water on the Project Site. The Draft EIR and GBA state that approximately 19 acres of dry stock/retention ponds and channels occur within the Project site. The GBA includes images that show the stock pond channels to be wet; however, the GBA also states that the ponds do not contain water throughout the year. The onsite stock ponds collect waste from livestock and dairy activities. The stock ponds do not contain water 2926
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-265 February 2022
throughout the year and are routinely dredged to remove waste and sediment. The stock ponds are designed to hold water for no more than 72 hours. Therefore, the ponds are dry and do not provide a permanent, reliable source of open water necessary for breeding/nesting habitat for species.

Furthermore, the source of water for these man-made features are not a “natural flow” as required by the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, so the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW. The stock ponds are isolated features that are not tributary to traditional navigable waters, and therefore are not considered Waters of the United States. Further, discharges to the manmade stock ponds are not considered waters or wetlands of the State subject to permit requirements under the Clean Water Act or Porter-Cologne since they are artificially constructed.

Response O2-ii
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to identify potential jurisdictional waters. The Draft EIR and GBA state that approximately 19 acres of stock/retention ponds and channels occur within the Project site. According to the Web Soil Survey, these features do not occur on hydric soils. The ponded features identified in the comment occur on Chino silt loam and Grangeville fine sandy loam. The Chino silt loam series and the Grangeville fine sandy loam series are identified as containing minor components that are hydric. However, the Project site lacks remnant fan components and depressions representing these series, and there are no indicators of hydric soils (Natural Resources Conservation Service). Based on these conditions, hydric soils do not occur. These features also do not qualify as wetlands. The California Water Boards defines a wetland as having three requirements: “(1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.” The features do not meet these requirements. Furthermore, the new features do not qualify as jurisdictional waters. Refer to the GBA discussion on State and Federal Jurisdictional Drainages. Lastly, the additional features identified in the letter only hold water for brief periods of time during rainfall. As with the other stock ponds, these features are dry and do not qualify as wetlands, jurisdictional waters, or suitable habitat for species. See Response O2-hh above for more detail.

Response O2-jj
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on biological resources. The GBA provides recommendations to avoid potential impacts to each sensitive species that have the potential to occur on the Project site. The recommendations are included in the Draft EIR as mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce the impacts to sensitive species to less than significant. As stated in the Draft EIR, with implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-2, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the analysis provided in the GBA and the Draft EIR include the necessary information to evaluate the Project against the significance thresholds. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR mitigation would not sufficiently mitigate those (unspecified) impacts as the Draft EIR describes the impacts and also the mitigation measures required to reduce the impacts to less than significant.
2927
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-266 February 2022
Response O2-kk
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to disclose impacts on waterfowl. The Draft EIR and GBA discusses potential suitable or foraging habitat for several waterfowl species. The Draft EIR acknowledges impacts on waterfowl under Section 4.3.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation. The waterfowl species with suitable nesting or foraging habitat onsite are included under sensitive animals and nesting birds. With implementation of MM BIO-1, impacts to these species are reduced to less than significant.

The onsite stock ponds collect waste from livestock and dairy activities. The stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year and are routinely dredged to remove waste and sediment. The stock ponds are designed to hold water for no more than 72 hours. The ponds on site are man-made, dry, and do not provide a permanent, reliable source of open water necessary for breeding/nesting habitat for waterfowl species. The Ontario Plan supports the protection of high value habitat areas by establishing habitat conservation areas and complying with State and federal regulations regarding protected species. Since the Project site does not support high value habitats for waterfowl species but is within the Annexation Area 163, the developer will pay the mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre. Therefore, no further compensatory mitigation measures are required.

Response O2-ll
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to mitigate habitat loss. Draft EIR Section 4.3.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation includes discussions of the impacts expected to occur to habitat and sensitive species, along with mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The Ontario Plan supports the protection of high value habitat areas by establishing habitat conservation areas and complying with state and federal regulations regarding protected species. The Project site consists of an active dairy farm and agricultural fields. The Project site is disturbed, and onsite habitats are highly degraded. No sensitive species were observed during field surveys. The site does not provide suitable nesting/breeding habitat for tricolored blackbird. The onsite stock ponds do not provide a permanent source of open water necessary for western pond turtle. Focused burrowing owl surveys found that the species is not present on the site. Based upon the level of ongoing disturbance and implementation of rodent control programs, the site would be considered low-quality foraging habitat for raptors. The site does not provide valuable habitat.

The DEIR references MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 as being the predominant mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to sensitive species. The Ontario Plan DEIR states that Ontario will consult with CDFG about which lands are occupied by burrowing owl and are suitable as long-term habitat. If the site is not viable as long-term habitat, the developer shall pay the mitigation fee and make provisions for relocation of owls. Since no owls occur on the project site, the developer shall pay the mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre. No further compensatory mitigation measures are required.

Response O2-mm
See Response O2-y.
2928
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-267 February 2022
Response O2-nn
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 is ineffective. It should be noted that the vegetation removal component of MM BIO-1 is recommended as part of the CDFW’s recommended mitigation to lessen Project-related impacts. See Response S1-g of the CDFW letter. The Ontario Plan states that projects that would directly impact vegetation that could be used by migratory birds would be required to comply with the federal MBTA. In addition to complying with the federal MBTA, the Project would implement MM BIO-1, which provides recommendations to ensure that impacts to nesting birds is less than significant. Furthermore, according to the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), tricolored blackbird colonies have been recorded within the vicinity of the Project site. Tricolored blackbirds require open accessible water, a secure substrate in which to place their nests, and suitable nearby foraging areas that provide adequate food sources for breeding. If any one of these required elements is missing, the species will not breed in that location. Although the GBA prepared for the Project found that suitable habitat for this species occurs on the Project site; breeding habitat is contingent upon the onsite waste filled stock ponds. However, the onsite stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year; therefore, the ponds do not provide a reliable source of open water necessary for breeding/nesting habitat. The species’ preferred foraging habitats include agricultural crops such as rice, alfalfa, irrigated pastures, and ripening or cut grain fields, as well as annual grasslands, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Therefore, the site does provide potentially suitable foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird.

Furthermore, the tricolored blackbird is not a federally listed species. Tricolored blackbird is a state listed species and a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) incidental Take Permit (ITP) is only required to be obtained from CDFW for potential “take” of the species. “Take” is defined by Fish and Game Code Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” There is no occupied tricolored blackbird habitat on the site. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in “take” of tricolored blackbird.

Measures included in MM BIO-1 are intended to avoid permanent direct impacts to nesting birds, which includes tricolored blackbird, year-round. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.

Response O2-oo
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 would not mitigate impacts to the western pond turtle, western mastiff bat, or California glossy snake. As noted on pages 4.3-21 and 4.3-22 of the Draft EIR, MM BIO-1 includes measures specific to the three listed species. Implementation of MM BIO-1 would reduce the potential for the species to inhabit the Project site.

Response O2-pp
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 lacks specificity to ensure bird nests are actually detected. As noted within MM BIO-1, the recommendations would be performed by a qualified biological monitor and qualified biologist, thus ensuring that the surveys and removal efforts are done to a professional standard.
2929
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-268 February 2022
Response O2-qq
The GBA prepared for the Project included a literature review and field survey of the project site and surrounding areas. The Prado Dam 7.5’ USGS topographic quadrangle and eight surrounding quadrangles were used to identify sensitive species in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). According to the CNDDB, the nearest recorded occurrence of western pond turtle lies approximately 3.7 miles to the southeast of the project area within the Santa Ana River floodplain. Further, the species was not observed during the general biological assessment field survey. The onsite stock ponds collect waste from livestock and dairy activities. The stock ponds do not contain water throughout the year and are routinely dredged to remove waste and sediment. The stock ponds are designed to hold water for no more than 72 hours; therefore, the ponds do not provide a permanent source of open water necessary for the species.

Although the GBA determined that the onsite stock ponds may potentially provide suitable habitat for western pond turtle, it is unlikely that this species occurs within the project area. The proposed mitigation measure MM BIO-1 was intended to ensure that no impacts to the species occurs in the unlikely event that western pond turtle is found onsite. Based on CDFW’s recommendation, MM BIO-1, specific to the Western pond turtle, will be revised to the following:

MM BIO-1. The following measures shall be implemented for the indicated species, prior to commencement of ground disturbance at the Project site:
…
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.
2930
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-269 February 2022
Within 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for western pond turtle within all areas that fall within 100 feet of any suitable aquatic and upland nesting habitat for this species (stock/retention ponds). If western pond turtles are observed during the pre-construction survey, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be contacted. If no Western pond turtles are observed during the preconstruction survey, then construction activities may begin. If construction is delayed or halted for more than 30 days, another preconstruction 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Revision of MM BIO-1, as specified above will ensure that no take of western pond turtle will result from project implementation. CDFW’s recommendation that the project should create suitable, breeding, and foraging habitat at a minimum 2:1 replacement to impact ratio if western pond turtle are found during pre-construction surveys is not necessary due to the fact that the onsite stock ponds to be impacted by the Project do not provide habitat necessary for the species, as described above. As previously stated, it is unlikely that the species will be found onsite during pre-construction trapping surveys and the proposed mitigation measure is merely precautionary.

Response O2-rr
See Response O2-ee.

Response O2-ss
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 fails to identify minimum qualifications for a monitor and the variables that would be monitored. As noted within MM BIO-1, the recommendations would be performed by a qualified biological monitor and qualified biologist, thus ensuring that the surveys and removal efforts are done to a professional standard.

Response O2-tt
See Response O2-qq. The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 are ineffective for the California glossy snake.
2931
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-270 February 2022
Response O2-uu
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-1 fails to include reliable detection of western mastiff bat roosts. MM BIO-1 states that a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats. Methods to identify the presence of bats could include acoustic monitoring, a combination of visual surveys of bats (structure inspections), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign, exit counts, or use of ultrasonic detectors (e.g., Anabat, etc.). Nevertheless, the second bullet of MM BIO-1 regarding the Western mastiff bat includes additional protection and compensatory measures in the case that bat species are documented.

Response O2-vv
See Response O2-uu.

Response O2-ww
As discussed in MM BIO-1 of the Draft EIR, prior to implementation of the Project, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats. If occupied roosts are identified by special-status bat species, the bats shall be safely flushed from the sites where roosting habitat is planned to be removed prior to maternity roosts occupation 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, and 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. The specifications of the bat boxes will be based upon the species of bat and the size of the colony to be affected by the Project, upon consultation with a qualified biologist. Therefore, through implementation of MM BIO-1, an alternative habitat will be created for the potentially discoverable bat species and would reduce the impacts to the bat species and colony to less than significant levels.

Response O2-xx
See Response O2-uu. MM BIO-1 would be properly implemented as required by the City and as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Therefore, there are assurances that MM BIO-1 would mitigate potentially significant impacts to the western mastiff bat to less-than-significant levels. The City did not defer mitigation and has stated within MM BIO-1 in the Draft EIR the mitigation measures required to mitigate potentially significant impacts.

Response O2-yy
See Response O2-qq. The onsite stock ponds to be impacted by the Project do not provide habitat necessary for the species, as described above. As previously stated, it is unlikely that the species will be found onsite during pre-construction trapping surveys and the proposed mitigation measure is merely precautionary.

Response O2-zz
See Response O2-qq.
2932
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-271 February 2022
Response O2-aaa
See Response O2-cc.

Response O2-bbb
See Response O2-y.

Response O2-ccc
The City disagrees with the assertion that MM BIO-2 fails to discuss how impacts to burrowing owls would be avoided or minimized if owls at the site are year-round residents. As stated on page 4.3-19 of the Draft EIR, several field surveys were conducted to determine the presence of BUOW foraging on or adjacent to the site. There were no direct BUOW identifications observed during the focused BUOW breeding season surveys. Further, BUOW often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions.

Therefore, MM BIO-2 would only be implemented if it were later determined that active nests of BUOW would be lost as a result of site preparation. It is speculative to assume that the owls would be year-round residents when the focused surveys prepared for the Project have shown that there is no evidence of the BUOW. Nonetheless, as stated in Response S1-f of this Final EIR, MM BIO-2 has been revised for clarification and to include the CDFW’s requested mitigation language.

Response O2-ddd
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately evaluate cumulative impacts on biological resources. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(4) requires a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by cumulative projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(5) requires a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. The Draft EIR states that the Project impacts would be less than cumulatively significant by implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to sensitive species to less than significant levels.

The mitigation measures (MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2) implement vegetation removal, pre-construction surveys, buffers around nests for nesting birds, and relocation of sensitive species prior to the commencement of ground disturbance, as well as a BUOW take avoidance survey no less than two weeks prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The habitat onsite, as previously mentioned, is not of high value or quality. It is an active dairy farm with agricultural fields which is continuously disturbed for agricultural purposes. Therefore, no sensitive habitat exists that should be mitigated for (refer to Appendix C of the Draft EIR). The mitigation fee of $4,320 per net acre shall be paid since the Project site is within Annexation Area 163. Therefore, no further compensatory mitigation is required.

Response O2-eee
The City disagrees with the assertion that the cumulative impacts to habitat are potentially significant.

The comment letter asserts that since the cumulative impact to agricultural resources is significant and unavoidable, the cumulative impact to agricultural habitat would also be significant and unavoidable. This is false; the cumulative impact to agricultural resources is different than the cumulative impact loss of agricultural habitat would have on sensitive wildlife. The habitat onsite is of poor quality and frequently disturbed. No sensitive or significant habitat types exist on the Project site (refer to Appendix C of the 2933
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-272 February 2022
Draft EIR). Thus, cumulative impacts are addressed through the payment of the Mitigation Fee for all projects located within the NMC to ensure that cumulative impacts are less than significant, and no further mitigation would be required.

Response O2-fff
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR fails to disclose that the Project stie contains raptor foraging habitat. The Draft EIR discusses the scarcity and low value of potential foraging habitat for raptors on the Project site. Although open fields are valuable foraging habitat, as described in Appendix C of the Draft EIR, the Project site does not provide habitat that is unique, scarce in the region, or particularly valuable for raptors. As previously stated, the site is a dairy farm with ongoing dairy and agricultural operations including implementation of rodent control programs, which include the removal of rodent burrows and use of rodenticides. The fields are low value and should not require compensatory mitigation.

Response O2-ggg
The City disagrees with the assertion that the loss of NMC agricultural lands for foraging due to the Project would be significant and would require mitigation. The comments from the CDFW differ on a case-by-case basis for each project (refer to Response O2-ee above for additional detail). Although the comments for a different site state that the loss of NMC agricultural lands is significant and should be mitigated for, this Project site has very poor foraging habitat for raptors due to current rodent management practices (refer to Appendix C of the Draft EIR). Payment of the Mitigation Fee would ensure that the proposed Project is in compliance with the Ontario Plan and would mitigate for impacts to loss of habitat.

Response O2-hhh
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR defers mitigation as it relates to VMT impacts.

MM TRANS-1 would be properly implemented as required by the City and as part of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as enforced by the Planning Director. Therefore, there are assurances that reductions in commute VMT through feasible TDM measures would be provided by the Project, and would be implemented as part of future Certificates of Occupancy for future tenants as described in MM TRANS-1. Therefore, the City did not defer mitigation and has stated within MM TRANS-1 in the Draft EIR the mitigation measures required to mitigate potentially significant impacts.

As referred to in MM TRANS-1, the following is a list of VMT measures that would be considered, but are not limited to, to reduce VMT impacts, and they would be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director: 22
• Measure 1: Increase Diversity of Land Uses (LUT-3). Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transportation. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs.
22 South Ontario Logistics Center Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis. (2021). Page 7-8. 2934
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-273 February 2022
• Measure 2: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1). Providing on-site pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project to the off-site pedestrian network encourages people to walk for short trips instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less for nearby trips (typically less than ¼ mile and no greater than ½ mile) and thus a reduction in VMT. • Measure 3: Provide Traffic Calming Measure (SDT-2). Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a passenger car. This mode shift would result in a decrease in VMT. Traffic calming features may include marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others.
• Measure 4: Implement Car-Sharing Program (TRT-9). Implementing a car-sharing program would allow individuals to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees.
• Measure 5: Increase Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4). This measure serves to reduce transit-passenger travel time through more reduced headways and increased speed and reliability.

This makes transit service more attractive and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit which reduces VMT.
• Measure 6: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule (TRT-6). Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed workweeks.
• Measure 7: Provide Ride-Sharing Programs (TRT-3). This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling, but its ultimate implementation is limited similarly as Measure 6 above.

Response O2-iii
See Response O2-hhh. As noted above, the mitigation measures identified in the comment are already addressed by existing regulation that the Project would be required to comply with. As stated on page 4.13-28 of Section 4.13, Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft EIR, the effectiveness of the abovenoted TDM measures (see Response O2-hhh for the seven measures), would be dependent on the buildings’ occupants, which are unknown at this time. Because land use context is relevant to the potential application and effectiveness of the TDM measures, the reductions are not guaranteed and the Draft EIR found that the Project’s impact on VMT would be considered significant and unavoidable. Therefore, mitigation has not been deferred, and the significance determination was properly stated to be significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the possible TDM measures as listed above.

Response O2-jjj
See Response O2-hhh and O2-jjj. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not identified all feasible mitigation for VMT reduction. Reductions in commute VMT through feasible TDM measures such as those described previously will be provided by the Project. Inclusion of such VMT reduction 2935
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-274 February 2022
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.

Therefore, the Project’s transportation impact based on VMT should conservatively be considered significant and unavoidable.

Response O2-kkk
SB743 requiresthat automobile delay, as described solely by LOS of similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, vehicle delay is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA. Specifically, PRC §21099(b)(2) states that:
“Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” As summarized in Section 4.13, Traffic and Transportation, of the Draft EIR, with respect to consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan level of service policies, with recommended improvements the Project’s effects on operational level of service will be consistent with applicable local agency policies. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the plan, programs, goals and policies of the Mobility Element by enhancing transportation networks and for vehicles and bicycle facilities, safely accommodating pedestrian walkways and providing easy access to the Project site via public transportation. The Project’s circulation system has been designed consistently with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines and existing transportation system. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s DIF program which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County (i.e., Congestion Management Plan [CMP]) keep pace with the projected population increases or other identified roadway deficiencies. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the relevant goals, policies, and ordinances, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Response O2-lll
See Response O2-kkk. The Project would be consistent with the plan, programs, goals and policies of the Mobility Element by enhancing transportation networks and for vehicles and bicycle facilities, safely accommodating pedestrian walkways and providing easy access to the Project site via public transportation. The Project’s circulation system has been designed consistently with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines and existing transportation system. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s DIF program which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County (i.e., CMP) keep pace with the projected population increases or other identified roadway deficiencies. Any improvements that are identified in the Traffic Study and not identified as being constructed by the project would not have a definitive schedule as future improvements would be completed based on priority/need for both the City and County facilities. The Draft EIR and Traffic Study contain adequate information to determine that the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and recirculation is not required.
2936
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-275 February 2022
Response O2-mmm
The comment summarizes the Draft EIR as well as CEQA requirements and case law in the view of the commenter. Responses to the specific comments are provided in Responses O2-nnn through O2-qqq below.

Response O2-nnn
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not address the energy significance thresholds in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The energy analysis and associated thresholds are provided on Draft EIR pages 7-4 through 7-6. The analysis specifically responds to the guidance for energy analysis in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which requires a determination on if a project would increase the need for new energy supplies. As such, the comparison to regional consumption is provided for that purpose. Additionally, the Draft EIR discloses the Project’s electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuel consumption. The analysis determined that the Project energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful as the Project will be required by the CALGreen Code to comply with the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Nonresidential) published by the California Energy Commission which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Additionally, the Project includes MM AQ-2 through AQ-5, which will have the additional effect of reducing Project vehicle fuel consumption by requiring electrical cargo handling equipment, electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage, a TDM program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit, and idling limitations. No evidence is provided in the comment or otherwise that the Project would result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response O2-ooo
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not evaluate the Project’s consistency with the listed plans. The plans listed in the comment are not applicable plans that the Project can demonstrate compliance with. For example, the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) and State of California Energy Plan are Statewide plans that assess energy issues and identify action at the State level. These plans are used to inform state policies and are implemented through the building codes, Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), and various others.

The City also disagrees with the assertion that Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards is a plan for energy efficiency. As noted in Draft EIR page 7-6 (as well as throughout Draft EIR Section 4.6), the Project would be required to comply with the mandatory energy efficiency measures in the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code. As these are building standards that are codified in the California Code of Regulations, the energy efficiency standards are mandatory and as such, the Project must comply.

The comment also identifies AB 1493, RPS, and Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act. The AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards are a regulatory program designed to encourage the use of cleaner low-carbon transportation fuels in California and encourage the production of those fuels. CARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State. California's 2937
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-276 February 2022
RPS sets continuously escalating renewable energy procurement requirements for the State’s load-serving entities. Specifically, The RPS would ensure that energy comes from renewable sources incrementally until 2045, at which point it must be 100 percent renewable. Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) establishes clean energy, clean air, and GHG reduction goals, including reducing GHG to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These are State regulatory programs that would reduce the Project’s energy and fuel consumption. As these are regulatory programs, the Project would benefit from program implementation and would not conflict with any of these. None of these programs identified in the comment are State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency that the Project would conflict with. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

Response O2-ppp
The comment identifies energy policies from The Ontario Plan (TOP). As noted in the comment, consistency with these policies is discussed in the Draft EIR. The TOP policies listed in the comment focus on energy conservation, green development, building and site design, fuel efficient and alternative energy vehicles, and renewable energy generation. Although Project consistency with TOP policies are evaluated in the Draft EIR, the following discussion addresses the policies specifically identified in the comment. As shown below, the Project would not conflict with TOP energy policies.

TOP Policies Project Consistency
• ER3-1 Conservation Strategy. We require
conservation as the first strategy to be employed
to meet applicable energy-saving standards.

The Project will be required by the California Green
Building Standards Code to comply with the Title 24
Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Nonresidential)
published by the California Energy Commission which
contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical
systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use.
• ER3-2 Green Development– Communities. We
require the use of best practices identified in
green community rating systems to guide the
planning and development of all new
communities.

As noted above, the Project will comply with the
California Green Building Standards Code and the Title 24 Building Energy EfficiencyStandards, which represent the best practices for new development.
• ER3-3 Building and Site Design. We require new
construction to incorporate energy efficient
building and site design strategies, which could
include appropriate solar orientation, maximum
use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural
ventilation.

The Project would comply with City building and site
design requirements. Additionally, the Project would
implement all California Green Building Standards Code
and the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,
which include building envelope requirements for solar
orientation and natural daylight and ventilation.

Additionally, solar photovoltaic panels are an option for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect
Source Rule). The Project would be required to earn
WAIRE points, which include solar, to reduce emissions
and would further reduce energy consumption.
2938
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-277 February 2022
TOP Policies Project Consistency
• ER3-4 Green Development–Public Buildings. We
require all new and substantially renovated City
buildings in excess of 10,000 square feet achieve
a LEED Silver Certification standard, as
determined by the U.S. Green Building Council.

This policy applies to City buildings and therefore does not apply to the Project.
• ER3-5 Fuel Efficient and Alternative Energy
Vehicles and Equipment. We purchase and use
vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient
and meet or surpass state emissions
requirements and/or use renewable sources of
energy.

MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road
equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. All trucks and vehicles accessing the project site would be required to meet state standards and comply with state
programs, including CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy,
CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods
Movement, and CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck
Regulation. Therefore, this is already addressed in the Draft EIR.
• ER3-6 Generation- Renewable Sources. We
promote the use of renewable energy sources to
serve public and private sector development.

California Title 24 Standards require buildings to be
designed to have 15 percent of the roof area solar ready.

Additionally, solar photovoltaic panels are an option for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect
Source Rule). The project would be required to earn
WAIRE points, which include solar, to reduce emissions
and would further reduce energy consumption.

Response O2-qqq
Refer to Responses O2-nnn, O2-ooo, and O2-ppp, above. The Draft EIR energy analysis on Draft EIR pages 7-4 through 7-6 address the goals in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. As discussed in the Draft EIR and in the responses above, the Project would comply with various standards and regulations regarding energy efficiency such as the California Green Building Standards Code and the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Additionally, the Project would benefit from numerous State and regional programs that would improve building and transportation efficiency such as the State’s RPS, SB 350, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, and SCAQMD’s Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). These energy efficiency programs would minimize the Project’s energy consumption, thereby decreasing overall per capita consumption, reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

For example, the energy efficiency standards in the California Green Building Standards Code and the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would improve building energy efficiency. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks, which reduces fossil fuel consumption. Mobile source emissions would be minimized as all trucks and vehicles accessing the Project site would be required to meet State standards and comply with State programs, including CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, and CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Regulation. As noted on Draft EIR page 4.6-35, the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation requires 2939
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-278 February 2022
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. Regarding increasing reliance on renewable energy sources, the State’s RPS would ensure that energy comes from renewable sources incrementally until 2045, at which point it must be 100 percent renewable. Additionally, California Title 24 Standards require buildings to be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area solar ready. Solar photovoltaic panels are an option for compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). The Project would be required to earn WAIRE points, which include solar, to reduce emissions and would further reduce energy consumption.

Response O2-rrr
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR violates CEQA by claiming that because local policy discourages mitigation of a certain type of environmental impact (agricultural impacts), mitigation of that impact is infeasible. The comment asserts that the Draft EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects identified. As noted on page 4.1-12 of Section

4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft EIR, the conversion of agricultural lands and loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the Project have already been considered and addressed in the TOP EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in January 2010 as part of the City’s TOP EIR approval. As further discussed in the EIR, the conversion of existing agricultural uses to urban uses would be consistent with the TOP, and the continuation of agricultural uses would be incongruous with the continuing urbanization in the City, as evident in the lack of “Agricultural” Land Use designations under the adopted Land Use Plan. Furthermore, as pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, feasibility should take into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. See City of Del Mar v.

City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417. Therefore, “agencies may conclude that a mitigation measure…is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as feasible on that ground.” The commenter does not provide substantial evidence as to why the commenter believes that the potential mitigation measures that were deemed infeasible in the Draft EIR should be consisted to be feasible. Substantial evidence is provided on pages 4.1-13 through 4.1-16 of the Draft EIR to support the finding that no feasible mitigation measures were identified to substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

Response O2-sss
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR refused to consider mitigation of agricultural impacts. The commenter is incorrect, as pages 4.1-13 through 4.1-16 of the Draft EIR details mitigation measures that were considered, but ultimately rejected as infeasible, to reduce impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The commenter further asserts that agricultural impacts must be mitigated, and that the City’s approach undermines State policy of preserving agricultural land (e.g., the California Land Conservation Act of 1965). As noted on page 4.1-8 of the Draft EIR, the Williamson Act enables counties and cities to designate agricultural preserves and offer preferential taxation to agricultural landowners based on the land’s income-producing value, and in return, the landowner is required to sign the Williamson contract to not develop the land for a minimum of 10 years. Page 4.1-17 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Project site, as well as the SB330 Replacement Site, contain land with active Williamson Act Contracts. Any land held in a Williamson Act contract will have to be filed for nonrenewal 2940
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-279 February 2022
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. Furthermore, the cancellation of any site with an active Williamson Act contract would be required to comply with the provisions and requirements identified at Government Code (GC) §51280 et seq. The City would be required to make the required statutory findings (GC §51282(a)). The landowner would be required to pay the requisite cancellation fee. Therefore, as concluded in the Draft EIR, while the implementation of the Project itself would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact, the City and landowners are transitioning land uses away from agricultural uses, which would support the trend of continuing urbanization in the City. The Project would be consistent with the findings of the City’s TOP EIR and Land Use Plan. See also Response O2-rrr above.

Response O2-ttt
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR violates CEQA as it does not determine whether mitigation measures are actually technically feasible, and that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient information to determine whether mitigation of agricultural impacts can be achieved. As stated on page 4.1-13 of the Draft EIR, the transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the TOP, which would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources in the City. As stated in Response O2-sss, pages 4.1-13 through 4.1-16 of the Draft EIR details mitigation measures that were considered, but ultimately rejected as infeasible, to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the Draft EIR does not violate CEQA’s informational requirements. See also Responses O2-rrr and O2-sss above.

Response O2-uuu
This comment requests that the City revise the discussion on agricultural mitigation measures based on the reasonings provided above. See Responses O2-rrr, O2-sss, and O2-ttt above.

Response O2-vvv
The commenter is correct in that the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be presented in a separate document that will be transmitted to the decision-makers for approval. This comment also requests that the Statement of Overriding Considerations must find that the Project’s significant, unavoidable impacts outweigh the Project’s benefits to the community, particularly as it relates to providing employment opportunities for highly trained workers. Section 21081(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states, “specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.” As stated in Response O2-rrr and on page 4.1-10 of the Draft EIR, 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, consistent with the TOP, would support development of land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing 2941
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2.0 | Response to Comments City of Ontario 2-280 February 2022
population. As it applies to the Project and as stated in the TOP EIR, agriculture development within the City would burden the San Bernardino County region with air quality issues resulting from methane, water quality pollution, and hazardous emissions. Therefore, the Draft EIR has considered economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations when considering the impacts of the Project. Lastly, as stated on page 4.11-10 and -11 of Section 4.11, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, Project construction would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs, all of which would include some skilled and managerial positions. The Project would also develop a business park and industrial uses, which could result in employment opportunities for highly trained workers. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes the Project’s benefits that outweigh the environmental costs, all of which would be reflected in the statement of overriding considerations.

Response O2-www
The City disagrees with the assertion that a revised Draft EIR must be prepared and circulated. As determined in the responses to this comment letter above, the Draft EIR fully complies with CEQA and need not be revised and recirculated. See Response O2-vvv regarding the statement of overriding considerations.

Response O2-xxx
This comment serves as a conclusion to the comment letter. Detailed responses are provided in Responses O2-a through O2-www above.
2942
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 | Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Ontario 3‐1 February 2022

3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
Introduction
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (a), this section of the FEIR provides changes to the DEIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or supplement the information provided in that document. This section contains revisions to the DEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR.

These changes and additions are due to recognition of inadvertent errors or omissions, and to respond to comments received on the DEIR during the public review period. The changes described in this section do not add significant new information to the DEIR that would require recirculation of the DEIR. More specifically, CEQA requires recirculation of a DEIR only when “significant new information” is added to a DEIR after public notice of the availability of the DEIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states:

New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. ‘Significant new information’ requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
 A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
 A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.  A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.  The draft EIR wasso fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[re]circulation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.” As demonstrated in this FEIR, the changes presented in this section do not constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the DEIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the DEIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.
2943
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 | Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Ontario 3-2 February 2022
As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.

The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. City of Ontario staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions.

3.1 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR.

Executive Summary
The Draft EIR Executive Summary (Section 1.0) is hereby revised to incorporate the minor revisions to mitigation measures noted below.

Section 3.0, Project Description

1. Figure 3-4, Regional Map, on Page 3-4 has been added:

2. Figure 3-5, SB 330 Replacement Site Aerial View, on Page 3-4 has been added:

3. Figure 3-6, City of Ontario Proposed Housing Strategy Map, on Page 3-5 has been added:

The last paragraph on Page 3-4 and first paragraph on Page 3-5 under Subsection 3.2.1, Housing Accountability Act, is revised as follows:

The “Project” addressed in this EIR addresses the potential impacts associated with relocating residential density from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Site, pursuant to, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code §6300). SB330 requires in part, that where a development project results in reducing the number of housing units allowed under existing zoning, the city must concurrently rezone other parcels such that there is no “net loss” of the total allowable housing development in the city.

As further discussed in Subsection 3.5, Approvals Requested as Part of the Project, a General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the site’s land use designations from Low-Medium Density Residential and Business Park to approximately 35.2 acres of Business Park (0.6 FAR) and 184.2 acres of Industrial (0.55 FAR) land uses. The General Plan Amendment would, therefore, eliminate the Low-Medium Density land use designation, thereby theoretically eliminating 1,352 units (as determined by the City’s density determinations to be 8.5 dwelling units per acre). In compliance with SB 330, this EIR evaluated the 2944
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 | Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Ontario 3-3 February 2022
elimination of 1,352 units and determined that based on SB 330 Exceptions for lack of water and sewer to serve a residential project and the no net loss of residential capacity, the Project is consistent with the Department of Community Development and Housing (HCD) exception findings. The proposed Project site does not have sufficient water or wastewater facilities to serve a residential project. As explained in Section 3.4.1.2, of the Draft EIR, at present there is no water or sewer infrastructure that could serve residential units because the land has been used for agricultural purposes with water provided by on-site wells and sewer provided by septic systems. The Project Applicant is working on projects both approved and under review that span the length of Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Merrill Avenue to the south, Euclid Avenue to the east, and Grove Avenue to the west (Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan – Approved; Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment – Under review; and, South Ontario Logistics Center – Subject Project), with a combined estimated cost of $144,331,000 (see Table 3-2, Project Cost Estimate by Project Area). The total estimated cost includes individual streets, lengths of pipe, storm drain, sewer, water, streetlights, curbing, paving, signals, power/fiber, and more. This cost would be financially infeasible for the 1,352 units presently allowed under the current residential General Plan designation and therefore the cost of such improvements would make residential development on the site financially infeasible (see Government Code Section 66589.5(d)(2) cited above).

Table 3-2: Project Cost Estimate by Project Area
Project Name Cost Estimate
Ontario Ranch Business Park Phase 1 (Specific Plan - Approved) $72,151,000 South Ontario Logistics Center (Specific Plan – Subject Project, Under Review) $59,780,000 Ontario Ranch Business Park Phase 2 (Specific Plan Amendment, Under Review) $12,400,000 TOTAL $144,331,000
In order to demonstrate “no net loss of residential capacity,” the Project will be required to demonstrate increased residential zoning capacity on a “SB330 Replacement Site” by 1,352 units to off-set the Project site loss of zoning capacity (Low Medium Density, 5.1 to 11 dwelling units per acre). In tandem with the City’s adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, scheduled to go before the City Council for their consideration in February 2022, the City is also adopting an Affordable Housing Overlay zone and applying this zone to all parcels in the sites inventory that are south of Riverside Drive or are zoned MU-2 along Holt Boulevard. Relevant to the Project, the Affordable Housing Overlay zone will establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for all development (regardless of Policy Plan designation or underlying zoning district), and increase the maximum density from 25 to 30 units per acre for parcels that are designated in the Policy Plan for Medium Density Residential (“MDR”) when an affordable housing project is proposed with at least 25 percent of proposed units are restricted for lower income households.

The creation of the Affordable Housing Overlay zone and increased maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre will increase residential capacity on 473.7 acres of such parcels currently designated MDR, by 2,368 dwelling units. On December 20, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended to the February 15, 2022, City Council hearing for approval a General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA21- 004) for the Housing Element update to the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, to address State mandates regarding the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”), as well as to modify the Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) to establish a Zone Change (File No. PZC21-002). The Project EIR addresses the potential impacts associated with relocating residential density from the Project site to 2945
South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3.0 | Revisions to the Draft EIR City of Ontario 3-4 February 2022
the SB330 Replacement Sites located north of the Project site, along Grove Avenue, pursuant to SB330.

With the City adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and associated Affordable Housing Overlay zone, no net loss of residential capacity will occur as a result of the Project. The SB 330 Replacement Site is located approximately 0.3 miles north of the Project site and is generally bound by Cucamonga Avenue to the west, East Riverside Drive to the north, Walker Avenue to the east, and Edison Avenue to the south.

Existing land uses surrounding the approximate 473-acre SB330 Replacement Site boundary include agricultural uses, nurseries, truck/trailer storage, and single-family residential. According to the City’s Land Use Plan, land use within the SB330 Replacement Site includes residential, general commercial, and neighborhood commercial, as well as open space park land.5 Footnote 5: City of Ontario. Land Use Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/05/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20210524_V_1.pdf.

Section 4.2, Air Quality

1. The third paragraph on Page 4.2-15 is revised as follows:

As previously stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, Project operations assume an opening year of 2023 for Phase 1 and 2024 for Phase 2, with the entire Project fully occupied in 2024. The development would include eight buildings totaling up to 5,333,518 SF of business park and industrial development. Phase 1, comprised of Planning Areas (PA) 1 and 2, would allow approximately 3,174,518 SF of industrial and business park uses. Phase 1 consists of the construction of Buildings 1 through 8 as numbered in the Conceptual Site Plan and includes the Development Plan. This phase may be developed in several subphases in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly completion of infrastructure improvements (refer to Figure 3-22, Conceptual Phasing Plan). No specific development proposals have been identified for the Phase 2 area, consisting of Planning Areas 3, 4 and 5. Because construction of Phase 2 could occur concurrently with operation of Phase 1, impacts from a hypothetical overlapping scenario are also analyzed.

2. After the first full paragraph and before the heading “Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)” on

Page 4 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Ontario City Council
March 1, 2022