Ontario City Council
March 1, 2022

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 11/30/2021
File No: PSP19-001
Related File: PGPA19-004
Project Description: A public hearing to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010318), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, for the following: 1) A General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA19-004) to modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) of the Policy Plan (General Plan) of The Ontario Plan to change the land use designations on 219.39 acres of land, from 157.06 acres of Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre) and

62.36 acres of Business Park (0.6 FAR) to 184.22 acres of General Industrial (0.55 FAR) and 35.17 acres of Business Park (0.6 FAR), and modify the Future Buildout Table (Exhibit LU-03) to be consistent with the land use designation changes; and 2) a Specific Plan (File No. PSP19-001 – South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan) to establish the land use districts, development standards, design guidelines, and infrastructure improvements for the potential development of up to 5,333,518 square feet of General Industrial and Business Park land uses. The project site is generally bordered by Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Merrill Avenue on the south, existing rightof-way for the future Campus Avenue extension to the west, and Grove Avenue to the east; (APNs:
1054-071-01, 1054-071-02, 1054-081-03, 1054-091-01, 1054-091-02, 1054-101-01, 1054-101-02, 1054- 231-01, 1054-231-02, 1054-241-01, 1054-241-02, 1054-321-01, 1054-321-02, 1054-311-01, 1054-311-02, 1054-051-01, 1054-051-02, 1054-061-01, 1054-061-02, 1054-251-01, 1054-251-02, 1054-301-01, 1054- 301-02); submitted by Grove Land Venture, LLC.

Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn, Assistant Planner
Phone: 909.395.2416 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Specific Plan. The following shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amendment:
2413
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PSP19-001

(a) Five bound copies of the final Specific Plan document; (b) One complete, unbound copy of the final Specific Plan document; (c) One CD containing a complete Microsoft Word copy of the final Specific Plan document, including all required revisions;
(d) Five CDs, each containing a complete PDF copy of the final Specific Plan document, including all required revisions; and
(e) One CD containing a complete electronic website version of the final Specific Plan document, including all required revisions.

2.2 Indemnification. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

2.3 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee and applicable Department of Fish and Wildlife fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified may result in a 180-day extension to the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit.
2414

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING

THE SOUTH ONTARIO LOGISTICS CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2021010318), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FILE NO. PGPA19-004, A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT, AND FILE NO. PSP19-001, THE SOUTH ONTARIO

LOGISTICS CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED WITHIN ONTARIO

RANCH AND GENERALLY BORDERED BY EUCALYPTUS AVENUE TO

THE NORTH, GROVE AVENUE TO THE EAST, MERRILL AVENUE TO

THE SOUTH, AND CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 1054-071-01, 1054-071-02, 1054-081-03, 1054-091-01, 1054-091-02, 1054-101-01, 1054-101-02, 1054-231-01, 1054-231-02, 1054-241-01, 1054-241-02, 1054-321-01, 1054-321-02, 1054-311-01, 1054-311-02, 1054-051-01, 1054-051-02, 1054-061-01, 1054-061-02, 1054-251-01, 1054-251-02, 1054-301-01, AND 1054-301-02.

WHEREAS, GROVE LAND VENTURE, LLC. (“Applicant”) proposes to develop the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (“Project”), an approximately 5,333,518-square foot of business park and industrial uses on approximately a 219.39-acre site in the southwestern portion of the City of Ontario; and WHEREAS, the Project site consists of 23 parcels and is bound by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Campus Avenue to the west, Merrill Avenue to the south, and Grove Avenue to the east; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330), the Project will create an Overlay District on an “SB330 Replacement Site“ to increase the residential zoning capacity by 1,352 units, which will offset the “loss” of residential zoning capacity within the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the Project requires approvals of General Plan Amendment (PGPA19-004), Development Plan Review (PDEV20-028) (DPR3), Tentative Parcel Maps (PMTT21-011), Development Agreement, and SB330 Replacement Site Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan for which the public review period extended through January 20, 2021. The NOP was published on Friday, December 18, 2020, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The City received comments from multiple agencies on the NOP; and 2415
Resolution No. 2022-

WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on Monday, December 21, 2020, where comments were received; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, tribal cultural resources, and further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to noise, utilities and service systems; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010318), the City released the document for public review for a 49-day public comment period, beginning November 15, 2021 and concluding January 3, 2022. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for File Nos. PGPA19-004 and PSP19-001, was circulated along with the Draft EIR and was published in a local newspaper and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, copies of the EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City received seven written comment letters, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on February 17, 2022; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR was fully studied, and concluded said hearing on that date.

After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No.

PC22-004, recommending City Council certification of the Project EIR; and WHEREAS, six written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing and twenty-two people spoke on the project at said hearing; and 2416
Resolution No. 2022-

WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“TOP EIR”) (SCH # 2008101140) in association with the 2009 General Plan Update (“GPA”) and certified the TOP EIR on January 26, 2010; and WHEREAS, the TOP EIR is a Program EIR from which later specific plan EIRs, such as the EIR for this Project, are tiered; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters receive on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify an Environmental Impact Report to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing on February 18, 2022, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and
WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local Guidelines; and
2417
Resolution No. 2022-

WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV, B hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are described in Section IV, C hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant and which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, D hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, E hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV, F hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts and significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, G hereof; and WHEREAS, because some environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore, render those impacts “acceptable.” The City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new 2418
Resolution No. 2022-

information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION I. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.

SECTION II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION III. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project.
 The DEIR and FEIR for the proposed Project.
 All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the DEIR.
 All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearings for the proposed Project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
2419
Resolution No. 2022-

 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the FEIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the DEIR and FEIR.
 The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.
 Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC § 21167.6(e).

B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the proposed Project are at the City of Ontario - Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC § 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091 (e).

C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and associated environmental impacts:
 Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, industrial and warehousing/office space complex.
 Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 5.3 million square feet (SF) of business park and industrial general.  Provide employment opportunities for community residents.  Facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Project area.  Expand the City’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
2420
Resolution No. 2022-

 Create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Project vision.

SECTION IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Ontario, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (Project), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project.

The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 and which are as follows:

A. INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. 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 indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 2421
Resolution No. 2022-

515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
2422
Resolution No. 2022-

B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

1. AESTHETICS
a. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant (Draft EIR, p. 7-1.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas Scenic vistas that are visible from the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan (Project) site include the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest, which are located at the north end of the City of Ontario (City). Construction of the Project site would result in alterations to the scenic vistas views. However, while construction activities on the Project site would modify foreground views as observed by some viewers, construction is temporary and considering the existing nature of the Project site, developed nature of surrounding areas, and the current partially obscured views from existing off-site development, the changes the construction activities would represent are not considered to be substantial. Additionally, because most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration, views as seen by the majority of viewers would not be significantly adversely affected. Therefore, while construction of the Project site would change the existing views toward the mountains, impacts associated with adversely affecting a scenic vista would be less than significant.

Upon completion of construction on the Project site, the new structure would be a new permanent visual element in the environment. The new structures and operations associated with the Project would change the foreground views of the San Gabriel Mountains as observed from viewers looking north, across the site.

However, most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration so views, as seen to the north, would not be significantly adversely affected.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would not substantially change the overall character of this area, nor would it alter views of any scenic vista in comparison to current zoning. No development is proposed at this time. Any future development would be required to follow the City’s standard discretionary review 2423
Resolution No. 2022-

process, including compliance with the City’s municipal code and CEQA. No significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-1 through 7-2.)
b. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas The Project site is located approximately 0.80 miles east of State Route 83 (CA-83), the closest designated scenic highway; 2.7 miles south of State Route 60 (CA-60); 4.5 miles west of Interstate 15 (I15); and 7.5 miles north of State Route 91 (CA-91). The nearest scenic corridors are Euclid Avenue, located four miles north and Mission Boulevard, located approximately six miles north. The Project would not substantially damage these scenic resources as the distance from scenic resources is too great to have a negative influence on scenic resources. Therefore, no impact will occur.

Upon completion of construction on the Project site, the new structure would be a new permanent visual element in the environment. The new structures and operations associated with the Project would change the foreground views of the San Gabriel Mountains as observed from viewers looking north, across the site.

However, most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration so views, as seen to the north, would not be significantly adversely affected.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to higher density would not have any greater impact to these resources, as the proposed rezoning would not affect the limits of development, and no development is proposed at this time. Any future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, compliance with the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance.

No significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2.) c. Visual Character
Threshold: In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-2.)
2424
Resolution No. 2022-

Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas The Project would be constructed in a rural landscape within a previously developed area and would include parcels designated as general industrial and business park land use zones with prominent views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north and vague views of the San Bernardino Mountains to the east; all visible from the Project site. Construction of the Project would result in grading over approximately 219.39 acres to accommodate development of the approximately 5.4 million-square-foot Project encompassing eight buildings, as well as associated parking, right-of-way dedications, driveways, sidewalks, and landscaping. Construction of the Project site would result in temporary visual changes to the site. Construction activities would involve earthmoving and grading activities and views from off-site areas of the work and construction equipment would be visible during this time. In addition, building of the proposed structures and interior site elements such as paving, installation of utilities, and installation of landscaping would result in temporary visual changes to the site. However, because the site is relatively flat and does not contain substantial variation in landforms, these activities would not result in substantial alteration of existing grades or any slopes that represent areas of substantial scenic quality. Site grading would comply with City standards, ordinances, and codes.

Conformance with these codes would help reduce the potential stark changes to the visual environment during construction.

Because of its temporary nature, views of the site’s construction would be typical of other construction activities, and because construction would not substantially contrast with surrounding uses or other ongoing construction in the vicinity, these impacts are less than significant. Therefore, as discussed above, although construction would change the site’s appearance, it would not result in a substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the site.

Upon completion of the Project, a permanent change to the existing views of the site from Merrill Avenue, the surrounding residencies, and other surrounding uses and existing development would occur.

The Project would be a total of 5.4 million square feet and is anticipated to be a typical concrete tilt-up structure similar to other industrial/ business park uses in the vicinity. To help reduce visual impacts, the warehouse would be designed in accordance with all required design and development standards of the City. The Project site would be of a high-quality development and would meet the proposed goals, policies, and actions in the General Plan.

Additionally, the Project would be consistent with and is an in-kind use with other industrial development in the area.
2425
Resolution No. 2022-

More specifically, the Project buildings would be no more than 45 feet at their maximum height. The exterior of the building also would be articulated and at varying depths with windows and color variations in the paint scheme. Although the building would differ in appearance from some surrounding uses, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the site or public views. To further reduce changes in the visual environment, the Project site would incorporate landscaping to visually buffer the structures and would include various embellishments such as trees, shrubs and ground covers, and other visual accents along the perimeter of the site and adjacent to the exterior walls of the proposed structures to compliment the surrounding site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to higher density would not have any greater impact to these resources, as the proposed rezoning would not affect the limits of development, and no development is proposed at this time. Any future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, compliance with the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance.

No significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-2 through 7-

3.)
d. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-3.))
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Site The urbanized nature of the Project area would lead to a high baseline of light and glare from industrial and commercial businesses and vehicle lights traveling at night. Construction of Phase I of the Project site would be limited to daytime hours (unless otherwise approved by the City), and nighttime lighting would not be required until the site is operational. Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light and glare would occur. These lights would be used to improve visibility and safety on the site and would be directed to maximize site visibility and minimize glare to sensitive receptors.

Lighting would also be properly screened to avoid further impact to nearby receptors. Directly south of the Project area is an airport which emits a substantial amount of light and would increase illumination of the surrounding residences. In accordance with Ontario Municipal Code (OMC), §4-11.08, §4 11.09, and §6.03.050 (A), all parking facilities developed shall be provided with nighttime security lighting and designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. This lighting may cause slight glare to the surrounding 2426
Resolution No. 2022-

residences and vehicles passing along the bordering roadways. The maximum permitted height of luminaires within a parking lot shall not exceed a height of 14 feet when there is no cutoff involved. If a 90 degree or greater cutoff is enacted, the maximum height shall not exceed that of 24 feet. Anything less than 90 degrees of cutoff, the maximum height of luminaire shall be 30 feet.

Consistent with the City’s Development Code, all lighting used on the Project site is required to be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties, and no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. Thus, all exterior lighting would be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties. Additionally, the Project would use a variety of non-reflective building materials, and although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be introduced to the site, the Project would not be a source of glare in the area. Therefore, long-term impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to a slightly higher density would not have any greater impact to these resources, as the proposed rezoning would not affect the limits of development, and no development is proposed at this time. The slight increase in density would not change the overall character of this area.

Furthermore, development of this area was already addressed as part of the City’s TOP EIR. Any future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, compliance with the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance. No significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-3 through 7-4.)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18.)
Explanation:

Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Project site does not include areas zoned as forestland, timberland or timberland designated as Timberland Production as 2427
Resolution No. 2022-

those classifications are defined in the cited code sections. The City’s Zoning Map does not recognize or symbolize areas as forestland, timberland or timberland designated as Timberland Production. In fact, the Project site contains a limited number of stands of trees (Google Earth 2021 and site visit March 2021). Therefore, no impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
As stated above, the City’s Zoning Map does not recognize forest land or timberland on the SB330 Replacement Site. The SB330 Replacement Site would be located on land with various residential and commercial land use designations according to the City’s TOP Land Use Map. Therefore, no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-18.)
b. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No parcels within or adjacent to the Project site are designated as forest land, as the City’s Zoning Map and Land Use Plan map do not symbolize forest land. No impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The construction and operations of the SB330 Replacement Site would not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No parcels within or adjacent to the SB330 Replacement Site are designated as forest land, as the City’s Zoning Map and Land Use Plan map do not symbolize forest land.

No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.1-19.)
C. AIR QUALITY
a. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
2428
Resolution No. 2022-

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-18 through 4.2-19.) Explanation: SB330 Replacement Site
The SB330 Replacement Site located along the Grove Avenue Corridor includes low density residential, low-medium density residential, medium density residential, neighborhood commercial, and agricultural land uses. The Project proposes rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site to a higher residential density to increase the maximum number of housing units allowed on the site. This action however does not propose any specific construction of new structures or redevelopment of the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development of the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to environmental regulations as required under CEQA and the City’s standard discretionary review process.

The process of rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site for a higher residential density would not generate new emissions and thus would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. In fact, by “relocating” the 1,352 dwelling units of zoning potential from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Site, the net effect is anticipated to be an overall reduction in air emissions in consideration of the SB330 Replacement Site DU’s being at a higher density, generating less traffic per dwelling unit, and overall having reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled and associated air emissions due to the SB330 Replacement Site being in a higher density mixed-use environment in close proximity to transit and regional transportation facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-18 through 4.2-19.)
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27.) Explanation: SB330 Replacement Site
The net effect of relocating the 1,352 DU of zoning potential to the SB330 Replacement Sites is expected to have an overall net air quality benefit, regionally, due to reduced traffic and energy emissions from higher density development in a mixed mixed-use area with transit. There may be localized effects from the additional density, although this would be generally similar to the nature and extent of air quality impacts addressed in the City’s TOP EIR. Also note that the SB330 Replacement Site is being considered by the City for even higher density as part of the City’s TOP Update, which would have separate City review and CEQA analysis. Finally, any future residential development within the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to applicable local, regional, state and federal air quality regulations as summarized under the Regulatory Framework 2429
Resolution No. 2022-

discussion above. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27.)
c. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1
Construction LST
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, equipment-specific grading rates are used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. Based on CalEEMod modeling, construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would use the same number of and types of equipment, therefore Table 4.2-13: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates of the Draft EIR, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley Area (SRA 33) since this area includes the Project.

LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres in a single day.

According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities).

Since the Project includes the construction of a warehouse, among other industrial and business park uses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and on-site mobile source emissions. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources.

Therefore, as a worst-case scenario assessment, this analysis conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts), and three percent of the Project-related new mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site. Projects that do not exceed the SRA’s operation LSTs would not result in significant impact.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to Phase 1 is a single-family residence located 150 feet (46 meters) east of the Project. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 46 meters were interpolated and utilized for this analysis. Table 4.2- 14: Phase 1 – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Construction 2430
Resolution No. 2022-

Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. In addition, construction, paving, and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Because LST emissions do not include VOCs, construction Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was not included when calculating construction LST. Table

4.2-14 of the Draft EIR shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-30 through 4.2-31.)
Future Development Areas – Phase 2
Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors to Phase 2 is a single-family residence located 85 feet (26 meters) north of the Project. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 26 meters were interpolated and utilized for this analysis. Table

4.2-16 Phase 2 – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Construction Emissions of the Draft EIR, presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. In addition, construction, paving, and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap.

Because LST emissions do not include VOCs, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was not included when calculating construction LST. Table

4.2-16 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-38.)
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for Phase 1 would be less than significant. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations.

However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and 2431
Resolution No. 2022-

meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been
summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the Federal and State AAQS. None of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project. Therefore, without thresholds and standards there is no way to ascertain if there is a significant environmental impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-33.) Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO
exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO
concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. Therefore, any project generating less than 100,000 vehicles per day could not exceed the CO standard. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 7,288 additional vehicle trips attributable to Phase 1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-35.) Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Project construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required off-road diesel equipment. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health 2432
Resolution No. 2022-

risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with dieselexhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not
identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 13, §§2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.

Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the Project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited.

A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; onroad truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. Onroad diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations.

Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

PM10 construction emissions rates in grams per second were calculated from the total annual on-site exhaust emissions reported 2433
Resolution No. 2022-

in CalEEMod during construction. Maximum (worst case) PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA‐approved dispersion model, to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015).

SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

The construction phase HRA was conducted for the Project (see Appendix B2 for HRA modeling results of the FEIR). Results of the assessment indicate that the cancer risk would be 8.80 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in in-one onemillion. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.006 and an acute hazard index of 0.03. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-35 through 4.2-36.)
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
An operational phase HRA was also conducted for this Project.

Analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the warehouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors.

Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using PM10 emission factors generated with CARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Model (EMFAC) 2017. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC, incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by speed, and number of starts per day.

For this Project, annual average PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC for vehicles in the SCAQMD within the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County. EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Truck emissions were based on the first possible year of operations for a fleet mix of various aged vehicles, as opposed to average emissions over a 30-year window. Trucks were assumed to travel at a speed of 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph) (depending on roadway) for off-site truck travel and 15 mph for on-site truck travel.
2434
Resolution No. 2022-

Air dispersion modeling was performed using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Uniform Cartesian receptors were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors.

Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Chino Airport Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.

Idling emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along each loading dock and 15 minutes of idling for each truck was assumed. Truck travel emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along local roads and inside the facility where the trucks are expected to travel. Trucking routes were determined per the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Project.

Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site any one point in time. Actual 1-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology.

A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using CARB’s Risk Assessment Stand Alone Tool (RAST).

Health risks were analyzed at the point of maximum impact and are a conservative estimate. The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index. SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten 10 in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM10 (used as a proxy for DPM). As DPM does not have short-term toxicity values, acute risks were conservatively evaluated using hourly PM10 concentrations and the REL for acrolein. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA 2435
Resolution No. 2022-

Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).

Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations from diesel truck traffic near sensitive receptors would be 0.00161 µg/m3. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years.

The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Project is

1.39 per million. As such, the carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and impacts related to cancer risk would be less than significant.

Acute and chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant.

The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the reference exposure level. The highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index associated with both DPM and acrolein emissions from the Project would be 0.0003 and 0.0028, respectively. As a result, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-33 through 4.2-38.)
Project Buildout (Phase 1 and Phase 2)
Construction LST and Operational LST
Construction and Operational LST focus on localized emission impacts on the nearest sensitive receptor, therefore it is not appropriate to measure impacts of Phase 1 emissions on the sensitive receptor nearest to Phase 2 and vice versa. As discussed previously, Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction and operational emissions do not exceed the LST standards based on the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-41.) Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be less than significant. The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. None of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project. Therefore, without thresholds and standards there is no way to ascertain if there is a significant environmental impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-41 through 4.2-42.) Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
2436
Resolution No. 2022-

As noted above, CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection with approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, any project generating less than 100,000 vehicles per day would not exceed the CO standard. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 12,502 additional vehicle trips attributable to Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-

42.)
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 would occur sequentially, and emissions would cease once construction is completed. As noted above, a construction phase HRA (see Appendix B2 for HRA modeling results of FEIR) determined that the cancer risk would be

8.80 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at

0.006 and an acute hazard index of 0.03. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-42.)
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
Health risks from the combined operations of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 were evaluated above under the Health Risks section . The carcinogenic risk would not exceed 10 in one million and non‐ carcinogenic hazards would not exceed 1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-42.)
SB330 Replacement Site
The net effect of relocating the 1,352 dwelling units (DU) of zoning potential to the SB330 Replacement Site is expected to have an overall net air quality benefit, regionally, due to reduced traffic and energy emissions from higher density development in a mixed-use area with transit. There may be localized effects from the additional density, although this would be generally similar to the nature and extent of air quality impacts addressed in the City’s TOP EIR. With respect to health risk, there is a further favorable benefit of moving the residential zoning from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Site, in that developing 1,352 dwelling units on the Project site would be adjacent to the Chino Airport and recently approved adjacent industrial uses (Ontario Ranch Business Park to the west and the Merrill Commerce Center to the east). Also note that the SB330 Replacement Site is being considered by the City for even higher density as part of the City’s TOP Update, which would have separate City review and CEQA analysis. Finally, any future residential development within the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to applicable local, regional, state, and federal air quality 2437
Resolution No. 2022-

regulations as summarized in the DEIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-42.)
d. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-43.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1/Future Development – Phase 2 Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Standard construction requirements and compliance with established regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1926 – Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage Use and Disposal, et al.) addressing construction materials storage, use, and disposal would minimize odor impacts from construction activity.

Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of odor-producing materials.

Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.

Operations
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatment plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/ coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The warehouses proposed under the Project would not result in these types of uses. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 which prevents discharging nuisance odors. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

SB330 Replacement Site
The net effect of relocating the 1,352 DU of zoning potential to the SB330 Replacement Sites is expected to have an overall net air quality benefit, regionally, due to reduced traffic and energy emissions from higher density development in a mixed-use area with transit. There may be localized effects from the additional density, although this would be generally similar to the nature and extent of 2438
Resolution No. 2022-

air quality impacts addressed in the City’s TOP EIR. The slightly higher density in the SB330 Replacement Site area would be expected to have similar other emissions (odors) as the current lower density zoning. Also note that the SB330 Replacement Site is being considered by the City for even higher density as part of the City’s TOP Update, which would have separate City review and CEQA analysis. Finally, any future residential development within the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to applicable local, regional, state and federal air quality regulations as summarized under the Regulatory Framework discussion above. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The Project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules including Rule 402 which prevents discharging nuisance odors. In addition, the Project does not include any land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-43 through 4.2-44.)

1. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Sensitive Plants
No special-status plant species were detected on the Project site during the reconnaissance surveys and no special-status plant species are expected to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. The Project site’s lack of sensitive plant species is summarized in Table 4.3-1, Plant Species with the Potential of Occurring on the Project Site above. Longstanding weed
abatement/fire break disking and other anthropogenic disturbances have likely altered soil chemistry and other substrate characteristics such that on-site soils may not currently be capable of supporting sensitive plant species. Therefore, the development of the Project 2439
Resolution No. 2022-

would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant specifies identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS. Hence, no significant impact to special-status plant species or their habitat would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 through 4.3-18.)
Operations
Operations of the Project will not have a significant effect on sensitive plants, animals or their habitat. Once construction activities for the Project are completed, no additional impacts will occur with Project operations as it relates to sensitive species. Edge effects (including lighting, noise, trash/debris, urban and stormwater run-off, toxic materials, exotic plant and animal infestation, dust, trampling, and unauthorized recreation) shall be minimized by landscaping, elevation difference, minimization of effects, and compensatory mitigation. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant, and no further mitigation will be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-19.) b. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Project site contains approximately 19 acres of stock/retention ponds and channels. These ponds and channels are man-made, for agricultural use and fed by wells. The man-made ponds and channels are not connected to a natural stream, nor do they divert natural flow from any river, stream, or lake. Since the source of the water for these man-made features are not part of a natural stream, river, or lake, the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program restricts entities so that they may not substantially divert or obstruct any naturally occurring material from stream, river, or lake under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alternation Program. Therefore, the stock ponds, which receives no hydrologic flow on the Project site are not part of the “natural flow” of a stream, river, or lake, and would not be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Further, the man-made 2440
Resolution No. 2022-

stock ponds are not adjacent to and are not considered Waters of the United States (WUS). The stock ponds are isolated features that are not tributary to nor do they have a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the man-made ponds on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the CWA.

In addition, the General Biological Assessment determined that no vernal pools were observed on-site and species such as the San Diego fairy shrimp would not be present on the Project site.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Specific Plan – Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Stock ponds on the Project site do not meet the criteria under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alternation nor considered WUS. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site may contain riparian and wetland areas, including agricultural drainages and ponds. The relatively slight increase in residential density is not considered a significant impact as the SB330 Replacement Site area is already planned for future development as part of the City’s TOP, and the impacts of such development were evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. Prior to any site-specific development, potential future residential development would be required to conduct site-specific biological resource surveys as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with CEQA and applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
The Project site and SB330 Replacement Site do not contain suitable riparian or wetland habitat as confirmed by HES’s General Biological Assessment and the City’s Areas of Potential Occurrence of Sensitive Species map. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during Phase I and future development areas without mitigation implemented. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-22 through 4.3-23.) 2441
Resolution No. 2022-

c. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-22.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
The Project site contains approximately 19 acres of stock/retention ponds and channels. These ponds and channels are man-made, for agricultural use and fed by wells. The man-made ponds and channels are not connected to a natural stream, nor do they divert natural flow from any river, stream, or lake. Since the source of the water for these man-made features are not part of a natural stream, river, or lake, the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program restricts entities so that they may not substantially divert or obstruct any naturally occurring material from stream, river, or lake under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alternation Program. Therefore, the stock ponds, which receives no hydrologic flow on the Project site are not part of the “natural flow” of a stream, river, or lake, and would not be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Further, the man-made stock ponds are not adjacent to and are not considered Waters of the United States (WUS). The stock ponds are isolated features that are not tributary to nor do they have a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the man-made ponds on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the CWA.

In addition, the General Biological Assessment determined that no vernal pools were observed on-site and species such as the San Diego fairy shrimp would not be present on the Project site.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Specific Plan – Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Stock ponds on the Project site do not meet the criteria under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alternation nor considered WUS. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 2442
Resolution No. 2022-

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site may contain riparian and wetland areas, including agricultural drainages and ponds. The relatively slight increase in residential density is not considered a significant impact as the SB330 Replacement Site area is already planned for future development as part of the City’s TOP, and the impacts of such development were evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. Prior to any site-specific development, potential future residential development would be required to conduct site-specific biological resource surveys as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with CEQA and applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
The Project site and SB330 Replacement Site do not contain suitable riparian or wetland habitat as confirmed by HES’s General Biological Assessment and the City’s Areas of Potential Occurrence of Sensitive Species map. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during Phase I and future development areas without mitigation implemented. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-22 through 4.3-23.) d. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-25.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Operation
The Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor.

As previously stated, the Project site has been previously disturbed for agricultural use with multiple manmade structures present on the Project site. Operation of the Project would involve warehousing and commercial uses on the Project site. This usage would be consistent with previous uses of the site in that both would reduce the area’s ability to act as a natural wildlife corridor. Therefore, operation of the Project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The Project would neither interfere with any established native resident or migratory wildlife 2443
Resolution No. 2022-

corridors, nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Thus, operation of the Project would not create a significant impact.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is characterized by existing commercial, residential, and agricultural uses as well as vacant parcels. The SB330 Replacement Site is not a wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery site. The Project only proposes to rezone the SB330 Replacement Site area to allow higher density, as this area is already contemplated for development consistent with the City’s TOP and has been evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. Prior to any sitespecific development, potential future residential development would be required to conduct site-specific biological resource surveys as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with CEQA and applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-25 through 4.3-26.)
e. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-26.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
TOP 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 or protected species, the Project will not conflict with these policies.

The City’s Municipal Code has a provision to protect parkway trees within public rights-of-way and requires a permit to remove or relocate any trees, and planting of replacement trees or a cash inlieu fee compensation for any tree removed. Should the Project result in the removal of trees that are considered parkway trees, a permit will be required. According to the Arborist report conducted for the Project site, the site does not contain any trees of significant value.

Further, the Project site contains no trees that fall under the definition of a heritage tree, as defined in the City’s Development Code 2444
Resolution No. 2022-

§6.05.020. The Arborist report determined that there are no significant or specimen trees on the Project site. None of the trees onsite are in excellent condition or have a condition rating greater than 70%. It was determined that no trees need any protective measures to preserve the health of the tree during the development or redevelopment activity. Lastly, no trees are viable candidates for relocation due to the condition they are currently in. Therefore, buildout of the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Lastly, no impacts to any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation plan are anticipated upon Project buildout. Therefore, no impact will occur in this regard.

Specific Plan – Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion above for Phase I of the Project site.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The relatively slight increase in residential density is not considered a significant impact as the SB330 Replacement Site area is already planned for future development as part of the City’s TOP, and the impacts of such development were evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR.

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. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
The Project site and SB330 Replacement Site do not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during Phase I and future development areas without mitigation implemented. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-26 through 4.3-27.)
f. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, 4.3-26.)
2445
Resolution No. 2022-

Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
TOP 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 or protected species, the Project will not conflict with these policies.

The City’s Municipal Code has a provision to protect parkway trees within public rights-of-way and requires a permit to remove or relocate any trees, and planting of replacement trees or a cash inlieu fee compensation for any tree removed. Should the Project result in the removal of trees that are considered parkway trees, a permit will be required. According to the Arborist report conducted for the Project site, the site does not contain any trees of significant value.

Further, the Project site contains no trees that fall under the definition of a heritage tree, as defined in the City’s Development Code §6.05.020. The Arborist report determined that there are no significant or specimen trees on the Project site. None of the trees onsite are in excellent condition or have a condition rating greater than 70%. It was determined that no trees need any protective measures to preserve the health of the tree during the development or redevelopment activity. Lastly, no trees are viable candidates for relocation due to the condition they are currently in. Therefore, buildout of the Project would result in a less than significant impact.

Lastly, no impacts to any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation plan are anticipated upon Project buildout. Therefore, no impact will occur in this regard.

Specific Plan – Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion above for Phase I of the Project site.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion above under Impact 4.3-5 and 4.3-6. The relatively slight increase in residential density is not considered a significant impact as the SB330 Replacement Site area is already planned for future development as part of the City’s TOP, and the impacts of such development were evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR.

Prior to any site-specific development, potential future residential development would be required to conduct site-specific biological 2446
Resolution No. 2022-

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. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
The Project site and SB330 Replacement Site do not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur during Phase I and future development areas without mitigation implemented. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-26 through 4.3-27.)

2. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-24.) Explanation:

Specific Plan – Phase I/ Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
No cemeteries or similar uses exist on the Project site. As well, no uses on the Project site would include the preservation, containment, or burial of human remains. Despite the lack of human remains on the Project site, there is still a remote possibility of encountering human remains buried since the existing uses were established in 1963. The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment conducted for the Project concluded that the potential presence of archeological deposits, which include human remains, would be low.

However, in order to maintain a conservative consideration of potential impacts to human remains the Project would comply with the mandates provided by State regulations, including PRC §5097.98. PRC §5097.98 contains provisions which would be implemented upon the discovery of human remains, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC.

The archaeological records search and field survey did not reveal any resources known to contain human remains within or near the Project site. Since completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site. Therefore, the Project area is considered sensitive for archaeological resources despite the urbanized nature of the surrounding and long history of ground-disturbing activities.

Therefore, the potential exists for Project construction to reveal 2447
Resolution No. 2022-

unknown human remains. If human remains are found, those remains would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§7050.5- 7055 and PRC §5097.98 and §5097.99. HSC §§7050.5-7055
describe the general provisions for treatment of human remains.

Specifically, HSC §7050.5 prescribes the requirements for the treatment of any human remains that are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. HSC §7050.5 also requires that all activities cease immediately, and a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor be contacted immediately. As required by state law, the procedures set forth in PRC §5087.98 would be implemented, including evaluation by the County Coroner and notification of the NAHC. The NAHC would then designate the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the unearthed human remains.

However, previously undiscovered human remains could be encountered during construction activities. If human remains are found during excavation, excavation would be halted in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains shall remain undisturbed until the County Coroner has investigated, and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §§5097.98 and 5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The potential for discovering human remains as part of potential future development at the SB330 Replacement Site would be similar to that described above for the Specific Plan area. Any future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would follow the City’s standard discretionary review process and require compliance with existing regulations including those cited above.

Following compliance with the established regulatory framework (i.e., HSC §§7050.5-7055 and PRC §§5097.98 and 5097.99), the Project’s impacts concerning potential to disturb human remains, would be reduced to less than significant.

Conclusion
If human remains were discovered on either the Project site or SB330 Replacement Site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner is notified immediately and has decided on the origin 2448
Resolution No. 2022-

and disposition pursuant to PRC §5097.98. Compliance with PRC §5097.98 would ensure a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-24 through 4.4-26.)

3. ENERGY
a. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-4.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction
During construction, the Project would consume energy through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction. Construction vehicles and related energy-consuming equipment would be used during all phases of construction. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings.

The Project would use gasoline and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment. The Project is estimated to consume 267,476 gallons of gasoline and 349,054 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period. The construction fuel demands would account for 0.04% of the San Bernardino County annual gasoline consumption and 0.14% of San Bernardino County annual diesel fuel consumption.

Construction equipment would comply with the latest United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board engine emission standards designed to reduce pollutants and minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Energy use during construction of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the Project would not conflict with State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency objectives. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operation
2449
Resolution No. 2022-

The operational phase of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes, including but not limited to building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and electronics. Project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). Title 24 establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation.

Based on the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed land uses, operations would consume approximately 24,111,453 kWh/year of electricity and 21,637,730 kBTU/year of natural gas. This additional demand would result in an

0.16% increase in electricity consumption and 0.04% increase in natural gas consumption for the County of San Bernardino.

In 2024, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 14,197,483,655 gallons of gasoline and approximately
3,195,776,812 gallons of diesel fuel. San Bernardino County annual fuel use in 2024 is anticipated to be 854,295,454 gallons of gasoline and 280,932,332 gallons of diesel fuel. Operational energy would also be consumed by vehicle trips associated with the Project. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to vehicles used by employees and visitors associated with the Project. Based on estimates contained in the CalEEMod output files (see Appendix B of the DEIR), Project related vehicle trips would result in the consumption of 2,818,869 gallons of gasoline and 3,645,871 gallons of diesel fuel annually. These annual fuel consumption estimates represent likely potential maximums that would occur under Project Buildout Conditions. Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation. Average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can also be expected to improve over time in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the transportation system.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and planned 2450
Resolution No. 2022-

transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s demand.

Mitigation Measures AQ-2 through AQ-5 will have the additional effect of reducing Project vehicle fuel consumption. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage.

Mitigation measure AQ-4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit.

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

The Project would meet or surpass standards established under the California Code Title 24, Part 6 (the California Energy Code) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City. The Project would be consistent with City’s CAP, which includes measures related to building energy. For these reasons, Project operational fuel consumption would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner and would not conflict or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, operation impacts associated with energy consumption would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to a slightly higher density would not have any greater impact to these resources, as the proposed rezoning would not affect the limits of development, and no development is proposed at this time. Furthermore, development of this area was already addressed as part of the City’s TOP EIR. The net effect of shifting this residential density from low medium density at the Specific Plan site to an average medium density at the SB330 Replacement Site is anticipated to result in an overall reduction in energy demand, due to higher density development having lower energy demand, from both an energy consumption perspective and with respect to transportation-related energy consumption. Also, any future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, and compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations, including the City’s municipal code and CEQA. No significant impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-4 through 7-6.)
2451
Resolution No. 2022-

b. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-4.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction
During construction, the Project would consume energy through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction. Construction vehicles and related energy-consuming equipment would be used during all phases of construction. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings.

The Project would use gasoline and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment. The Project is estimated to consume 267,476 gallons of gasoline and 349,054 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period. The construction fuel demands would account for 0.04% of the San Bernardino County annual gasoline consumption and 0.14% of San Bernardino County annual diesel fuel consumption.

Construction equipment would comply with the latest United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board engine emission standards designed to reduce pollutants and minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Energy use during construction of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure.

Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the Project would not conflict with State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency objectives. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

Operation
The operational phase of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes, including but not limited to building heating and cooling, refrigeration, lighting, and electronics. Project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency 2452
Resolution No. 2022-

Standards (Title 24). Title 24 establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation.

Based on the modeling output files used to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed land uses, operations would consume approximately 24,111,453 kWh/year of electricity and 21,637,730 kBTU/year of natural gas. This additional demand would result in an

0.16% increase in electricity consumption and 0.04% increase in natural gas consumption for the County of San Bernardino.

In 2024, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 14,197,483,655 gallons of gasoline and approximately
3,195,776,812 gallons of diesel fuel. San Bernardino County annual fuel use in 2024 is anticipated to be 854,295,454 gallons of gasoline and 280,932,332 gallons of diesel fuel. Operational energy would also be consumed by vehicle trips associated with the Project. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to vehicles used by employees and visitors associated with the Project. Based on estimates contained in the CalEEMod output files (see Appendix B of the Draft EIR), Project related vehicle trips would result in the consumption of 2,818,869 gallons of gasoline and 3,645,871 gallons of diesel fuel annually. These annual fuel consumption estimates represent likely potential maximums that would occur under Project Buildout Conditions. Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation. Average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can also be expected to improve over time in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the transportation system.

Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s demand.

Mitigation Measures AQ-2 through AQ-5 in the Air Quality Section will have the additional effect of reducing Project vehicle fuel consumption. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires the use of 2453
Resolution No. 2022-

electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires electrical hookups at loading bays for cold storage. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.

The Project would meet or surpass standards established under the California Code Title 24, Part 6 (the California Energy Code) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City. The Project would be consistent with City’s CAP, which includes measures related to building energy. For these reasons, Project operational fuel consumption would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner and would not conflict or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, operation impacts associated with energy consumption would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to a slightly higher density would not have any greater impact to these resources, as the proposed rezoning would not affect the limits of development, and no development is proposed at this time. Furthermore, development of this area was already addressed as part of the City’s TOP EIR. The net effect of shifting this residential density from low medium density at the Specific Plan site to an average medium density at the SB330 Replacement Site is anticipated to result in an overall reduction in energy demand, due to higher density development having lower energy demand, from both an energy consumption perspective and with respect to transportation-related energy consumption. Also, any future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, and compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations, including the City’s municipal code and CEQA. No significant impacts would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-4 through 7-6.)

4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the 2454
Resolution No. 2022-

State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-12.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the Project area.

The nearest fault to the Project site is the Central Avenue Fault approximately three miles southwest of the Project site. According to the geotechnical investigation prepared for this Project, the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone and there was no evidence of faulting identified during the investigation of the Project site. The Project site’s distance from the nearest fault line would minimize risks attributed to ground rupture and gapping. Therefore, the impacts associated with the rupture of a known fault would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the SB330 Replacement Site area. The nearest earthquake fault to the SB330 Replacement Site is the Central Avenue Fault approximately three miles southwest of the SB330 Replacement Site. Movement along a fault to the extent that a gap–or rupture– forms on the earth surface would not affect the Grove Avenue Corridor due to its distance from active fault lines and fault zones; especially Alquist-Priolo fault lines. No specific development within the SB330 Replacement Site is proposed at this time as part of the Project. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the OMC and CEQA compliance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
In conclusion, both the Project site and the proposed SB330 Replacement Site are not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. Risks attributed to ground rupture and gapping are minimized due to the distance of both sites from the nearest fault zones. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-12 through

4.5-13.)
2455
Resolution No. 2022-

Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Surface Fault Rupture
The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the Project area.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of faulting identified during the geotechnical investigation of the Project site per SCG. The Project site is not subject to surface rupture of a known active fault, as the nearest fault to the site is approximately three miles to the southwest.

The possibility of significant fault rupture on the Project site is considered to be low (SCG 2019). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Ground Shaking
Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the areas being evaluated contains a number of known earthquake faults. As part of the geotechnical report, 2016 and 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within the Project area. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 2016 and 2019 CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the site. Therefore, future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the 2016 and 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated as part of the geotechnical report, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their strengths during an earthquake and behave as a liquid. Three main factors contribute to susceptibility to liquefaction: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non-cohesive (granular) soil; and 3) strong ground shaking. According to the geotechnical report, the Project site is not within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility and the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction (SCG 2019). Although the Project site is shown as an area of historic liquefaction risk to historic high groundwater, liquefaction potential under the Project site is low due to the depth of groundwater and the mix of soil type and is not considered to be a design concern for the Project. Therefore, Project 2456
Resolution No. 2022-

development would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site contains generally fine-grained sediments, and includes areas identified as low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility, according to the Figure S-1, Seismic Hazards of the City’s TOP EIR. No specific development within the SB330 Replacement Site is proposed at this time as part of the Project. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the City Municipal Code OMC and CEQA compliance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
In accordance with the City’s standards, policies, and goals, both the Project site and the proposed development of the SB330
Replacement Site would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.

Specific Plan – Phase I / Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Project site has a gentle slope of less than one percent running generally to the south-southwestern portion of the Project site. No extreme elevation differences exist in or around the Project site that would potentially lead to landslide effects. According to the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard map the Project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility. The Project area is also outside of the hazard zone for rockfall/debris-flow. The relatively flat topography of the Project site along with its location outside of identified landslide susceptibility and rockfall/debris-flow hazard areas would lead to a less than significant impact from occurring due to landslides.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is outside of an area of landslide susceptibility. Further, the area within and around the SB330 Replacement Site is largely flat without steep hills or rocky formations which would be susceptible to landslides. No specific development 2457
Resolution No. 2022-

within the SB330 Replacement Site is proposed at this time as part of the Project. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the City municipal code OMC and CEQA compliance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
In conclusion, both the Project site and the SB330 Replacement Site have relatively flat topography of the along with its location outside of identified landslide susceptibility and rockfall/debris-flow hazard areas. This would lead to a less than significant impact from occurring due to landslides. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13 through 4.5-15.) b. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-15.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction
The Project site was found to contain artificial fills at depths of up to three feet below the ground level and native alluvial soils at least 25 feet below ground level. The artificial fill soils were observed at multiple boring and trench locations. Figure 4.5-1, Bore and Trench Locations of the Draft EIR shows each boring and trenching locations in the Project site. The artificial fill soils that were encountered were found to possess various levels of strength and density under testing.

However, some of the artificial fill materials were found to be prone to hydro-collapse once exposed to water. It was then concluded that the artificial fill materials would not be suitable to support the proposed structures. The native alluvial soils were also found to possess varied strength and density levels. Remedial grading has been recommended to replace the near-surface native alluvial soils with compacted structural fill soils. The native soils that would be left in place after the remedial grading would not be subject to significantly increased stress levels from the foundations of the proposed structures.

The construction of the Project would involve excavation activities that would affect surface and near-surface soils. Over excavation of the Project would be implemented to remove any artificial fill soils, which extend from approximately 0.5 to three feet below the existing 2458
Resolution No. 2022-

grade. In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material, the development of the Project would require grading preparation, excavation, trenching and paving activities that could result in soil erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm-related events.

Dust control measures such as watering would be utilized to control the potential for erosion to occur. Construction contractors would also be required to implement a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to reduce wind erosion.

Construction activities such as excavation and grading would be minimal given that the Project site is relatively flat. No major grading or excavation would be needed to substantially alter the slope of the site, create, or remove steep slopes, create retaining walls, or make other landform modifications. Nevertheless, grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential shortterm erosion by wind and water. During construction, the Project site would be required to comply with erosion and siltation control measures. This would include measures such as sand-bagging, placement of silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw wattles, mulching, etc., to reduce runoff from the site and to hold topsoil in place during all grading activities. As mass grading proceeds, finish grading commences, and construction begins the erosion measures would be removed or relocated as necessary. Additionally, the construction on the Project site would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); refer to Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality for discussion of the anticipated NPDES permitting process. Construction impacts on the Project site would be minimized through compliance with the Construction General Permit (CGP). The NPDES permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would be required to meet or exceed measures required by the CGP to control potential construction-related pollutants and would comply with the OMC Title 6, Chapter 6 – Stormwater Drainage System. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. All required permits and the erosion control plan would be verified by the City prior to initiation of any construction and prior to the issuance of any grading permit.

Conformance to these requirements and verification by the City as 2459
Resolution No. 2022-

part of the development approval process would ensure that potential impacts from construction of the warehouse are less than significant.

Operations
Operation of the Project would not involve procedures which would result in substantial soil erosion. Following construction of the Project, the Project site would be covered with hardscape which would not contribute to erosion. The Project site also would contain some landscaping, but these areas would include ground covers to reduce erosion or and loss of on-site soils post-construction. This would ensure that operation of the Project site would not result in the loss of topsoil or sedimentation into local drainage facilities and water bodies. In addition, a network of storm drains and gutters would be installed, upgraded if needed, and maintained as necessary throughout the developed site. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction
The site is relatively flat, does not contain any significant landforms, and is currently developed with existing structures with some undeveloped lots used for agricultural purposes. Note that no specific development is proposed at this time, and the proposed increase in residential density is not anticipated to have any greater impact than evaluated for this site within the City’s TOP EIR. If the site is redeveloped, the existing structures would be removed, and some minor excavation and grading would be needed to prepare the site for construction. Due to the existing acreage of the site, the same requirements for conformance with the NPDES permits,
implementation of a SWPPP and use of BMPs as discussed for the Project site would be required. Similarly, all plans would be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of and grading or construction permits as part of the City’s standard development review process. This would ensure, should the SB330 Replacement Site be developed, potential impacts from
construction-related erosion would be less than significant.

Operations
The Project does not propose any specific development at the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would have similar 2460
Resolution No. 2022-

impacts regarding topsoil loss as discussed above for the Specific Plan site, and as evaluated within the City’s TOP EIR. All future development would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with the OMC and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements as set forth in the Regulatory Framework section above. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant.

Conclusion
Conformance to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with the OMC and other applicable local, state, and federal requirements as set forth in the Regulatory Framework section above, will result in a less than significant from occurring on both the Project site and the SB330 Replacement Site. In addition, a network of storm drains and gutters would be installed, upgraded if needed, and maintained as necessary throughout the developed site. Therefore, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-15 through 4.5-18.)
c. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Liquefaction and landslides not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low.

The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the geotechnical report groundwater was not observed within approximately 30 feet of the ground surface.

Recent water level data obtained from the SWRCB GeoTracker website (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/) indicates that the highest groundwater level is approximately 83 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the vicinity of the Project site (SCG 2019). Therefore, based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and 2461
Resolution No. 2022-

utilities. However, minor subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of soil removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet.

The geotechnical report provides recommendations to support the proposed structures and offset impacts from subsidence of 0.10 feet such as scarification and air drying of over-excavated materials to obtain a stable subgrade. The City adopts the CBC by reference and PPP GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Therefore, with implementation of PPP GEO-1, the Project applicant would comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and impacts from potential subsidence of 0.10 feet would be reduced to a less than significant level.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
As discussed under Impact 4.5-1, the SB330 Replacement Site is within a zone of suspected low to moderate liquefaction susceptibility. The site is relatively flat and not considered to be subject to landslide risk. No specific development within the SB330 Replacement Site is proposed at this time as part of the Project. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the OMC and CEQA compliance. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
Through implementation of recommendations from the geotechnical report, the City’s standard discretionary review process, and compliance of all state, local, and regulatory requirements, the impacts for both the Project site and the SB330 Replacement Site will remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-18 through

4.5-19.)
d. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-19.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as water 2462
Resolution No. 2022-

levels and precipitation changes throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. The near-surface soils encountered during the field study for the geotechnical investigation consisted of silty sands and well-graded sands. Those materials are classified as low to non-expansive. Therefore, they would not be liable to significant expansion and a less than significant impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is delineated in the City’s Areas of Susceptibility map as being within an area containing generally fine-grained sediments, which have the potential for expansion (in fine-grained clayey soils). No specific development within the SB330 Replacement Site is proposed at this time as part of the Project. Any potential future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the OMC and CEQA compliance. The City’s development review process requires site-specific geotechnical reports to evaluate soil hazards such as expansive soils. All structural design and grading plans must account for site-specific soil conditions, which are incorporated into site-specific design plans through the City’s discretionary review process. The proposed rezoning allows for a slight increase in residential density, which is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impact than was evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. In consideration of the above, a less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
The near-surface soils encountered during the field study for the Project site consisted of silty sands and well-graded sands. Those materials are classified as low to non-expansive. Therefore, they would not be liable to significant expansion and a less than significant impact would occur. Furthermore, the SB330 Replacement Site is characterized as having fine-grained clayey soils, which have potential for expansion. However, no development is proposed at this time for the SB330 Replacement Site; once proposed, it would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including the OMC and CEQA compliance. This would result in a less than significant impact from occurring. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-19 through

4.5-20.)
2463
Resolution No. 2022-

e. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-20.)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project proposes a sewer infrastructure plan that includes a network of new public sewer mains that would connect to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) sewer system. Water and wastewater systems and their development are further discussed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service of this EIR. No impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
No specific development is proposed at this time within the SB330 Replacement Site area. It is not anticipated that any future residential development in this location would utilize septic or alternative wastewater disposal, given the urban density of proposed zoning and the City’s existing and planned wastewater treatment system.

Therefore, no impact would occur.

Conclusion
The Project proposes a sewer infrastructure plan that includes a network of new public sewer mains that would connect to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) sewer system. Furthermore, the SB330 Replacement Site would utilize septic or alternative wastewater disposal, given the urban density of proposed zoning and the City’s existing and planned wastewater treatment system.

Therefore, no impact would occur for both of these sites. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-20 through 4.5-21.)

5. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-24.) Explanation: SB330 Replacement Site
The net effect of relocating the 1,352 dwelling units of zoning potential to the SB330 Replacement Sites is expected to have an 2464
Resolution No. 2022-

overall net GHG benefit, regionally, due to reduced traffic and energy emissions from higher density development in a mixed-use area with transit. Also note that the SB330 Replacement Site is being considered by the City for even higher density as part of the City’s TOP Update, which would have separate City review and CEQA analysis. Finally, any future residential development within the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to applicable local, regional, State, and federal air quality regulations. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-24.) b. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-26.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1, Future Development Areas – Phase 2, SB330 Replacement Site
SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 RTP/SCS). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post-2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30 15.

The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.

The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost-effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals 2465
Resolution No. 2022-

and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently.

GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Project would inhibit the post-2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.6-10 of the DEIR.

The goals identified in the 2020 RTP/SCS were used to determine consistency with the SCAG’s RTP/SCS. As shown in Table 4.6-10 of the DEIR, the Project would be consistent with all stated goals of the 2020 RTP/SCS. Implementation of the Project would not result in any significant impacts or interfere with SCAG’s ability to achieve the region’s post-2020 mobile source GHG reduction targets.

CARB Scoping Plan
The California State Legislature adopted AB 32 in 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHGs (CO2, CH4, NOX, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6) to 1990 levels by the year 2020. Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan or CCSP) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain that goal. The CCSP provides a range of GHG reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, market-based mechanisms such as the cap-and-trade program, and an AB 32 implementation fee to fund the program. As shown in Table 4.6-11 of the DEIR, the Project is consistent with most of the strategies, while others are not applicable to the Project.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identifies additional GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve the 2030 target. These measures build upon those identified in the first update to the CCSP in 2013.

Although a number of these measures are currently established as policies and measures, some measures have not yet been formally proposed or adopted. It is expected that these actions to reduce GHG emissions will be adopted as required to achieve statewide GHG emissions targets. As such, impacts related to consistency with the Scoping Plan would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.6-26 through 4.6-35.)

6. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-18.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas 2466
Resolution No. 2022-

Operation
Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The Project may also involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities of such materials are presently unknown. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations of several agencies, including the U.S. EPA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, California OSHA, and the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the proposed Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Mandatory compliance with laws and regulations would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-18.) b. Accident or Upset
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-22.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Operations
Operation of the Project site would involve typical hazardous materials and chemicals such as solvents and cleaning products associated with operation of an industrial land development. As discussed in Impact 4.7-1 above, any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials during warehouse operations must adhere to Federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Prior to Project approval, a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (MBP) also would be required for approval to show conformance with all applicable materials handling protocols. Adherence to these regulations is overseen and enforced by the SBCFD. The SBCFD manages six hazardous material and hazardous waste programs. 2467
Resolution No. 2022-

The CUPA program is designed to consolidate, coordinate, and uniformly and consistently administer permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities throughout San Bernardino County.

CUPA consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the following hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs:
 Hazardous materials release response plans and inventory (business plan)
 Hazardous waste generation and on-site treatment
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA)/Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC plan)
 Underground storage tanks (UST)
 California Accidental Release Program (CALARP)
 Hazardous materials management plans and inventory
statements under California Fire Code
Furthermore, household hazards such as cleaners and solvents contain such low quantities of liquid and material that they do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-22 through 4.7-23.)
c. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-24.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
No existing or proposed schools are located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. The nearest operating school to the Project site is Cal Aero Preserve Academy, located at 15850 Main St., in the City of Chino, approximately 1.14 miles southeast of the Project site (Google Earth Pro, 2020). The next closest school is Egan Lyle High School, located at 15180 Euclid Ave in the City of Chino, approximately 1.15 miles southwest of the Project site.

The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or include the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, 2468
Resolution No. 2022-

and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The transport of hazardous substances or materials to-andfrom the Project site during construction and long-term operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations intended to reduce public safety hazards.

The Project’s toxic air contaminant emissions (and their associated health risks) would be less than significant to all sensitive receptors, including schoolchildren near the Project site and the primary truck travel routes to/from the Project site.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is within a half-mile of Levi H. Dickey Elementary School, located at 2840 S. Parco Ave. Rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site is not anticipated to have any new or substantially more severe impacts than addressed under the City’s TOP EIR, or that would occur under current zoning, because the uses will be substantially the same as that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR . These potential impacts are anticipated to be similar to that described above for the Project site. Rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site to provide slightly greater residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe pollutants than would occur under current zoning. The SB330 Replacement site would be subject to applicable local, state, and federal regulations as described in the Regulatory Framework section, including the City’s standard discretionary review process, the City’s municipal code, and CEQA compliance. In consideration of the above, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Conclusion
The Specific Plan portion of the Project would not emit harmful amounts of hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, and/or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Additionally, schools would be unlikely to be exposed to substantial safety hazards associated with the routine transport of hazardous substances or materials toand-from the Project site due to the low amount of anticipated toxic air contaminants associated with the Project. The SB330 Replacement Site’s proposed slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in significant impacts in light of existing regulatory requirements and the City’s standard discretionary review 2469
Resolution No. 2022-

process. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.7-24 through 4.7-25.)
d. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-26)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is within the ONT and Chino Airport’s AIA. The southeast corner of the Project area is within Zone C and the balance is within Zone D of the Chino Airport as designated in the ALUCP.

Zone C is known as the Compatibility Zone for Non-Residential Land Use, designating the area for uses such as Light Industrial.

Warehousing and office buildings are permitted in Zone D as well.

Both Zone C and D requirements align with the Specific Plan.

Furthermore, the maximum building height for the Project is 55 feet and the Project does not require ALUCP review. In the San Bernardino County Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the site is within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone) of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook). Safety Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit people-intensive uses such as stadiums, large daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes, however light industrial and manufacturing uses are acceptable within this zone, provided that they do not generate any visual, electronic, or physical hazards to aircraft. Phase 1 and Future development Areas fit these criteria because the Projects are based on light industrial and manufacturing uses. The Specific Plan’s land uses are compatible with these guidelines because it does not involve people-intensive uses. The Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) guidelines suggest the provision of approximately 10 percent usable open land, or an open area approximately every ¼ to ½ mile should be provided in projects within Safety Zone 6. The Handbook further indicates that ideal emergency landing sites are ones that are long, level, free of obstacles and with minimum dimensions of 300 feet long by 75 feet wide, much like a runway. In the Specific Plan area, surrounding 2470
Resolution No. 2022-

roads (Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Bon View Avenue), drive aisles, and truck parking lots can be considered as acceptable open lands in urbanized settings.

Furthermore, the Project site is not within a ONT safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is within the Chino Airport’s AIA. The southern portion of the SB330 Replacement Site is approximately one mile from the Chino Airport. The southernmost limits of the SB330 Replacement Site, immediately north of Eucalyptus Avenue, are within the Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contours, which means there is a potential risk for aircraft accidents to occur.

Within the Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contour lies safety and airspace compatibility factors. The main objective of safety compatibility factors is to simply minimize the risks associated with potential aircraft accidents. This task is made up of two components; 1) safety on the ground; and 2) safety for aircraft occupants. The fundamental objective for providing safety on the ground is to protect people and property in the event of an aircraft accident near an airport. Safety for aircraft occupants involves trying to find ways in which to enhance the chances of survival of occupants of an aircraft involved in an accident beyond the runway environment. If buildout were to occur for the SB330 Replacement Site, there will be a relatively slight increase in residential development within this influence area. Through implementation of safety zone requirements, as SB330 is within Safety Zone 6, within buildout of the site, the risk for potential safety hazards from occurring would be less than significant. Any future development in the SB330 Replacement Site would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, and would require compliance with the City’s municipal code as part of the City’s standard development review process, including CEQA compliance.

Conclusion
The Specific Plan and SB330 Replacement Site are located within areas governed by the Chino Airport ALUCP. Proposed uses are 2471
Resolution No. 2022-

consistent with the ALUCP, and will be regulated by applicable local, state, and federal regulations including the City’s municipal code. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-26 through 4.7-27.)
e. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-27.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available toand-from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for emergency vehicles.

The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan would be required as a result of the Project.

The nearest fire station is the Chino Valley Fire Department Station 63, located approximately 1 mile south of the site at 7550 Kimball Ave. Response times at this station would not be impaired by Project implementation because primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and operation of the Project.

Because both Project construction and operations would not disrupt or interfere with emergency access to nearby roadways, would not interfere with the City’s emergency response plan, and would comply with design standards for emergency services, impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
2472
Resolution No. 2022-

The SB330 Replacement Site does not contain any emergency facilities. During future construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would have to be maintained along public streets that abut the SB330 Replacement Site. As a result of a lack of proposed development, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Conclusion
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During Project construction and long-term operations, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-27 through 4.7-28.)
f. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-28.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I and Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Neither the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) nor the County of San Bernardino identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires. The Project site and surrounding areas generally consist of agricultural, industrial and/or residential uses, which are generally not associated with wildland fire hazards (Google Earth Pro, 2019; CalFire, 2008). The Project would comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to fire safety, as evaluated through the City’s standard development review process.

Impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Similar to the Specific Plan area, the SB330 Replacement Site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. The SB330 Replacement Site is not proposed for development at this time, and any future development would comply 2473
Resolution No. 2022-

with applicable regulatory requirements including the City’s municipal code. A less than significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
Neither the Project nor the SB330 Replacement Site are located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. All future development will comply with applicable local and state regulations related to wildfire, including the City’s municipal code as part of the City’s standard discretionary review process. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-28 through 4.7-29.)

7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-15.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction
Construction in the Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas would generally consist of clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities which could potentially impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt, debris, and pollutants carried in stormwater runoff. Examples of pollutants include the use of fuels, solvents, and paints. Furthermore, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment on-site during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

The Project is required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit (GCP) Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order No. 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) per PPP HYD-2, which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Sediment and Control Plan, prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. A SWPPP would identify site-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment, erosion, hazardous materials, and other pollutants that runoff from the Project site. The SWRCB requires that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the statewide GCP. The GCP also requires that prior to the start of construction 2474
Resolution No. 2022-

activities, the project applicant must file PRDs with the SWRCB, which includes a NOI, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, signed certification statement, SWPPP, and post-construction water balance calculations (PPP HYD-1). Furthermore, the construction contractor would be required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP at the site and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing of the PRDs with the SWRCB, which include preparation of the SWPPP. Construction BMPs would include but not be limited to the following BMPs listed in Table 4.8-2, Construction BMPs of the DEIR.

Furthermore, the ESCP that shall be submitted would address any potential erosion issues associated with the proposed grading and site preparation activities. Overall, submittal of the PRD’s and implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP during the construction phase of both Specific Plan -Phase I/ Future Development Areas would ensure the minimization or elimination of any anticipated and expected pollutants of concern. Therefore, the Project would comply with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements resulting in a less than significant impact.

Operations
During the operational phase of the Project, runoff could include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality such as oils, grease, fuel, antifreeze, byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals), as well as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other pollutants from landscaping maintenance.

Therefore, 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 postdevelopment runoff to pre-development conditions, and would be designed to treat runoff for pollutants, pursuant to SWRCB regulations.

According to the Santa Ana RWQCB MS4 permit, this Project would be classified as a Priority Development Project because it would create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, a preliminary WQMP has been created for this Project.

The preliminary WQMP (Appendix G2) has incorporated combined LID treatment, source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs. A final WQMP would be prepared pursuant to PPP HYD-3, as required 2475
Resolution No. 2022-

by MS4 permitting to address BMP sizing and operations and maintenance. The Final WQMP would be submitted to the City prior to the start of construction.

The preliminary WQMP for the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following site design BMPs:
 Construct streets, sidewalks, and parking lot stalls to the minimum widths necessary.
 Install on-site biotreatment basins/trenches with underdrains where soil type is poorly draining.

Source control BMPs are designed to minimize the potential for pollutants to come into contact with stormwater, thereby limiting the potential for water quality impacts downstream. A variety of source control BMPs would be incorporated into the Project and implemented during its operation, including the following:
 Minimize non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers.
 Minimize trash and debris in storm runoff in parking lots, and roadways through a regular sweeping program.
 Provide solid roofs over all trash enclosures.
 Provide site occupants with a copy of the project WQMP and stormwater BMPs.
 Provide site occupants and employees with education/training materials for operation and maintenance of the stormwater BMPs.
 Install stormwater placards/stenciled messages with a “No Dumping” message on all on-site/ off-site storm drain inlets.

Treatment control BMPs are designed to control stormwater pollutants where it is not feasible to install on-site Site Design/LID BMPs, with the requisite capacity to treat the Design Capture Volume for identified Pollutants of Concern or where pretreatment of stormwater runoff is required, ahead of infiltration BMPs. The following treatment control BMP would be incorporated into the Project’s operational phase:
 Gravity Separator devices for pretreatment of sediment, trash/litter or oil and grease.
2476
Resolution No. 2022-

Furthermore, the preliminary WQMP shows that the Project can treat the full design capture volume (DCV) on-site. The DCV would be captured and treated by the proposed Contech underground corrugated metal pipe (CMP) systems (CMP) and Maxwell Drywells.

As discussed above, stormwater runoff would be captured via the proposed catch basins that convey the runoff into bio clean hydrodynamic separators (Debris Separating Baffle Boxes [DSBBs]).

The DSBBs consist of settling chambers for separating out larger solids and a media filter cartridge for capturing fine total suspended solids that may contain metals, nutrients, and bacteria. Runoff is then detained in the CMP detention basins and the Maxwell Drywells for capture, pretreatment, and/or gradually release storm water into the downstream public storm drain systems. On-site storm water treatment would incorporate underground chambers installed within each building’s parking area. The proposed on-site storm drains would be sized during the Project’s final design phase to restrict site discharges such that there would be no negative impact on existing downstream drainage facilities. Each storm drain in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue, Grove Avenue, and Merrill Avenue would be equipped with a hydrodynamic separator, or series of hydrodynamic separators to satisfy the statewide trash mandate.

Each device would be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the SWRCB.

As specified in the preliminary WQMP, the Hydrologic Conditions of Concern (HCOC) requirements are achieved by using the LID and hydromodification BMPs. The mitigation volume is approximately 434,211 cu-ft ((0.95 *1,017,027) – 531,965). The total volume being retained is 687,210 cu-ft which is greater than the mitigation volume needed. As a result, the mitigation volume has been contained by the proposed BMPs. Thus, operational water quality impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of PPP HYD-3 and maintenance of the BMPs described above and as specified in the WQMP. 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
2477
Resolution No. 2022-

Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site along Grove Corridor is characterized by agricultural and urban development consisting of single-family residential units, agricultural plots, and some commercial uses. The TOP EIR evaluated development of the SB330 Replacement Site.

The Project proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330. However, the Project does not change the development area evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. In addition, the Project does not propose any specific development of the SB330 Replacement Site at this time.

Pursuant to TOP, any new development projects of over one acre would be required to conform to all applicable state, regional, and local guidelines, standards of approval, and permitting requirements, including the City’s discretionary review process as to not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR.

Conclusion
Construction and operations of Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas and SB330 Replacement Site would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality with implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3 and compliance with all applicable regulation and permitting. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-15 through 4.8-21.)
b. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-21.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operation
The Project site contains several active wells that feed into manmade ponds and channels. In compliance with the Chino Basin 2478
Resolution No. 2022-

Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well
use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from County Health Department. Pursuant to PPP HYD-4, a copy of such permit and Form DWR 188 Well Completion Form shall be provided to the Development Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. If the Developer proposes temporary use of an existing agricultural well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc., the developer shall make a formal request to the City of Ontario for such use prior to issuance of permits for any construction activity. Upon approval, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City and pay any applicable fees as set forth by the agreement. Therefore, with PPP HDY-4 implemented, constructionrelated impacts are not anticipated.

Water service to the Project would be provided by the City, which currently receives approximately 70 to 80 percent of its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin in addition to imported, local, and recycled water provided from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), respectively. The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, with approximately 5 million acre-feet of water demand in storage and has an unused capacity to store approximately 1 million acre-feet of additional water. Thus, the basin has the capacity to store an additional amount of water similar to the storage capacity of Diamond Valley Lake. The availability of additional storage in the basin allows the City to take advantage of wet years by storing additional water for use in dry years. Ontario participates in the Dry Year Yield (DYY) program with IEUA and Metropolitan Water District (MWD). In addition, the City benefits from recharge of IEUA recycled water, in compliance with Title 22 water quality standards, which can be pumped or stored for future use.

A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared (Appendix J1 of the DEIR) and is discussed in DEIR Section 4.15, Utilities and 2479
Resolution No. 2022-

Service Systems. The WSA demonstrates that the Project’s projected water demands are generally consistent with those assumed in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan. Therefore, due to the availability of water supplies, payment of fees, and ability for the City to meet the Project’s water demand, the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site for residential uses would result in a net decrease for potable water demand and a very slight increase in total water demand (potable plus recycled) compared to the water demand due to replacing low-medium density residential zoning with medium density residential zoning. Since the rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would result in a net decrease of potable water demand and slight increase in total water demand, future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would be adequately served by the City without substantially decreasing groundwater supplies. Similarly, if wells are located within the SB330 Replacement Site, future projects are subject to the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers and PPP HYD-4 shall be implemented. Since future development on the SB330
Replacement Site would not substantially decrease groundwater or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and comply with all applicable regulations and guidelines with PPP HYD-4 implemented, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Construction and operations of Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas and SB330 Replacement Site would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge that would impede sustainable groundwater management of the Chino Basin due to availability of water supplies, payment of fees, and ability for the City to meet the Project’s water demand in addition to implementation of PPP HYD-4. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.8-21 through 4.8-23.)
2480
Resolution No. 2022-

c. Erosion or Siltation, Flooding, Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, (iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-23.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but not in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would include the use of an Erosion Control Plan and methods that reduce overall erosion during construction and operation, such as preserving vegetation, soil binders, mulching, soil roughening, and stabilization. Furthermore, this Project will be conditioned to construct the Master Planned Euclid Avenue storm drain. The Project area storm drain improvements, shown in Figure 3-15, Storm Drain Plan of the DEIR, are consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City Planned Drainage Facilities (refer to Figure 3-16, City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities of the DEIR).

Drainage Area XIV consists of an area approximately 2.8 square miles along the westerly boundary of Ontario Ranch-West. The area is generally bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Euclid Avenue to the west, Merrill Avenue to the south, and Bon View Avenue to the east. There are no improved drainage facilities other than graded earthen ditches since the majority of the area is currently being used for agriculture. Drainage Area XIV drains to the City of Chino. It discharges to the existing Airport Channel at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenue. The Airport Channel is an interim facility that runs south along the east side of Euclid Avenue to the Prado Flood Control Basin. The City of Chino’s future masterplanned storm drain, the Euclid Avenue Storm Drain (Line “I” per City of Chino’s Master Plan of Drainage for Subarea 2), would need to be re-evaluated by the City of Chino, to accommodate updated flow rates projected to be discharged from Drainage Area XIV, within the 2481
Resolution No. 2022-

Ontario Ranch area, per this study. In 2003, the Master Plan of Drainage was revised (Revision No. 2) to include Subarea 2 “The Preserve”, which identified capacity expansion due to the addition of

8.5 square miles in the southeast area of the City of Chino. The Preserve is encompassed by the City (Ontario Ranch area) to the north, Riverside County to the south and east, and Euclid Avenue to the west. Drainage Basin Areas were added and redefined from the Chino Airport Master Plan and the City’s New Model Colony (Ontario Ranch) Drainage Master Plan. In 2004 and 2007, two unofficial amendments were prepared to update Revision No. 2, which identified revisions necessary for the Drainage Basins B, D, and J, and Drainage Basin G respectively for the ultimate build-out of The Preserve area. On-site drain improvements for the Project would include storm water detention/ retention/ water quality basins, which would capture, treat, and/or gradually release storm water into the downstream public storm drain systems. Onsite storm water treatment would incorporate underground chambers installed within each building’s parking area. Each storm drain in Campus Avenue, Bon View Avenue and Merrill Avenue will be equipped with a hydrodynamic separator, or series of hydrodynamic separators to satisfy the statewide trash mandate. Each device will be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the SWRCB. As previously discussed above, the Project’s proposed hydrology would include an on-site internal storm drain system that discharges via catch basins to underground detention chambers and Maxwell Drywells scattered throughout each on-site truck yard near Building 1 West, Building 1 East, Building 2 North, Building 2 south, and Buildings 3 through 8.

The treated water would be discharged from the proposed on-site storm drain system into the City’s proposed 102-inch RCP master plan storm drain on Bon View Avenue.

There are currently no improved drainage facilities aside from a few on-site detention areas located in the central and southerly portions of the site. Thus, the Project would include storm drain improvements consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities.

Catch basins located throughout the site would collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems would convey runoff to the following facilities:
2482
Resolution No. 2022-

 120-inch storm drain in Grove Avenue leading south to existing facilities via modification of an existing
channel.
 102-inch RCP in Bon View Avenue.
 60-inch RCP in Merrill Avenue adjacent to the Specific Plan area, which will transition to a 120-inch RCP
running west to a RCB at Euclid Avenue.
 54-inch storm drain in Campus Avenue which connects
to the future storm drain in Merrill Avenue.
 10-foot by 10-foot storm drain in Euclid Avenue
connecting to the Prado flood control basin.

Since the existing storm drain infrastructure does not have the capacity to accept stormwater flows in excess of the 100-year storm, the Project proposes an additional detention system at the site.

Runoffs tributary to on-site truck yards would be sufficiently detained in a way that the overall proposed condition 100-year discharge from the site to the existing dirt channel in Euclid Avenue would be significantly below the existing 100-year discharge conditions.

Runoffs from the parking lot west of Building 3 (1.5 cfs over 0.45 acres), the frontage landscape north of Building 4 (1.0 cfs over 0.35 acres), and parking lots south of Building 1 (18.0 cfs over 7.70 acres), would be allowed to discharge undetained. Note that the proposed on-site storm drains would be sized during the Project’s final design phase to restrict site discharge such that there would be no negative impact on existing downstream drainage facilities.

With implementation of the proposed BMPs and existing on-site detention, the total proposed 100-year condition discharge from the Project site to the existing dirt channel in Euclid Avenue, via proposed on-site storm drains and proposed master plan storm drains in Bon View Avenue and Merrill Avenue, would be
approximately 49.3 cfs. This is significantly less than the existing 100-year condition discharge of 141 cfs from the site to Merrill Avenue.

With the implementation of the PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3 which includes SWPPP, Erosion Control Plans, BMPs and storm plan Project features, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of erosion/siltation and surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding. Additionally, site design LID features and on-site detention facilities would ensure that 2483
Resolution No. 2022-

stormwater runoff does not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The calculated stormwater runoff volume for the 100-year storm under post-development conditions would be less than the amount of stormwater runoff for the 100-year storm under existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The City’s TOP EIR evaluated development of the SB330
Replacement Site. Similar to Impact 4.8-1, any future development conducted on the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory compliance, including the City’s discretionary review process. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR with implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approvals.

Conclusion
With implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-3 which includes SWPPP, Erosion Control Plans, BMPs and storm plan Project features, construction and operations of Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas and SB330 Replacement Site would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-23 through 4.8-26.)
d. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-26.)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is within FEMA Flood Zones X and D, per FEMA FIRM Map No. 06071C9335H dated August 28, 2008. Zone D is an area where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards, as no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. Zone X is an area 2484
Resolution No. 2022-

determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain.

There are no large water bodies, including rivers or streams that would cause flooding on the Project site.

The Project site, however, is within the dam failure inundation zone for the San Antonio Dam. The San Antonio dam is under USACE’s jurisdiction and operates as a flood control and debris dam for the San Antonio River. California dams are monitored and inspected annually by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Dam owners are required to maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that contain procedures for damage assessment and emergency
warnings. An EAP also identifies potential emergency conditions at a dam and specifies preplanned actions to help minimize property damage and loss of life should those conditions occur. Dam owners are also instructed by the EAP to issue early warning and notification messages to downstream emergency management authorities.

The City has never been impacted by a major dam failure and the dam has a very low probability of dam failure. According to the latest dam inundation map dated February 1986, the arrival time of the first flood wave would be between 8 and 10 hours after the catastrophic failure of the dam and the depth of water is estimated to be approximately two feet. This would allow for a significant time for implementing evacuation procedures, as specified in the City’s 2018 Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, the Project’s proposed BMPs and LID measures would result in the treatment and biofiltration of any floodwaters that enter the site, thus preventing significant pollutants from entering the regional storm drain system.

The Project site is not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would result in a seiche during seismic activity.

Furthermore, the Project site is inland and approximately 31.1 miles from the Pacific Ocean and therefore is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Release of pollutants due to inundation would not occur.

Overall, no impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is within FEMA Flood Zones X and D, per the FEMA FIRM Map No. 06071C9335H, dated August 28, 2008, and FEMA FIRM Map 06071C8620H, dated August 28, 2008.

Similarly, there are no large water bodies, including rivers or streams that would cause flooding on the SB330 Replacement Site. The SB330 Replacement Site is also subject to the City’s emergency 2485
Resolution No. 2022-

evacuation procedures in case of dam failure. Furthermore, any future development within the SB330 Replacement Site area would follow the City’s standard discretionary review process and require compliance with existing regulations including those cited above.

BMPs and LID measures would treat any floodwaters entering the SB330 Replacement site. Since future development would adhere to established regulatory framework, and with implementation of BMPs and LID measures, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas and SB330 Replacement Site are not located near large water bodies, including rivers or streams that would result in impacts from flooding, seiches, or from tsunamis. Pollutants shall be captured and treated before entering the City’s master storm water system. A less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-26 through 4.8-27.) e. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-27.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project would adhere to all applicable state, regional, and local regulatory framework which would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction.

In addition, implementation of the LID and BMP measures at the site, including hydrodynamic separators, underground detention, and Maxwell drywells would ensure that water quality is not impacted during the operational phase of the Project. As a result, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan. On-site groundwater wells would be abandoned per the California DWR Standards and would require a permit from the San Bernardino DEHS and completion of a DWR 188 Well CompletionForm.

Upon development, the Project site would be connected to the City’s public water supply and there would be no on-site wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). The Chino Basin is listed as “very low” priority pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and therefore is not operating under a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) pursuant to SGMA. However, the Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin 2486
Resolution No. 2022-

operating under the OBMP noted above (refer to Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems for more information regarding potable water).1 The Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP.

With adherence to all applicable regulative framework, and implementation of PPP HYD-1 through HYD-4, impacts would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
As discussed above for the Specific Plan site, rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would not significantly impact any water quality control plan or groundwater management plan. The Project would result in a slight increase in density for the SB330 Replacement Site area, but the land uses would be similar to that which is already allowable. Any future development would be required to comply with applicable local, state and federal requirements related to water quality and groundwater management. Since future development would adhere to established regulatory framework, impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Implementation of the Project and future development on the SB330 Replacement Site per the TOP would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Compliance with all applicable regulatory framework and implementation of standards of approval governing water quality and groundwater would ensure that any water quality control plan or sustainable management plan cited above would not be obstructed by the Project and any future development on the SBB 330 Replacement Site. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-27 through

4.8-29.)

8. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-13.)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Examples of projects that could physically divide an established community include a new freeway or highway that traverse an established neighborhood. The Project proposes business park and industrial uses on approximately 219.39 acres. The Project would

1 https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Basin-Prioritization (accessed May 3,2021). 2487
Resolution No. 2022-

replace the existing agricultural uses and does not propose any new streets or other physical barriers, which could physically divide an established community. Given its nature and scope, the Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is currently occupied by agricultural, commercial, residential, and vacant land uses. Single-family residences are located throughout the SB330 Replacement Site, but are distant in space and do not share a common boundary.

Therefore, these residences are not part of an established community but are stand-alone residential properties. Streets that currently provide access to the SB330 Replacement Site include E.

Riverside Drive, Cucamonga Avenue, Grove Avenue, Edison Avenue, Schaefer Avenue, and Chino Avenue. E. Riverside Drive comprises the southern boundary of an established residential community on the north side of the roadway. The SB330
Replacement Site does not extend north of E. Riverside Drive; therefore, it would not divide the established community.

The Project proposes rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site to a slightly higher residential density to increase the maximum number of housing units to ensure there is no net loss of residential zoning density. This action however does not propose any specific construction of new structures or redevelopment of the SB330 Replacement Site that would demolish any existing uses. The slight increase in residential zoning density would not represent a physical barrier to this area. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Conclusion
Construction and operation of projects on the Project site and replacement site would not result in a physical division of the community. While new uses would replace the existing development, this would not result in a physical separation where none currently exists. No impact would occur, and mitigation is not required. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-13.)
b. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2488
Resolution No. 2022-

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-14.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project includes a GPA, Specific Plan, Development Agreement, Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Maps, and Williamson Act contract cancellations, to allow for development of an industrial and business park on 23 parcels covering approximately 219.39 acres in the City. The development would include eight buildings ranging from 81,500 square feet (sf) to 1,268,794 sf. The development would allow for the development of approximately 5,333,518 square feet of industrial and business park buildings.

The GPA would change the existing land use designations of the 219.39-acre Project site from 157.06 acres of Low-Medium Density Residential and 62.36 acres of Business Park to 35.16 acres of Business Park and 184.26 acres of General Industrial, to facilitate development of the Project. The Project would provide a land use plan, circulation plan, streetscape plan, infrastructure service plan, grading plan, maintenance plan, phasing plan, design guidelines, development regulations, and implementation measures to guide the development of the Project site. A specific plan is required by the City in order to comprehensively plan for development of the Project site.

Implementation of the Project would achieve the intent of the Policy Plan and TOP for the Project site.

BP (Business Park) Zoning District: The BP zoning district accommodates industrial-serving commercial, office uses, and very light industrial uses. Development within this district is typically multitenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded.

Permitted uses include construction uses; manufacturing uses; wholesale trade uses; health care and social assistance uses; commercial uses; and warehousing uses. The Project would allow for up to 919,048 square feet of Business Park building space to be developed on a total of 35.17 acres within Planning Areas 1 and 3.

These Planning Areas would be developed with business park buildings that would allow for the development of uses such as offices, technology centers, research and development, enterprises, light manufacturing and warehouse/distribution uses.

IG (Industrial - General) Zoning District: The IG zoning district accommodates storage and warehousing uses located in larger buildings on larger sites. Uses may include e-commerce, high cube 2489
Resolution No. 2022-

warehouses, or distribution. A wide range of manufacturing and assembly uses are also permitted in this district. Permitted uses include agricultural uses; construction uses; wholesale trade uses; commercial uses; and warehousing uses. The Project would allow up to 4,414,470 square feet of industrial building space to be constructed within Planning Area 2, 4, and 5. These Planning Areas would comprise 184.26 acres and would allow for the development of uses such as general light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and e-commerce fulfillment center operations.

The following information consists of an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Southern California Association of Governments RTP/SCS
Compatibility
The Project is considered a project of regionwide significance pursuant to the criteria outlined in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and State CEQA
Guidelines §15206, because it would involve a net increase of over 500,000 square feet of business establishment. Therefore, a consistency analysis with the applicable regional planning guidelines and strategies of SCAG’s RTP/SCS is required. Table 4.9-3 provides an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the recently adopted 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) goals. The RTP/SCS goals are directed toward transit, transportation and mobility, and protection of the environment and health of residents. The consistency analysis below focuses on the broad, policy-oriented goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to determine the Specific Plan's consistency with the RTP/SCS.

The Ontario Plan Compatibility
An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Citywide goals in TOP is provided in Table 4.9-4, Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) of the DEIR. Table 4.9-4 of the DEIR focuses on consistency with the City’s General Plan Elements that address environmental issues. Goals and policies that do not address environmental effects or are not applicable to the Project are not addressed below. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-16.)
2490
Resolution No. 2022-

The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) is proposed to change the Project site’s land use designations from LowMedium 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 GPA 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, the EIR evaluated the 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 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. 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).

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 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 2491
Resolution No. 2022-

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 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. (Final EIR, pp. 3.11 through 3.12.) Ontario Development Code Consistency
Upon adoption of the Project, the development regulations and design standards within the Project would apply to the Project area and would establish the applicable zoning regulations and development standards. The Specific Plan would become the land use implementation tool for the Project area. As stated in Ontario Development Code §1.01.035, in the event of any conflict between the requirements of the Development Code and the standards contained within an adopted project, the requirements of the project shall govern, and when the provisions of a project are silent on a specific matter, the regulations set forth in the Development Code shall apply. As such, the Project would not result in conflicts with the 2492
Resolution No. 2022-

Ontario Development Code, and impacts would be less than significant.

Airport Environs Land Use Plan Consistency
The Project site is located immediately to the north of the Chino airport and is approximately 4.3 miles to the southwest of the Ontario International Airport and is within the Airport Influence Areas for these airports. The Project site is within the Ontario and Chino Airport’s Airport Influence Area. The southeast corner of the Project area is within Zone C and the balance is within Zone D of the Chino Airport as designated in the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Zone C is known as the Compatibility Zone for NonResidential Land Use, designating the area for uses such as Light Industrial. For Zone D, warehousing and office buildings are permitted. The Specific Plan aligns with the requirements of both Zone C and D of the Chino ALUCP for densities and compatible land uses. Furthermore, the maximum building height for the Project is 55 feet so the Project does not require ALUCP review (as noted in ALUC’s comment on the NOP) According to the San Bernardino County Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which focuses on ensuring that coexisting communities and airports are safe and peaceful, the site is within Safety Zone 6. Safety Zone 6 compatibility criteria allow light industrial and manufacturing uses as well.

Furthermore, the Project site is largely within the Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contours of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. This means there is a potential risk for aircraft accidents to occur. In the Aircraft Departure Accident Risk Intensity Contour, development must comply with safety and airspace compatibility factors. The Specific Plan meets these safety factors to further reduce the risk of impact from aircraft accidents, such as building height and materials. The Project site is within the Ontario International Airport ALUCP. However, it is not within a safety zone, a noise impact zone, or an airspace protection zone of the Ontario International Airport. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
Any future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would be evaluated to demonstrate consistency with the applicable land use regulations and policies cited above, as part of the City’s standard development review process. The relatively slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR as it is planned growth that is anticipated in the 2493
Resolution No. 2022-

evaluations of the TOP EIR. In fact, the increased density would allow for a wider variety of residential product types placed within a mixed-used transit-oriented development area, providing a greater level of consistency with local and regional land use plans than the current low medium density zoning at the Specific Plan site, which is in an increasingly urbanizing industrial corridor. Therefore, the proposed upzoning at the SB330 Replacement Site would not create a new significant impact. Impacts would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The Project would develop business park and industrial uses that would further support the local regional economy and business.

Although the Project includes land uses not currently designated on these specific sites in TOP, once adopted, the Project would provide appropriate land use regulations and zoning policies which would create a coherent and efficient usage of the land. The Project would promote orderly development to coincide with adjacent land uses, including Chino Airport. The Project embodies the goals and policies in the applicable long-range planning documents. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This would remain true with the implementation of the Grove Avenue SB330 Replacement Site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-14 through 4.9-29.)

9. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.)
Explanation: The Project site is within the City of Ontario and its Sphere of Influence is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is defined as areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. However, only areas in the far north of the City have been designated as areas where significant mineral deposits are present or there is likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. In addition, Figure OS-6f, Mineral Resource Zones, of The Ontario Plan (TOP) Draft EIR shows that the proposed Project area is also located within MRZ-3.

Development of the Project site would not result in the loss of identified regional or local mineral resources, conversion of an identified mineral resource use, or conflict with existing mineral resource extraction activities. Impacts would be less than significant. 2494
Resolution No. 2022-

Similar to the Project site, the SB330 Replacement Site is within an MRZ-3 area, indicating that there are no known deposits of significant minerals. Further, the proposed rezoning at the SB330 Replacement Site would not change the overall development footprint, nor is any development proposed at this time. Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-

7.)
b. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.)
Explanation: The Project site is within the City of Ontario and its Sphere of Influence is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is defined as areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. However, only areas in the far north of the City have been designated as areas where significant mineral deposits are present or there is likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. In addition, Figure OS-6f, Mineral Resource Zones, of The Ontario Plan (TOP) Draft EIR shows that the proposed Project area is also located within MRZ-3.

Development of the Project site would not result in the loss of identified regional or local mineral resources, conversion of an identified mineral resource use, or conflict with existing mineral resource extraction activities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Similar to the Project site, the SB330 Replacement Site is within an MRZ-3 area, indicating that there are no known deposits of significant minerals. Further, the proposed rezoning at the SB330 Replacement Site would not change the overall development footprint, nor is any development proposed at this time. Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.)

10. NOISE
a. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-15.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1
2495
Resolution No. 2022-

Construction
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase 1 construction area is an existing residential residence located approximately 200 feet from the Project boundary, on the northeast corner of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Phase 1 construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require industrial saws, excavators, and dozers during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earth movers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table

4.10-9: Typical Construction Noise Levels of the DEIR. Equipment noise levels at 150 feet and 85 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction activities are included in Table 4.10-9 of the DEIR.

The City of Ontario has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the City of Chino threshold of 65 dBA at the affected residential property is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario. Chino city limits are also adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project. If construction equipment remained stationary and was located at the Project boundary nearest to the closest sensitive receptor construction noise could exceed the 2496
Resolution No. 2022-

City’s 65 dBA threshold. However, construction equipment will be moving throughout the site and all stationary equipment is located away from sensitive receptors as a best practice.

Following FTA’s methodology for quantitative construction noise assessments, FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to predict construction noise. The noise levels calculated in Table 4.10-10, Phase 1 Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor of the DEIR, show estimated exterior construction noise.

Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. It was assumed that all Project demolition would occur during Phase 1, therefore, the distance used in the RCNM model for demolition was 1,831 feet because the center of the entire site would be used and the nearest receptor would be located to the north along Eucalyptus Avenue. For the remaining construction phases, the distance used in the RCNM model was 2,188 feet, measured from the center of the Phase 1 area to the nearest sensitive receptor located on the northeast corner of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Phase 1 construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.

Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e. trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise.

Mechanical Equipment
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 Project site is the residence on the northeast corner of Grove Avenue and Eucalyptus 2497
Resolution No. 2022-

Avenue, approximately 200 feet from the Project boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating ventilation and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Based on preliminary site plans, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be on the roof of Building 8, approximately 320 feet from the nearest residential property. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 35.9 dBA, which is well below the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The nearest loading/unloading activities to residential properties would occur on the northern edge of the Project site at the business park area, buildings five through eight.

The proposed Project buildings include dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations. The nearest dock-high doors to residences are located approximately 223 feet from the Project property line and are oriented to the south, away from the residences to the north. Loading dock noise is approximately 68 dB at 30 feet. Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 42.6 dBA after accounting for distance and the intervening structures. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards when measured at the nearest residential uses.

Parking Noise
2498
Resolution No. 2022-

Phase 1 of the Project would provide 1,241 parking stalls, 511 trailers stalls, and 446 dock doors. Parking stalls would be located on all sides of the proposed buildings except the north side of the business park buildings which face the residential properties. Nominal parking noise would occur within the on-site parking facilities. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a timeaveraged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA; however due to the orientation of the buildings, sensitive receptors would be shielded from parking lot noise. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of Phase 1 of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. According to the Traffic Impact Study, Phase 1 of the Project would generate 7,232 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.

Traffic noise levels for roadways primarily affected by the Project were calculated using the FHWA’s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Traffic noise modeling was conducted for conditions with and without the Project, based on traffic volumes from the Traffic Impact Analysis. Table 4.10-11, Phase 1 Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels of the DEIR demonstrates that opening year Phase 1 Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 63.6 dBA CNEL and 75.8 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL along Grove Avenue. Phase 1 noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.
2499
Resolution No. 2022-

Future Development Areas - Phase 2
Construction
Analyzed as a worst-case scenario, Phase 2 construction activities are assumed to be similar to Phase 1, and would include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities would require dozers and tractors during site preparation; excavators, graders, and dozers during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, mixers, and paving equipment during paving; and air compressors during architectural coating. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase 2 construction area are existing residential properties located approximately 85 feet from the Project boundary, on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue. Typical noise levels associated with individual construction equipment are listed in Table 4.10-9, Typical Construction Noise Levels of the DEIR.

As discussed previously, the City of Ontario has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Therefore, for the purpose of this analysis, the City of Chino threshold of 65 dBA at the affected residential property is also used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario.

The noise levels calculated in Table 4.10-12, Phase 2 Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor of the DEIR, show estimated exterior construction noise. Following FTA methodology, when calculating construction noise, all equipment is assumed to operate at the center of the Project because equipment would operate throughout the Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. Therefore, the distances used in the RCNM model was 1,427 feet, measured from the center of the Phase 2 area to the nearest sensitive receptor located on the opposite side of Eucalyptus Avenue.

Construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays. Phase 2 construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.

Operations
2500
Resolution No. 2022-

As discussed under Phase 1, implementation of Phase 2 of the Project would also create new sources of noise in the project vicinity.

The major noise sources associated with Phase 2 that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise. Noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 63.6 dBA CNEL and 75.9 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.6 dBA CNEL along Grove Avenue.

Mechanical Equipment
The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase 2 Project site are the residences on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 85 feet from the Project boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC
equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Although the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, as a worst-case scenario, the minimum setbacks permitted have been assumed for Phase 2 buildings located next to the nearest sensitive receptors (30 feet) Therefore, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be located approximately 125 feet from the nearest residential property. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 44.0 dBA, which is well below the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Although the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, for this analysis it has been assumed that Phase 2 buildings located nearest sensitive receptors would have a similar layout as those in Phase 1.
2501
Resolution No. 2022-

Assuming a similar design as Phase 1, dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations would be oriented to the south and located approximately 223 feet from the nearest residence to the north. Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 42.6 dBA after accounting for distance and the intervening structures. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards when measured at the nearest residential uses.

Parking Noise
Because Phase 2 of the Project has not been designed yet, this analysis assumes that parking area setbacks would be the minimum permitted under the business park land use (20 feet) as proposed under Phase 2 and nearest to sensitive receptors. The Phase 2 business park is assumed to generate 135 vehicle trips during peak hours. Based on distance and the number of vehicles, Phase 2 parking lot noise is calculated to be 41.3 dBA Leq at the nearest receptor and would not exceed the City’s noise standards.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of Phase 2 of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. According to the Traffic Impact Study, the proposed Project would generate 5,214 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 56.8 dBA CNEL and 74.4 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.0 dBA CNEL along Eucalyptus Avenue.

Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.

Project Buildout (Phase 1 + Phase 2)
Operations
As discussed under Phase 1 and Phase 2 operations,
implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. Project Buildout looks at all major noise 2502
Resolution No. 2022-

sources from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 when the entire Project is built and operational. Project Buildout impacts to sensitive receptors would be similar to those discussed under Phase 2 as the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is located 85 feet from the Phase 2 area.

Mechanical Equipment
Refer to mechanical equipment discussions under Phase 1 and Phase 2. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Phase 2 Project site are the residences on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 85 feet from the Project boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Although the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, it can be assumed that Phase 2 buildings located next to the nearest sensitive receptors would use the same setbacks as those in Phase

1. Therefore, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be located approximately 175 feet from the nearest residential property.

HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately

36.7 dBA, which is well below the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise
Refer to truck and loading dock discussion noise under Phase 1 and Phase 2. During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting and braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. Although the site plan for Phase 2 has not been designed, for this analysis it has been assumed that Phase 2 buildings located nearest sensitive receptors would have a similar layout as those in Phase 1.

Assuming a similar design as Phase 1, dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/light industrial operations would be oriented to the south and located approximately 223 feet from the nearest residence to the north. Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 42.6 dBA after accounting for distance and the intervening structures. Furthermore, loading dock doors would 2503
Resolution No. 2022-

be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards when measured at the nearest residential uses.

Parking Noise
Refer to parking noise discussions under Phase 1 and Phase 2.

Because Phase 2 of the Project has not been designed yet, this analysis assumes parking areas would be similar to those analyzed in Phase 1. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a time-averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA; however due to the orientation of the buildings, sensitive receptors would be shielded from parking lot noise. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period.

Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. According to the Traffic Impact Study, the Project Buildout would generate a total of 12,446 daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. Table 4.10-14, Project Buildout (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels of the DEIR identifies Project traffic-generated noise levels from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined. Noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 56.9 dBA CNEL and 74.7 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 1.6 dBA CNEL along Merrill Avenue and Grove Avenue. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.

The Traffic Impact Assessment also identifies average daily traffic for the year 2040 “Horizon Year Without Project” and “Horizon Year Plus Project.” Noise levels for these scenarios are compared in Table 2504
Resolution No. 2022-

4.10-13, Horizon Year and Horizon Year Plus Project Buildout Traffic Noise Levels of the DEIR. As shown in Table 4.10-13 of the DEIR, roadway noise levels in 2040 would range between 58.3 dBA CNEL and 76.0 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline. In 2040, Project generated traffic would result in a maximum increase of 1.1 dBA CNEL on Eucalyptus Avenue. As such, the Project would result in an increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL for the roadway segments analyzed and traffic noise. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant in this regard.

SB330 Replacement Site
The Project proposes rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site to a higher residential density to increase the maximum number of housing units to ensure there is no net loss of residential zoning density. This action however does not propose any specific construction of new structures or redevelopment of the SB330 Replacement Site. The additional traffic associated with the 1,352 DU in-zoning density at the SB330 Replacement Site has been accounted for in the Project’s Traffic Analysis. In fact, by “relocating” the 1,352 DU of zoning potential from the Project site to the SB330 Replacement Site, the net effect is anticipated to be an overall reduction in mobile noise in consideration of the SB330 Replacement Site DU’s being at a higher density, generating less traffic per dwelling unit, due to the SB330 Replacement Site being in a higher density mixed-use environment in close proximity to transit and regional transportation facilities. Operational noise will be evaluated on a site-specific basis consistent with the City’s TOP and Municipal Code. Any future development of the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to environmental regulations as required under CEQA and the City’s standard discretionary review process.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Table

4.10-10 and Table 4.10-12 of the DEIR confirm that construction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project would exceed construction noise thresholds. Table 4.10-11 and Table 4.10-13 of the DEIR show that the operation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 individually would not result in noise levels that would exceed City daytime and nighttime thresholds. In addition, Table 4.10-14 and Table 4.10-15 of the DEIR demonstrate that operational noise levels from the entire site, both 2505
Resolution No. 2022-

Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined would not exceed City noise standards during the Project’s opening year or in the future (2040).

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-15 through 4.10-29.)
b. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-29.) Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1, Future Development Areas - Phase 2, and Project Buildout
Construction Vibration
Construction operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment.

Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Construction on the Project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground-borne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved.

The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations (i.e., 0.2 in/sec) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 in/sec is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage.
2506
Resolution No. 2022-

Table 4.10-16, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels of the DEIR, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment. Vibration levels at 150 feet and 85 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors during Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction activities are also included in Table 4.10-16 of the DEIR.

Ground-borne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 construction site is approximately 150 feet to the east, the nearest receptor to the Phase 2 construction site is 85 feet to the north. At 85 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0142 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.10 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction and operation would be less than significant.

Operational Vibration
The proposed Project would include truck movement activity at the proposed Project site. These movements would generally be lowspeed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. For perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 inches per second, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)”. The distance from the centerline of the nearest lane to sensitive receptors along the truck route is a minimum of 50 2507
Resolution No. 2022-

feet (15 meters), at this distance, roadway vibrations from trucks would not exceed the annoyance threshold. Onsite, truck movements would be a low speed (not at freeway speeds) and over smooth surfaces (not under poor roadway conditions), Projectrelated vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive ground borne vibrations; thus, no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. The proposed Project would not create or cause any vibration impacts due to operations.

SB330 Replacement Site
The additional allowable residential density at the SB330 Replacement Site would not result in a net change in total dwelling units in the City. No specific development is planned at this time. The slight increase in density is not anticipated to change the overall impact of developing this area as compared to what was assumed in the City’s TOP EIR. Any future development within the SB330 Replacement Site would be subject to the City’s standard discretionary review process, including compliance with the City’s TOP, compliance with the municipal code, and site-specific CEQA review.

Conclusion
Construction of the Project would not generate excessive vibration levels that would cause building damage or annoyance. In addition, operations associated with the Project, including slow moving trucks, would not result in the generation of substantial vibration impacts.

Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction and operation would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-29 through 4.10-31.)
c. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-31.)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase 1, Future Development Areas - Phase 2, Project Buildout, and SB330 Replacement Site
2508
Resolution No. 2022-

Chino Airport
The proposed Project is across Merrill Avenue from the Chino Airport. The Chino General Plan’s Noise Element has noise contours for the Chino Airport. The noise contours show the Project site outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour and, in addition, the proposed Project would be an industrial business park, which is not considered a noise-sensitive land use. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Shifting the Project site’s residential zoning to the SB330 Replacement Site would have a net beneficial impact regarding airport noise compatibility by moving this allowable residential density from next to the Chino Airport to a planned mixed-use urban core along Grove Avenue.

Ontario International Airport
The proposed Project is approximately 5 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport. The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Map 2-3, Noise Impact Zones, shows airport noise contours. The map shows that the Project site is outside the 60-65 dB CNEL contour. As discussed above, the proposed Project would be an industrial business park, which is not considered a noise-sensitive land use. There would be no impact.

Conclusion
In conclusion, for both the proposed Project and SB330
Replacement Site, the Project site would be converted to an industrial business park and if development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site, the SB330 Replacement Site would be Medium Density Residential, which is not considered a noisesensitive land use. This would result in no impact, and no mitigation is necessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-31 through 4.10-32.)

11. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-10.) Explanation: Specific Plan - Phase I/Future Development Areas 2509
Resolution No. 2022-

The Project would not introduce new population or housing to the Project site. Development would include business park and industrial uses, which would result in jobs for residents in the surrounding area.

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. The area surrounding the Project site will receive improvements to its roadways, landscaping, signage, lighting, and utility improvements to serve the site.

Employment Growth
Construction
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. 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 of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Area as of May 2021. An adequate number of persons are available to fill the employment positions without constructing new residential units.

Furthermore, the small percentage of skilled and managerial positions could either be filled by the local economy or by persons outside the local economy. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would result in less than significant growth inducement impacts in the Project vicinity.

Operations
The projected number of employees that would result from the implementation of the Specific Plan was calculated based on the land use projection assumptions in the TOP EIR. The Project site has the potential to generate 5,459 employees.

It should be noted that the “VMT Assessment” conducted by Urban Crossroads also projected a total of 5,459 employees which was used to determine the service population for purposes of calculating vehicle miles traveled per service population.

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.
2510
Resolution No. 2022-

Additionally, the Logistics/Utilities sector constitutes 15.9 percent of the jobs in the City of Ontario, highest among job sectors. The implementation of the Project would contribute to job growth in this already prosperous industrial sector. Project-related employment growth impacts are not anticipated to be significant, as the nearby regional population centers have adequate housing supply for anticipated Project workers.

Population Growth
Implementation of the Project would increase jobs in the City, which would have the potential to increase the demand for housing in the area. As 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. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.

Jobs-Housing Balance
As stated, the SBCOG region is considered housing rich. According to SCAG RTP/SCS, “the region will add 3,672,000 people, 1,621,000 households and 1,660,000 jobs over the RTP/SCS (2045) planning horizon.” 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.

Project impacts on the jobs-housing balance are estimated by comparing employment and household buildout statistics of the Project to that of SCAG’s 2045 projections.

At Project buildout, the jobs-housing ratio for the City is estimated to be 2.35 which is similar to and only marginally different than SCAG projections for the City in 2045 of 2.27. Buildout of the Specific Plan 2511
Resolution No. 2022-

would result in an estimated jobs-housing ratio of 1.22 for the County, equivalent to the SCAG projection for the County of 1.22. Therefore, no significant impact related to jobs-housing balance is anticipated to occur with implementation of the Project.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The proposed rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would not result in any additional housing. By definition, pursuant to SB330, the rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site would offset the “lost” residential zoning capacity of the Specific Plan site, such that there would be “no net loss.” Indirect population and housing impacts associated with the slight increase in residential density are not anticipated to be significant or otherwise represent new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than identified in the City’s TOP EIR. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As a result of the Project and related components, 5,459 new employees are expected for the City of Ontario. All growth is planned according to TOP and SCAG and would put no unnecessary strain on housing in the region. The construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities and would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. A less than significant impact is expected to occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-10 through 4.11-13.) b. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-13.) Explanation: Specific Pan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The existing Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm and is improved with several residential structures, dairy barns, storage structures, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. Existing uses would be removed during Project site preparation. The displaced residential units and occupants are 2512
Resolution No. 2022-

voluntarily selling the property to the applicant. Furthermore, the City and surrounding region has adequate housing capacity to accommodate the displaced residents, as discussed above. The affected units are within an Agricultural Overlay District that anticipated future development of this site, which was addressed in the City’s TOP EIR. No significant impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is proposed for a slight increase in residential density for this 473.7-acre area. The slight increase in density, which was already reviewed as part of the City’s TOP EIR, is not anticipated to result in any additional housing or occupant displacement than would occur under current zoning. Any displacement of housing or occupants would proceed in accordance with the City’s standard development review process, including housing relocation assistance. As noted above there is adequate housing stock in the City and surrounding region to absorb the displacement of any residents in the SB330 Replacement Site area.

Furthermore, this area is currently being planned by the City as part of the City’s TOP Update process to include substantially more housing opportunities. Therefore, impacts in this regard are less than significant.

Conclusion
The 1,352 dwelling units provided by the Grove Avenue Corridor SB330 Site would make up for any displacement of housing due to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing, and no net loss of housing would occur.

A less than significant impact is anticipated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-13 through 4.11-14.)

12. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-11.) Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas 2513
Resolution No. 2022-

Construction and Operations
The development of the Project site includes eight buildings with a maximum of 5,333,518 square feet of industrial warehouse and office uses, constructed. Office uses are ancillary to the warehouses and occupy up to 1,075,235 square feet spread across the buildings.

The industrial warehousing would occupy up to 4,337,356 square feet of the Project area. The increase in development and workers within the Project site would potentially result in additional calls for fire department services and increase the need for additional fire department staffing and equipment. The area that would be occupied by the Project is currently developed with agricultural uses. Although there are existing uses, the modification of the area to industrial and office uses would potentially create an increased need for fire protection.

The eight new tilt-up industrial/warehouse buildings would be constructed from non-flammable concrete and would be equipped with automatic ceiling-mounted fire sprinkler systems. All other fire-related safety features would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted California Fire Code CFC and the City’s Municipal Code §4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. Additionally, prior to the approval of the Project, the City’s Building Department and OFD would review building plans in order to ensure that all applicable fire safety features are incorporated as part of the Project. Prior to the approval of occupancy permits for the new buildings, it would be required that the OFD would inspect all new structures in order to ensure that all fire safety features have been implemented and installed correctly.

The City has ten existing fire stations; the closest stations being Fire Station #2, located approximately 3.67 miles northwest and Fire Station #3, located approximately 3.55 miles north of the Project site.

The existing facilities would serve the southern portion of the City, including the Project site.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would be required to be consistent with the City’s General Plan for Business Park and Industrial uses as well as permitted floor area ratios (FAR).

Additionally, fire service needs for the Project and surrounding area have been anticipated in the development of the planned fire service facility. Therefore, fire protection and emergency services to the 2514
Resolution No. 2022-

Project would be accommodated within the City’s new and existing fire service facilities, and buildout of the Project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to maintain adequate level of fire protection service to the area.

The Project would not create any deficiencies in current response times or staffing models, nor require provision of new or expanded fire facilities, construction of which would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, fire protection and emergency services to the Project would be accommodated within the City’s planned and existing fire service facilities, and buildout of the Project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to maintain adequate level of fire protection service to the area.

Development impact fees (DIF) would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-11 through

4.12-12.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is in an area that is already served by the City including OFD, OPD, Parks and Recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries. The City’s TOP evaluated plans for expansion and increased demand for City services including fire and police protection services, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. This includes the need for new stations or locations of new City buildings to provide services to residents.

Impacts on public facilities are typically associated with population increases. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330; however, the increased residential density would likely lead to a lower total population, as higher density residential developments tend to have fewer occupants per unit (3.347 persons per household) than low-medium density (3.997 persons per household). . Future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would increase the local population for that area but would not increase the overall City population.

No specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Analysis of public service impacts as 2515
Resolution No. 2022-

part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. In addition, all future development would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the provision of adequate public services within the City. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-14 through 4.12-15.)
b. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for Sheriff Law Enforcement Services?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-12.) Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The increase in development and workers within the Project site would result in additional calls for police services. However, implementation of the Specific Plan would include installation of security features and natural surveillance through the provision of low-intensity security lighting in and around the new buildings in addition to the parking areas. The Project would incorporate design features that would discourage crime including features such as thematic fencing, decorative walkways and trellises. The design would also incorporate skylights and landscaping into the Project.

Additionally, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the City’s Building Department would review final site plans in order to ensure that crime prevention through design measures is incorporated as part of the Project. Furthermore, as the eight new buildings are expected to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, someone would always be on-site, thereby lowering the crime potential for the Project site, lessening the potential for increased police facilities or personnel.

The 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 2516
Resolution No. 2022-

continue to add staff and equipment on an as-needed basis in order to accommodate the incremental increasing demands from buildout of land uses, as was identified in the City’s General Plan.

Furthermore, buildout of the Project would not require construction of additional police facilities to maintain adequate police protection service. Thus, impacts related to police services would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-12 through 4.12-13.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is in an area that is already served by the City including OFD, OPD, Parks and Recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries. The City’s TOP evaluated plans for expansion and increased demand for City services including fire and police protection services, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. This includes the need for new stations or locations of new City buildings to provide services to residents.

Impacts on public facilities are typically associated with population increases. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330; however, the increased residential density would likely lead to a lower total population, as higher density residential developments tend to have fewer occupants per unit (3.347 persons per household) than low-medium density (3.997 persons per household). Future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would increase the local population for that area but would not increase the overall City population.

No specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Analysis of public service impacts as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. In addition, all future development would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the provision of adequate public services within the City. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-14 through 4.12-15.)
2517
Resolution No. 2022-

c. Schools
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-13.) Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is located within the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD), which is part of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Therefore, the Project applicant would be required to pay the impact fees levied by the CVUSD, set within the limits of California SB 50. This funding program has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (Government Code §65995[h]). SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. The school districts, including the CVUSD, within the City qualify for Level 1 fees, in which each district justifies their development fees for each land use and cannot request payment of development fees for school facility construction exceeding the amount of the statutory fees expressed in Education Code Section 17620. If school districts conduct a school facility needs assessment and qualify for participation in the State Funding Program by the State Allocation Board, among meeting other requirements, they can be eligible for Level 2 and Level 3 Fees. SB 50 also relieves jurisdictions from having the authority of denying approval of a legislative or adjudicative action under CEQA in reference to real estate development based upon the inadequacy of school facilities.

Since the Project will pay any applicable fees pursuant to SB 50, a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-13.) SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is in an area that is already served by the City including OFD, OPD, Parks and Recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries. The City’s TOP evaluated plans for 2518
Resolution No. 2022-

expansion and increased demand for City services including fire and police protection services, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. This includes the need for new stations or locations of new City buildings to provide services to residents.

Impacts on public facilities are typically associated with population increases. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330; however, the increased residential density would likely lead to a lower total population, as higher density residential developments tend to have fewer occupants per unit (3.347 persons per household) than low-medium density (3.997 persons per household). . Future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would increase the local population for that area but would not increase the overall City population.

No specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Analysis of Public service impacts as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. In addition, all future development would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the provision of adequate public services within the City. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-14 through 4.12-15.)
d. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-13.) Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The City provides over thirty parks for its residents. There are numerous parks in proximity to Project site that could be used by 2519
Resolution No. 2022-

existing local residents and future employees of the Project site. The Project would pay applicable development impact fees including Quimby Act park fees. These fees, along with additional funding accruing to the City’s general fund through direct and indirect economic benefit, would offset any additional demand caused by the Project’s business park and industrial uses. No significant impact is anticipated with payment of fees. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-13.) SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is in an area that is already served by the City including OFD, OPD, Parks and Recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries. The City’s TOP evaluated plans for expansion and increased demand for City services including fire and police protection services, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. This includes the need for new stations or locations of new City buildings to provide services to residents.

Impacts on public facilities are typically associated with population increases. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330; however, the increased residential density would likely lead to a lower total population, as higher density residential developments tend to have fewer occupants per unit (3.347 persons per household) than low-medium density (3.997 persons per household). . Future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would increase the local population for that area but would not increase the overall City population.

No specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Analysis of public service impacts as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. In addition, all future development would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the provision of adequate public services within the City. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-14 through 4.12-15.)
2520
Resolution No. 2022-

e. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-14.) Explanation: Specific Plan- Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Other Public Facilities generally refers to libraries and government buildings that serve the population within the jurisdiction. The Project construction and operation would not require the physical modification of any of the City’s public facilities. Specifically, the development of the warehousing and office buildings would not conflict with any library facilities. As stated previously, the nearest library facility to the Project is the South Ontario Lewis Family Branch Library, approximately 4 miles northeast of the site. 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.

Additional library services were accounted for in the City’s TOP. The City has plans to build a new 37,646-square-foot public library in the New Model Colony (NMC) or “Ontario Ranch” area that would provide similar services as the Main Library and a 6,763-square-foot expansion in the Old Model Colony (OMC), totaling 44,409 new square feet of public library services. This would give citizens in that area access to similar levels of service as already exist in the OMC.

The expansion of library services in the OMC would continue to bring similar levels of service to the residents in the OMC. In addition, the Ontario library system participates in an interlibrary exchange as part of the Inland Library System, which includes 18 other independent public libraries in Inyo, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. This would give existing and future citizens of Ontario access to additional library services. Therefore, additional construction of facilities would not be required.

Other potential impacts to surrounding public facilities include the Chino Airport. The Project was found to be compliant with the regulations and policies presented in the Chino Airport Land Use 2521
Resolution No. 2022-

Community Plan (ALUCP). Because of the lack of substantial population growth and the Project’s compliance with the Chino Airport ALUCP, a less than significant impact is expected to occur on surrounding public facilities.

Overall, a less than significant impact would occur to nearby public facilities. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-14.)
SB330 Replacement Site
Construction and Operations
The SB330 Replacement Site is in an area that is already served by the City including OFD, OPD, Parks and Recreation, and other public facilities such as libraries. The City’s TOP evaluated plans for expansion and increased demand for City services including fire and police protection services, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. This includes the need for new stations or locations of new City buildings to provide services to residents.

Impacts on public facilities are typically associated with population increases. The rezoning of the SB330 Replacement Site proposes a slight increase in residential zoning capacity pursuant to SB330; however, the increased residential density would likely lead to a lower total population, as higher density residential developments tend to have fewer occupants per unit (3.347 persons per household) than low-medium density (3.997 persons per household). . Future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would increase the local population for that area but would not increase the overall City population.

No specific development is proposed for the SB330 Replacement Site. Any future development would be subject to applicable local, state and federal environmental regulations, including the City’s discretionary review process. Analysis of public service impacts as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. In addition, all future development would be required to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to ensure the provision of adequate public services within the City. Development of the SB330 Replacement Site was evaluated as part of the City’s TOP EIR, and the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-14 through 4.12-15.)
2522
Resolution No. 2022-

13. RECREATION
a. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 7-7.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas The demand for parks is determined by changes and increases in housing and population. The Project site would be developed with an industrial use, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area. Therefore, buildout of the Project would not directly induce population growth or increase demand on parks and recreational resources. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

SB330 Replacement Site
The nearest City park to the SB330 Replacement Site is Centennial Park, located approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the SB330 Replacement Site. With the proposed slight increase in residential density at the SB330 Replacement Site, this could result in an increase of usage to recreational facilities, although this would not be expected to cause substantial additional deterioration of recreational facilities outside of the SB330 Replacement Site area.

No specific development is proposed at this time. As development is proposed, individual projects would pay required DIF fees to offset the need for local and citywide recreational facilities. On a City level, the net effect of shifting residential density from the Specific Plan site to higher density at the SB330 Replacement Site is anticipated to be a net reduction in recreational facility demand due to typically fewer persons per dwelling unit in higher density development. In addition, the SB330 Replacement Site is envisioned by the City as a pedestrian friendly mixed use transit-oriented development area, which would lend itself to more efficiently planned local and subregional recreational opportunities. For reasons noted above, the proposed rezoning would have no additional significant impacts beyond that evaluated in the City’s TOP EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-7 through 7-8.) b. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
2523
Resolution No. 2022-

Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 7-8.)
Explanation: Specific Plan-Phase I/Future Development Areas The demand for parks is determined by changes and increases in housing and population. The Project site would be developed with an industrial use, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area. Therefore, buildout of the Project would not directly induce population growth or increase demand on parks and recreational resources. No impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
The slight increase in residential density is not anticipated to require construction of additional recreational facilities to serve the SB330 Replacement Site beyond that envisioned in the City’s TOP EIR. The rezoning results in a shift of residential density from the Specific Plan site to the SB330 Replacement Site, at a slightly higher density (but the same number of dwelling units). Higher density residential development typically has lower recreational facility demand (due to fewer persons per dwelling unit). Furthermore, any future development at the SB330 Replacement Site would be required to comply with the City’s standard discretionary review process, including provision of adequate on-site recreational amenities, as well as payment of applicable DIF fees to offset impacts to recreational facilities. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 7-8 through 7-9.)

14. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9.) Explanation: Specific Plan Phase I/ Future Development Areas TOP Mobility Element
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element guides mobility and transportation in the City, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 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 2524
Resolution No. 2022-

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. Refer to the following bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities discussion below for more information.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City proposes a Class II bikeway and multipurpose trails along Merrill Avenue and Campus Avenue adjacent to the Project. The Project would improve all trails and bikeways along the Project frontages in conjunction with street improvements. The Project would provide sidewalks along all street abutting the Project site, and multipurpose trails would be provided the south side of Eucalyptus Avenue and the north side of Merrill Avenue. A bikeway on Merrill Avenue would connect to the city’s existing bike path system. As such, the Project supports the City’s goal of encouraging bicycling and walking by increasing the connectivity of the city’s bicycle and pedestrian system. The sidewalks and trails would be designed to ensure pedestrian and bicyclist safety consistent with the City’s Mobility Element. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.

Transit Facilities
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The Project is located near the Omnitrans Route 81 route. Omnitrans Route 81 operates on Riverside Drive north of the site. However, there are no existing bus routes near the vicinity of the Project. The Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) serves the City of Eastvale (and other areas of Riverside County). Transit service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. The City strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel. The Project would support transit use by improving existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project area. The Project would also increase the number of employees in the area that may access the site by public 2525
Resolution No. 2022-

transit. The Project would not introduce new features to any public road that would affect transit in the Project area. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

SB330 Replacement Site
As the proposed Project would include the reallocation of 1,352 low to moderate density residential dwelling units to a mixed-use corridor with higher density residential that would offer improved access to transit, there are numerous aspects of the proposed change that would reduce VMT compared to the “No Project” condition.

The City’s TOP EIR evaluated development of the SB330
Replacement Site. The Project proposes rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site to a higher residential density to increase the maximum number of housing units to ensure there is no net loss of residential zoning density. This action however does not propose any specific construction of new structures or redevelopment of the SB330 Replacement Site. The Technical Advisory and City Guidelines each provide evidence that land use projects located within a transit priority area (TPA) or close to a high-quality transit corridor would tend to generate low VMT when compared to typical suburban residential areas characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns. In addition to proximity to transit, higher density projects located within walking distance of a diverse mix of land uses (e.g., shopping, office, government services, etc.) also generates lower VMT when compared to typical dispersed suburban development. The proximity of complementary land uses combined with safe and convenient bike and pedestrian networks are proven to reduce the need for automobile dependent travel and therefore a reduction in VMT. The Project’s reallocation of 1,352 low to moderate density residential dwelling units to a higher density transit-oriented corridor that includes a diverse mix of uses would result in lower net VMT when compared to standard low to moderate density residential development.

Similarly, to the Specific Plan Phase I/ Future Development Areas, any future development on the SB330 Replacement Site would be required to conform to all applicable local, state, and federal transportation/traffic plans and regulations including the City’s discretionary review process. Development of the SB330
Replacement site would be designed accordingly with the City’s TOP 2526
Resolution No. 2022-

Mobility Element and planned circulation as illustrated in Figure 3-4, Roadway Classification Plan. In addition, a TIA assessment and VMT assessment as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be conducted prior to any site-specific development of potential future residential housing. Should significant impacts be identified as part of potential future of the SB330 Replacement Site area, roadway improvements or mitigation would be developed pursuant to the City’s TOP Circulation Element and CEQA requirements for transportation impacts (CEQA
Guidelines §15126.4(a)). Furthermore, it should be noted that there is an added benefit in relocating the residential density from the Specific Plan site to the SB330 Replacement Site, in that the higher density residential zoning at the SB330 Replacement Site would be in a mixed- use transit-oriented core area of the City, which is being studied as part of the City’s current TOP Update process for even higher density to promote transit, reduced demand on vehicle travel and other sustainability principles.

Conclusion
The Project as well as the potential development of the SB330 Replacement Site would not conflict with the relevant goals, policies, and ordinances, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9 through 4.13-12.) b. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-31.) Explanation: Specific Plan Phase I/ Future Development Areas The roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the Project could require the temporary closure of travel lanes, but full roadway closure and traffic detours are not expected to be necessary. However, construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic that could increase hazards. Therefore, in order to ensure the safe passage of persons and vehicles through construction zones, the Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code §7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would 2527
Resolution No. 2022-

be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards. Implementation of the Specific Plan through the City’s permitting process would reduce potential construction related increases in hazards to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the Project includes driveway and intersection improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project. In addition, the Project includes improvements to allow for heavy truck access to the Project site. Conflicts have the potential to occur if: 1) there is inadequate site access or 2) there is inadequate turning radii in and out of the site. Implementation of the Specific Plan and its circulation plans will ensure avoidance of these inadequacies.

Site Access
The proposed project includes the construction and/or improvement of 11 driveways to and from the Project site from adjacent roadways.

Exhibit 1-4 in the TIA (Appendix I1 of the DEIR) illustrates and describes access to the Project site. The Project’s proposed circulation and off-site improvements would be constructed accordingly with Recommendations 1 through 27 listed in the Project Traffic Analysis to accommodate on-site access. Additionally, all roadway improvements would be designed consistently with the City’s TOP Mobility programs, plans, goals and policies, and City Traffic and Transportation Guidelines. Therefore, direct access to the Project site would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or dangerous intersections and a less than significant impact would occur.

Turning Radius
The TIA evaluated large trucks’ turning radius to determine necessary intersection improvements in the study area. The TIA overlaid a truck turning template on the site plan at each applicable Project driveway and site adjacent intersections anticipated to be utilized by large trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radius and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers.

The following change is necessary in order to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks:
 Driveway 1 should be modified to provide a 50-foot curb radius on the northeast and southeast corners and to widen the drive aisle to 60-feet.
2528
Resolution No. 2022-

The Project design features identified above are based on this study and would ensure adequate large truck access to and from the Project site and adjacent intersections. Implementation of the identified Project design features would ensure that impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to heavy truck maneuvers.

SB330 Replacement Site
Rezoning the SB330 Replacement Site is not anticipated to have any new or substantially more severe impacts than addressed under the City’s TOP EIR, or that would occur under current zoning.

Additionally, potential impacts are anticipated to be similar to that described above for the Specific Plan site. Similar to the discussion above, a traffic analysis as part of the City’s CEQA and discretionary review process would be required prior to development of potential future residential housing. The traffic analysis would require any onand off-site circulation improvements from potentially future development on the SB330 Replacement Site to conform between existing/planned roadways pursuant to the City’s TOP and Municipal Code to ensure safe and efficient operations. In consideration of the above, a less than significant impact is anticipated.

Conclusion
In summary, buildout of the Project would result in changes to the circulation network but would not increase hazards due to design features. The SB330 Replacement Site, once development is proposed, would conform to existing roadways design standards, preventing impacts of hazards. Impacts and potential impacts will remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-31 through

4.13-32.)
c. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-32.) Explanation: The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction. In case of an emergency, the construction manager will have assigned staff to flag emergency response vehicles and direct them to the emergency location.

Unimpeded access throughout the Project site would be maintained by ensuring that vehicles would not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for emergency response vehicles. Project site conditions, during and after the workday, would be either 2529
Resolution No. 2022-

maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition that may affect construction staff and emergency responders.

Access roads to the site will be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads will be kept or maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles. The Project would implement both on- and off-site improvements, consistent with Recommendations 1 through 27, to ensure the safe and efficient access to the Project Site.

Overall, the Project would adhere to applicable city laws and regulations, including adequate access and signage. No significant impacts are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-32.)

15. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects (wastewater treatment and distribution)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.15-5, 4.15-14, 4.15-22.) Explanation: Wastewater Treatment and Distribution
The Project site is located in OR and is within IEUA’s wastewater service area boundary. Wastewater conveyance will be provided by the City of Ontario.

Specific Plan - Phase I and Future Development Area
Wastewater Conveyance
There are no existing sewer mains near the Project site that are within the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario and the proposed Project would require the construction of both on- and off-site sewer mains.

It would be financially infeasible for residential development to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements required to support a residential development. The City of Ontario’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan shows the existing infrastructure serving the Project area as well as the ultimate sewer system. The ultimate sewer collection 2530
Resolution No. 2022-