Ontario City Council
March 15, 2022

(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the EIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
2205
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-018
December 20, 2021

(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, 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.

SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as “ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, 2206
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-018
December 20, 2021

and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed development at the proposed location is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Project is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district. The development standards and conditions under which the proposed Project will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. (2) The proposed development is compatible with those on adjoining sites in relation to location of buildings, with particular attention to privacy, views, any physical constraint identified on the site and the characteristics of the area in which the site is located. The Project has been designed consistent with the requirements of the City of Ontario Development Code and the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district, including standards relative to the particular land use proposed (industrial), as-well-as building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, number of off-street parking and loading spaces, on-site and off-site landscaping, and fences, walls and obstructions.
(3) The proposed development will complement and/or improve upon the quality of existing development in the vicinity of the project and the minimum safeguards necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare have been required of the proposed project. The Development Advisory Board has required certain safeguards, and impose certain conditions of approval, which have been established to ensure that: [i] the purposes of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan are maintained; [ii] the project will not endanger the public health, safety or general welfare; [iii] the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; [iv] the project will be in harmony with the area in which it is located; and [v] the project will be in full conformity with the Vision, City Council Priorities and Policy Plan components of The Ontario Plan, and the California Commerce Center Specific Plan. (4) The proposed development is consistent with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Development Code, or applicable specific plan or planned unit development. The proposed Project has been reviewed for consistency with the general development standards and guidelines of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan that are applicable to the proposed Project, including building intensity, building and parking setbacks, building height, amount of off-street parking and loading spaces, parking lot dimensions, design and landscaping, bicycle parking, on-site landscaping, and fences and walls, as-well-as those development standards and guidelines specifically related to the particular land use being proposed 2207
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-018
December 20, 2021

(industrial). As a result of this review, the Development Advisory Board has determined that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the development standards and guidelines described in the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as “Attachment A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7: 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 this approval. 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.

SECTION 8: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2208
2209
2210
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-018
December 20, 2021

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PDEV21-018
Departmental Conditions of Approval
(Departmental conditions of approval to follow this page) 2211

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

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 11/18/2021
File No: PDEV21-018
Related Files: PMTT21-010
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct two industrial buildings totaling 168,772 square feet on 13.07 acres of land located at 1425 South Toyota Way, on the southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue, within the Industrial Mixed Use land use district of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan; (APN: 0238-121-75) submitted by MIG, Inc.

Prepared By: Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2429 (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 Time Limits.
(a) Development Plan approval shall become null and void 2 years following the effective date of application approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced, and diligently pursued toward completion, or a time extension has been approved by the Planning Director. This condition does not supersede any individual time limits specified herein, or any other departmental conditions of approval applicable to the Project, for the performance of specific conditions or improvements.

2.2 General Requirements. The Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
(a) All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, utility and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Planning Department. 2212
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-018

(b) The project site shall be developed in conformance with the approved plans on file with the City. Any variation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. (c) The herein-listed conditions of approval from all City departments shall be included in the construction plan set for project, which shall be maintained on site during project construction.

2.3 Architecture Treatment and Building Design.
(a) At locations where changes in parapet wall height meet, the taller parapet must return into the building for a minimum distance of 6 FT, so that the actual thickness of the parapet wall cannot be observed or readily discerned.
(b) Roof access ladders shall be located on the inside of the building. (c) All building drainage gutters, downspouts, vents, etc., shall be completely concealed from public view or shall be architecturally compatible (decorative) with the exterior building design and color.

2.4 Landscaping.
(a) The Project shall provide and continuously maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in compliance with the provisions of Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping).
(b) Comply with the conditions of approval of the Planning Department; Landscape Planning Division.
(c) Landscaping shall not be installed until the Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans required by Ontario Development Code Division 6.05 (Landscaping) have been approved by the Landscape Planning Division. (d) Changes to approved Landscape and Irrigation Construction Documentation Plans, which affect the character or quantity of the plant material or irrigation system design, shall be resubmitted for approval of the revision by the Landscape Planning Division, prior to the commencement of the changes.

2.5 Walls and Fences. All Project walls and fences shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences and Obstructions).

2.6 Parking, Circulation and Access.
(a) The Project shall comply with the applicable off-street parking, loading and lighting requirements of City of Ontario Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading).
2213
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-018

(b) All drive approaches shall be provided with an enhanced pavement treatment. The enhanced paving shall extend from the back of the approach apron, into the site, to the first intersecting drive aisle or parking space. (c) Areas provided to meet the City’s parking requirements, including off-street parking and loading spaces, access drives, and maneuvering areas, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials and equipment, nor shall it be used for any other purpose than parking.
(d) The required number of off-street parking spaces and/or loading spaces shall be provided at the time of site and/or building occupancy. All parking and loading spaces shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the building or use. (e) Parking spaces specifically designated and conveniently located for use by the physically disabled shall be provided pursuant to current accessibility regulations contained in State law (CCR Title 24, Part 2, Chapters 2B71, and CVC Section 22507.8). (f) Bicycle parking facilities, including bicycle racks, lockers, and other secure facilities, shall be provided in conjunction with development projects pursuant to current regulations contained in CALGreen (CAC Title 24, Part 11).

2.7 Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas.
(a) Loading facilities shall be designed and constructed pursuant to Development Code Division 6.03 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). (b) Areas designated for off-street parking, loading, and vehicular circulation and maneuvering, shall not be used for the outdoor storage of materials or equipment. (c) Outdoor loading and storage areas, and loading doors, shall be screened from public view pursuant to the requirements of Development Code Paragraph 6.02.025.A.2 (Screening of Outdoor Loading and Storage Areas, and Loading Doors) Et Seq. (d) Outdoor loading and storage areas shall be provided with gates that are view-obstructing by one of the following methods:
(i) Construct gates with a perforated metal sheet affixed to the inside of the gate surface (50 percent screen); or
(ii) Construct gates with minimum one-inch square tube steel pickets spaced at maximum 2-inches apart.
(e) The minimum gate height for screen wall openings shall be established based upon the corresponding wall height, as follows:

Screen Wall Height Minimum Gate Height
14 feet: 10 feet
12 feet: 9 feet
10 feet: 8 feet
2214
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-018

8 feet: 8 feet
6 feet: 6 feet

2.8 Site Lighting.
(a) All off-street parking facilities shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch.
(b) Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property.

2.9 Mechanical and Rooftop Equipment.
(a) All exterior roof-mounted mechanical, heating and air conditioning equipment, and all appurtenances thereto, shall be completely screened from public view by parapet walls or roof screens that are architecturally treated so as to be consistent with the building architecture.
(b) All ground-mounted utility equipment and structures, such as tanks, transformers, HVAC equipment, and backflow prevention devices, shall be located out of view from a public street, or adequately screened through the use of landscaping and/or decorative low garden walls.

2.10 Security Standards. The Project shall comply with all applicable requirements of Ontario Municipal Code Title 4 (Public Safety), Chapter 11 (Security Standards for Buildings).

2.11 Signs. All Project signage shall comply with the requirements of Ontario Development Code Division 8.1 (Sign Regulations).

2.12 Sound Attenuation. The Project shall be constructed and operated in a manner so as not to exceed the maximum interior and exterior noised levels set forth in Ontario Municipal Code Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct), Chapter 29 (Noise).

2.13 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)/Mutual Access and Maintenance Agreements.
(a) CC&Rs shall be prepared for the Project and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(b) The CC&Rs shall be in a form and contain provisions satisfactory to the City.

The articles of incorporation for the property owners association and the CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved by the City.
(c) CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between parcels. 2215
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-018

(d) CC&Rs shall ensure reciprocal parking and access between parcels, and common maintenance of:
(i) Landscaping and irrigation systems within common areas; (ii) Landscaping and irrigation systems within parkways adjacent to the project site, including that portion of any public highway right-of-way between the property line or right-of-way boundary line and the curb line and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a median divider (Ontario Municipal Code Section 7-3.03), pursuant to Ontario Municipal Code Section 5-22-02;
(iii) Shared parking facilities and access drives; and
(iv) Utility and drainage easements.
(e) CC&Rs shall include authorization for the City’s local law enforcement officers to enforce City and State traffic and penal codes within the project area. (f) The CC&Rs shall grant the City of Ontario the right of enforcement of the CC&R provisions.
(g) A specific methodology/procedure shall be established within the CC&Rs for enforcement of its provisions by the City of Ontario, if adequate maintenance of the development does not occur, such as, but not limited to, provisions that would grant the City the right of access to correct maintenance issues and assess the property owners association for all costs incurred.

2.14 Environmental Review.
(a) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140). This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference. All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable, and are incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) If human remains are found during project grading/excavation/ construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).
(c) If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during project grading/excavation/construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

2.15 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 2216
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PDEV21-018

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.

2.16 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing 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. (b) After the Project’s entitlement approval, and prior to issuance of final building permits, the Planning Department’s Plan Check and Inspection fees shall be paid at the rate established by resolution of the City Council.
2217
2218

CITY OF ONTARIO

LANDSCAPE PLANNING DIVISION
303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Sign Off
10/6/21
Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner Date
Reviewer’s Name:

Jamie Richardson, Sr. Landscape Planner
Phone:
(909) 395-2615
D.A.B. File No.:

PDEV21-018
Case Planner:

Edmelynne Hutter
Project Name and Location:

Toyota Business Center – 2 Industrial Buildings
S/W corner of Milliken Ave and Jurupa Street
Applicant/Representative:

MIG, Inc. – Pamela Steele
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, CA 92614
Preliminary Plans (dated 6/12/21) meets the Standard Conditions for New Development and have been approved with the consideration that the following conditions below be met upon submittal of the landscape construction documents.

Preliminary Plans (dated) have not been approved. Corrections noted below are required prior to Preliminary Landscape Plan approval.

A RESPONSE SHEET IS REQUIRED WITH RESUBMITTAL OR PLANS WILL BE RETURNED AS INCOMPLETE. Landscape construction plans with plan check number may be emailed to: [email protected] DIGITAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE 10MB OR LESS.

Civil/ Site Plans

1. Provide an arborist report and tree inventory for existing trees include genus, species, trunk diameter, canopy width and condition. Show and note existing trees in good condition to remain and note trees proposed to be removed. Include existing trees within 15’ of adjacent property that would be affected by new walls, footings or on-site tree planting. Add tree protection notes on construction and demo plans to protect trees to remain. Replacement and mitigation for removed trees shall be equal to trunk diameter of heritage trees removed per the Development Code Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures, section 6.05.020.

2. Locate the employee break areas in an open area near the building rather than the parking lot.

3. Stormwater infiltration devices located in landscape areas shall be reviewed and plans approved by the Landscape Planning Division prior to permit issuance. Any stormwater devices in parkway areas shall not displace street trees.

4. Show transformers set back 5’ from paving all sides. Coordinate with landscape plans.

5. Show backflow devices set back 4’ from paving all sides. Locate on level grade

6. Civil Plans: Note for compaction to be no greater than 85% at landscape areas. All finished grades at 1 ½” below finished surfaces. Slopes to be maximum 3:1.

7. Dimension all planters to have a minimum 5’ wide inside dimension.

8. Dimension, show and call out for step-outs at parking spaces adjacent to planters; a 12” wide monolithic concrete curb, DG paving or pavers with edging.

9. Show outdoor employee break area with table or bench and shade trees on the south and west sides.

10. Add Note to Grading Plans: Landscape areas where compaction has occurred due to grading 2219
activities and where trees or stormwater infiltration areas are located shall be loosened by soil fracturing. For trees, a 12’x12’x18” deep area; for stormwater infiltration, the entire area shall be loosened. Add the following information on the plans: The backhoe method of soil fracturing shall be used to break up compaction. A 4” layer of Compost is spread over the soil surface before fracturing is begun. The backhoe shall dig into the soil lifting and then drop the soil immediately back into the hole. The bucket then moves to the adjacent soil and repeats. The Compost falls into the spaces between the soil chunks created. Fracturing shall leave the soil surface quite rough with large soil clods. These must be broken by additional tilling. Tilling in more Compost to the surface after fracturing per the soil report will help create an A horizon soil. Imported or reused Topsoil can be added on top of the fractured soil as needed for grading. The Landscape Architect shall be present during this process and provide certification of the soil fracturing. For additional reference, see Urban Tree Foundation – Planting Soil Specifications.

Landscape Plans

11. Provide an arborist report and tree inventory as noted in #1.

12. Locate the employee break areas in an open area near the building rather than the parking lot.

13. Quercus agrifolia shall be planted in planter spaces greater than 8’ wide; use Quercus ilex in planter 5’ wide.

14. Show backflow devices with 36” high strappy leaf shrub screening and trash enclosures and transformers, a 4’-5’ high evergreen hedge screening. Do not encircle utility, show as masses and duplicate masses in other locations on regular intervals.

15. Locate light standards, fire hydrants, water and sewer lines to not conflict with required tree locations. Coordinate civil plans with landscape plans

16. Show all utilities on the landscape plans. Coordinate so utilities are clear of tree locations.

17. Detail irrigation dripline outside of mulched root zone.

18. Show minimum on-site tree sizes per the Landscape Development standards, see the Landscape Planning website. 5% 48” box, 10% 36 box, 30% 24” box, 55% 15 gallon.

19. After a project’s entitlement approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable fees for landscape plan check and inspections at a rate established by resolution of the City Council.

20. Landscape construction plans with building permit number for plan check may be emailed to:
[email protected]
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
Planning Department
FROM: Mike Gerken, Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshal
Fire Department
DATE: May 24, 2021
SUBJECT: PMTT21-010 - A Parcel Map to subdivide 13.07 acres of land into three (3) parcels located at southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue, within the Office/R-D and Warehouse/Distribution land use districts of the Toyota Business Park Specific Plan (APN(s): 0238-121-75).

Related File(s): PDEV21-018.

The plan does adequately address Fire Department requirements at this time.

Standard Conditions of Approval apply, as stated below.

SITE AND BUILDING FEATURES:

A. 2019 CBC Type of Construction: Type III-B
B. Type of Roof Materials: Panelized
C. Ground Floor Area(s): Building A = 113,067 Sq. Ft.

Building B = 48,205 Sq. Ft.

D. Number of Stories: 1 with Mezzanine
E. Total Square Footage: Building A = 118,067 Sq. Ft.

Building B = 50,705 Sq. Ft.

F. 2019 CBC Occupancy Classification(s): B/S1/F1
2235
2 of 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 The following are the Ontario Fire Department (“Fire Department”) requirements for this development project, based on the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), and the current versions of the Fire Prevention Standards (“Standards.”) It is recommended that the applicant or developer transmit a copy of these requirements to the on-site contractor(s) and that all questions or concerns be directed to the Bureau of Fire Prevention, at (909) 395-2029.

For copies of Ontario Fire Department Standards please access the City of Ontario website at www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Prevention.

1.2 These Fire Department conditions of approval are to be included on any and all construction drawings.

2.0 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS

2.1 Fire Department vehicle access roadways shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved. Roadways shall be paved with an all-weather surface and shall be a minimum of twenty-four (24) ft. wide.

See Standard #B-004.

2.2 In order to allow for adequate turning radius for emergency fire apparatus, all turns shall be designed to meet the minimum twenty five feet (25’) inside and forty-five feet (45’) outside turning radius per Standard #B-005.

2.3 Fire Department access roadways that exceed one hundred and fifty feet (150’) in length shall have an approved turn-around per Standard #B-002.

2.4 Access drive aisles which cross property lines shall be provided with CC&Rs, access easements, or reciprocating agreements, and shall be recorded on the titles of affected properties, and copies of same shall be provided at the time of building plan check.

2.5 "No Parking-Fire Lane" signs and /or red painted curbs with lettering are required to be installed in interior access roadways, in locations where vehicle parking would obstruct the minimum clear width requirement. Installation shall be per Standard #B-001.

2.6 Security gates or other barriers on fire access roadways shall be provided with a Knox brand key switch or padlock to allow Fire Department access. See Standards #B-003, B-004 and H001.

2.7 Any time PRIOR to on-site combustible construction and/or storage, a minimum twenty-four (24) ft. wide circulating all weather access roads shall be provided to within 150 ft. of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building, unless specifically approved by fire department and other emergency services.
2236
3 of 4

3.0 WATER SUPPLY

3.1 The required fire flow per Fire Department standards, based on the 2019 California Fire Code, Appendix B, is 3750 gallons per minute (g.p.m.) for 4 hours at a minimum of 20 pounds per square inch (p.s.i.) residual operating pressure.

3.2 Off-site (public) fire hydrants are required to be installed on all frontage streets, at a minimum spacing of three hundred foot (300’) apart, per Engineering Department specifications.

3.3 Buildings that exceed 100,000 square feet in floor area shall provide an onsite looped fire protection water line around the building(s.) The loops shall be required to have two or more points of connection from a public circulating water main.

3.4 The public water supply, including water mains and fire hydrants, shall be tested and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department prior to combustible construction to assure availability and reliability for firefighting purposes.

4.0 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

4.3 An automatic fire sprinkler system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 13. All new fire sprinkler systems, except those in single family dwellings, which contain twenty (20) sprinkler heads or more shall be monitored by an approved listed supervising station. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.5 Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located on the address side of the building within one hundred fifty feet (150’) of a public fire hydrant on the same side of the street. Provide identification for all fire sprinkler control valves and fire department connections per Standard #D-007. Raised curbs adjacent to Fire Department connection(s) shall be painted red, five feet either side, per City standards.

4.6 A fire alarm system is required. The system design shall be in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 72. An application along with detailed plans shall be submitted, and a construction permit shall be issued by the Fire Department, prior to any work being done.

4.7 Portable fire extinguishers are required to be installed prior to occupancy per Standard #C-001.

Please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau to determine the exact number, type and placement required.

5.0 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FEATURES

5.1 The developer/general contractor is to be responsible for reasonable periodic cleanup of the development during construction to avoid hazardous accumulations of combustible trash and debris both on and off the site.

5.2 Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Homes 2237
4 of 4
that do not front street shall be provided with an address entry sign at the street. Address numbers shall contrast with their background. See Section 9-1 6.06 of the Ontario Municipal Code and Standards #H-003 and #H-002.

5.6 Knox ® brand key-box(es) shall be installed in location(s) acceptable to the Fire Department.

All Knox boxes shall be monitored for tamper by the building fire alarm system. See Standard #H-001 for specific requirements.

5.7 Placards shall be installed in acceptable locations on buildings that store, use or handle hazardous materials in excess of the quantities specified in the CFC. Placards shall meet the requirements of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 704. 2238

CITY OF ONTARIO

MEMORANDUM
TO: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
FROM: Officer Bill Lee, Police Department
DATE: May 19, 2021
SUBJECT: PMTT21-010- A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 168,772 SQUARE FEET,

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JURUPA STREET AND
MILLIKEN AVENUE. RELATED FILE: PDEV21-018.

The “Standard Conditions of Approval” contained in Resolution No. 2017-027 apply. The applicant shall read and be thoroughly familiar with these conditions, including, but not limited to, the requirements below.
 Required lighting for all walkways, driveways, doorways, parking lots, hallways and other areas used by the public shall be provided. Lights shall operate via photosensor.

Photometrics shall be provided to the Police Department and include the types of fixtures proposed and demonstrate that such fixtures meet the vandal-resistant requirement.

Planned landscaping shall not obstruct lighting.
 Rooftop addresses shall be installed on the buildings as stated in the Standard Conditions.

The numbers shall be at a minimum 6 feet tall and 2 foot wide, in reflective white paint on a flat black background, and oriented with the bottom of the numbers towards the addressed street. Associated letters shall also be included.
 The Applicant shall comply with construction site security requirements as stated in the Standard Conditions.

The Applicant is invited to contact Officer Bill Lee at (909) 408-1672 with any questions or concerns regarding these conditions.
2239

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLANNING
ĔēĘĎĘęĊēĈĞĊęĊėĒĎēĆęĎĔēĊĕĔėę
Project File No.:

Address:

APN:

Existing Land
Use:

Proposed Land
Use:

Site Acreage:

ONT-IAC Project Review:
$LUSRUW,QÀXHQFH$UHD

This proposed Project is: Exempt from the ALUCP Consistent Consistent with Conditions Inconsistent Reviewed By:

Date:

Contact Info:

Project Planner:

CD No.:

PALU No.:

The project is impacted by the following ONT ALUCP Compatibility Zones:

Safety Noise Impact Airspace Protection 2YHUÀLJKW1RWL¿FDWLRQ Zone 1
Zone 1A
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
75+ dB CNEL
70 - 75 dB CNEL
65 - 70 dB CNEL
60 - 65 dB CNEL
High Terrain Zone
)$$1RWL¿FDWLRQ6XUIDFHV
Avigation Easement
Dedication
5HFRUGHG2YHUÀLJKW
1RWL¿FDWLRQ
Real Estate Transaction
'LVFORVXUH
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
$LUSRUW3ODQQHU6LJQDWXUH

CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
3URSRVHG6WUXFWXUH+HLJKW

Airspace Avigation
Easement Area
Allowable
Height:
$LUVSDFH2EVWUXFWLRQ
6XUIDFHV
The project is impacted by the following Chino ALUCP Safety Zones:

Zone 6
Allowable Height:

PDEV21-018& PMTT21-010
SEC Jurupa Street & Milliken Avenue
0238-121-75
Vacant and Industrial Building
Development Plan to construct 2 industrial buildings totaling 168,772 SF and Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 13.07 acres into 3 parcels

13.07 n/a
ONT
The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT) and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT.
✔
✔
✔ ✔
Lorena Mejia
909-395-2276
Edmelynne Hutter
July 6, 2021
2021-030
n/a
41 FT
✔
200 FT +
✔
2240
-1-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES
December 20, 2021

CONTENTS PAGE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE................................................................................................ 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS............................................................................................................ 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS.......................................................................................................... 2

CONSENT CALENDAR
A-01. Minutes of November 23, 2021 ................................................................................ 2

PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. File No. PMTT20-005 (TPM 20253) ........................................................................ 3 C. File No. PMTT21-012 (TPM 20387) ........................................................................ 3 D. File Nos. PCUP21-004 and PDEV21-012................................................................. 4 E. File Nos. PMTT21-010 (TPM 20147) and PDEV21-018 ......................................... 6 F. File Nos. PHP21-015 and PDEV21-030 ................................................................... 7 G. File No. PZC21-001 .................................................................................................. 7 H. File Nos. PGPA21-004, PZC21-002 and PDCA21-001 ........................................... 9 MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION........................................................ 11 DIRECTOR’S REPORT........................................................................................................ 11 ADJOURNMENT .......................................................................................................... 11 2241
-2-

CITY OF ONTARIO PLANNING COMMISSION/

HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIAL MEETING

MINUTES
December 20, 2021
SPECIAL MEETING:City Hall, 303 East B Street
Called to order by Chairman Gage at 6:30 PM

COMMISSIONERS

Present: Chairman Gage, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Lampkin, and Willoughby

Absent: Ricci
OTHERS PRESENT: Planning Director Zeledon, City Attorney Maldonado, Principal Planner Mercier, Principal Planner Ruddins, Senior Planner Grahn, Senior Planner Hutter, Associate Planner Aguilo, Associate Planner Antuna, Assistant Planner Morales, Transportation Manager Bautista, and Planning Secretary Berendsen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner DeDiemar.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Zeledon stated that Item B is being continued to the January 25, 2022 meeting and Items F & G will be presented together.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Murena Sandovela spoke in opposition to Item C and apartments being built there.

Mr. Gage explained this is an item that is on the agenda for tonight.

No one further responded from the audience.

CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
A-01. MINUTES APPROVAL
Planning/Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of November 23, 2021, approved as written.

It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2021, as written. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Dean, Gage, and Lampkin; NOES, none; ABSTAIN, DeDiemar and Willoughby; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 4 to 0.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2242
-6-
It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Anderson, to adopt a resolution to approve the Conditional Use Permit, File No., PCUP21-004, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Gage, Lampkin, and Willoughby; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

It was moved by Willoughby, seconded by Lampkin, to adopt a resolution to approve the Development Plan, File No., PDEV21-012, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Gage, Lampkin, and Willoughby; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR FILE NOS. PMTT21-010 AND PDEV21-018: A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 20147) (File No. PMTT21-010) to subdivide 95.35 acres of land into three parcels, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-018) to construct two industrial buildings totaling 168,772 square feet on 13.07 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue, at 1425 South Toyota Way, within the Industrial Mixed Use and Warehouse/Distribution land use districts of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan. An Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008104410) was prepared. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); (APN: 0238- 121-75) submitted by Pamela Steele, MIG, Inc.

Senior Planner Hutter, presented the staff report. She stated that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the Addendum to an EIR and File Nos. PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolution, and subject to the conditions of approval.

Mr. Lampkin wanted clarification on the height on the new elevations Ms. Hutter stated they will be about the same.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know about the water resource at the location.

Ms. Hutter responded.

Mr. Lampkin no changes to the south elevation of the water resource section.

Ms. Hutter responded.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know about circulation and that area.

Ms. Hutter responded.

Mr. Zeledon clarified regarding well site and visual features.

Mr. Lampkin wanted to know about lighting for the area.

Ms. Hutter clarified.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Pam Steele with MIG, Inc. was present and spoke in favor of the project and agreed with the conditions of 2243
-7-
approval.

As there was no one else wishing to speak, Chairman Gage closed the public testimony There was no Planning Commission deliberation.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
It was moved by Willoughby, seconded by DeDiemar, to adopt a resolution to approve the Addendum to a Certified EIR, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote:

AYES, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Gage, Lampkin, and Willoughby; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

It was moved by Lampkin, seconded by Dean, to adopt a resolution to approve the Tentative Parcel Map, File No., PMTT21-010, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Gage, Lampkin, and Willoughby; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

It was moved by Gage, seconded by Willoughby, to adopt a resolution to approve the Development Plan, File No., PDEV21-018, subject to conditions of approval. Roll call vote: AYES, Anderson, Dean, DeDiemar, Gage, Lampkin, and Willoughby; NOES, none; RECUSE, none; ABSENT, Ricci. The motion was carried 6 to 0.

F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW FOR FILE NO. PDEV21-030 AND PHP21-015: A Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-030) to construct a 174,603 -square-foot industrial building on 7.47 acres of land, in conjunction with a Certificate of Appropriateness (File No. PHP21-015) to facilitate the demolition of an existing Tier III historic eligible structure (1914 Craftsman Single-Family Residence) to accommodate the proposed industrial development located on the west side of Bon View Avenue, approximately 132 feet north of Cedar Street, within the IG (General Industrial) zoning district. Staff has prepared an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140), certified by the City Council on January 27, 2010. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); (APNs: 1050-441- 05, 1050-441-09, 1050-441-11, 1050-441-12, 1050-441-13, 1050-441-14, 1050-441-15, 1050- 441-16, 1050-441-17, 1050-441-18, 1050-441-19, 1050-441-20, 1050-441-21, 1050-441-22, 1050-441-23, 1050-441-24, 1050-441-25, 1050-441-26, 1050-441-27, 1050-441-28, 1050-441- 29, 1050-441-30, 1050-441-31, 1050-441-32, 1050-441-33, 1050-441-34, 1050-441-35, 1050- 441-36, 1050-441-37, 1050-441-38, 1050-441-39, 1050-441-40, 1050-441-41, 1050-441-42, 1050-441-43, 1050-441-44, 1050-441-45, 1050-441-46, 1050-441-47, 1050-441-48, 1050-441- 49, 1050-441-50, 1050-441-51, 1050-441-52, 1050-441-53, 1050-441-54, 1050-441-55, 1050- 441-56, 1050-441-57, 1050-441-58, 1050-441-59, 1050-441-60, 1050-441-61, 1050-441-62, and 1050-441-73) submitted by Bon View Land 10, LLC & BV Investments 10, LLC as tenantsin-common.

G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REVIEW FOR FILE NO.

PZC21-001: A Zone Change (File No. PZC21-001) amending the zoning designation on 2.77 acres located at 1948 South Bon View Avenue, from IL (Light Industrial) to IG (General Industrial). Staff has prepared an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140), certified by the City Council on January 27, 2010. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to 2244
2245
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE THE USE OF AN ADDENDUM

TO THE ONTARIO PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMMENDED, FOR FILE NOS.

PMTT21-010 AND PDEV21-018.

WHEREAS, MIG, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20147, File No. PMTT21-010, subdividing 95.35 acres of land into three parcels, in conjunction with a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-018, for the construction of two industrial buildings totaling 168,772 square feet on 13.07 acres of the 95.35-acre Project site, located at the southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue, at 1425 South Toyota Way, within the Toyota Business Park Specific Plan, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008104410) was certified on January 27, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as “Certified EIR”), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the Certified EIR, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as “EIR Addendum”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as “CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the Approval Authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
2246
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2021, and December 17, 2021, the Planning Department sent public hearing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site via postal mail and to Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) via e-mail, respectively, informing the recipient of the Project’s upcoming public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB21-060 and DAB21-061, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution Nos. PC21-086, PC21-087, and PC21-088, approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, the Appellant submitted an Appeal, through e-mail, of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve File Nos. PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018; and
WHEREAS, the Ontario Development Code, Division 2.01 (Appeals), Sections

2.01.010.B1 and B2., state that an appeal shall include a statement identifying the specific action or decision of the Approving Authority that is being appealed, the specific grounds for the appeal, and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority; and that an appeal of an action shall be limited to those matters raised during the hearing and contained in the appeal statement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is the Appeal Authority for Planning Commission decisions; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Appellant’s appeal is a statement that the Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant did not provide any facts or reasons to support their assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and did not include a relief request from the Appeal Authority; and WHEREAS, the Appellant failed to raise their concerns during the public hearing or provide written notice of their concerns prior to the public hearing and, therefore, the City Council cannot consider the appeal statement; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
2247
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all 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 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008104410), certified by the Ontario City Council on January 27, 2010, in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
2248
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and. (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, 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. 2249
SECTION 4. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 4, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The Ontario Development Code specifies the Appeal process and requirements for filing an appeal. The Ontario Development Code requires that an appeal shall include a statement identifying the specific action or decision of the Approving Authority that is being appealed, the specific grounds for the appeal, and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority; and that an appeal of an action shall be limited to those matters raised during the hearing and contained in the appeal statement. (2) The submitted Appeal does not include specific grounds for the appeal and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority. The submitted Appeal did not provide any specific facts or reasons to support their assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and did not include a relief request from the Appeal Authority.
(3) The Appeal assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act was not raised during the public hearing.

The Appellant failed to raise their concerns regarding the Project Addendum compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act during the public hearing or provide written notice of their concerns prior to the public hearing.

SECTION 6. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S PREVIOUS ACTION ON THE PROJECT AND DENIES 2250
THE APPEAL, and hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby approve the use of the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as “Attachment A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7. 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 this approval. 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.

SECTION 8. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLC

CITY ATTORNEY
2251

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022-____ was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 15, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 15, 2022. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
2252
ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(Document follows this page)
2253

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 California Environmental Quality Act
Addendum to The Ontario Plan
Environmental Impact Report

1. Project Title/File No.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

3. Contact Person: Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner, Phone: (909) 395-2429, Email:
[email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: MIG, Inc. ATTN: Pamela Steele; 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106, Riverside, CA 92507

5. Project Location: The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figures 1 and 2, below, the project site is located at 1425 South Toyota Way, on approximately 95 acres, at the southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue.

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP

PROJECT SITE
2254
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Figure 2: VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
Figure 3: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
NEW

DEVELOPMENT
AREA

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
2255
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Industrial

7. Zoning Designation: Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan – Industrial Mixed Use

8. Description of Project: A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM No. 20147), submitted as part of the application, would subdivide the Specific Plan area into three parcels: Parcel 1 would include the Specific Plan area south of Toyota Way, which is already developed with an 807,068 square feet warehouse and distribution facility and no development for this area is proposed under this Project; Parcels 2 and 3 would be the area north of Toyota Way and include the northwest portion of the Project site where new development is proposed. As shown in Figure 4, the proposed Project would involve the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings totaling 168,722 square feet and associated site improvements.

Building A. Building A, located on the northern portion of Project site, would total 118,067 square feet and include 108,067 square feet of warehouse space and 10,000 square feet of office space. The office component of the building would be two stories and would be located in the northwest and northeast corners of the building. Twenty-five truck loading docks would be located along the southern side of the building. A summary of development specifications are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

Building B. Building B, located on the southern portion of the Project site, would be located south of Building A and would total 50,705 square feet which would include 45,705 square feet of warehouse space with 5,000 square feet of office use. The office component of the building would be two stories and would be located in the northwest corner of the building. Eight truck loading docks would be located along the northern side of the building. A summary of development specifications are outlined in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1: Development Specifications
1425 S. Toyota Wy. (existing) /
Parcel 1
Building A /
Parcel 2
Building B /
Parcel 3
Office Space 48,929 sf 10,000 sf 5,000 sf
Warehouse Space 758,139 sf 108,067 sf 45,705 sf
Total Building Area 807,068 sf 118,067 sf 50,705 sf
Site Area (sf) 3,557,545 sf 358,934 sf 165,092 sf
Site Area (acres) 81.67 ac 8.24 ac 3.79 ac
2256
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Figure 4: DEVELOPMENT PLAN SITE PLAN
2257
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Table 2: Applicable Development Standards
Development Standards Required
Parcel 1/
1425 S. Toyota Wy.

Parcel 2/
Building A
Parcel 3/
Building B
Maximum FAR 55% 22.68% 32.89% 30.71%
Minimum Parcel Size 1 acre 81.67 acres 8.24 acres 3.79 acres Maximum Building Height 65 feet No change 41 feet 41 feet Minimum Building
Setbacks
Milliken Avenue
Jurupa Street
Toyota Way
45 feet
40 feet
25 feet
No change
95 feet
100 feet

87.4 -173.6 feet
103.8 feet
N/A

38.3 to 126 feet
Warehousing and Distribution Parking Requirements
Office-1 space/250 sf less
than 10,000 sf
20 spaces
No change Total Spaces:
131
Total Spaces:
63 Warehouse-1
space/1,000 sf to 20,000 sf
Bldg A = 20 spaces
Bldg B = 20 spaces
Plus 1 space/2,000 sf
20,000 sf and above
Parking Space Totals
Bldg A = 44 spaces
Bldg B = 23 spaces
Bldg A = 84 spaces
Bldg B = 63 spaces
Plus 1 tractor trailer
parking space
1 space/4 dock
doors No change 25 dock doors7 spaces
8 dock doors
2 spaces
Source: Discretionary Permit Application, May 2021; Project Site Plan, August 2021.

Architecture. The proposed buildings would be concrete tilt-up construction with painted and scored accents. The design provides glazing and color variation along the length of the buildings, and would utilize a combination of materials and colors. The main colors of the buildings would be Nebulous White with accents colors of Online (medium) and Steely Gray (dark), with Leisure Blue trimming. The primary window blue reflective glass Solarcool Pacifica is located on the wall panels, the building corners, and office areas. There are trellises and free-standing concrete columns painted with a brushed Stainless color to provide accents to the buildings. The proposed screen walls would match the paint and color variations of the buildings. Conceptual elevations are shown in Figure 5.

The buildings designs would also incorporate the following features:
• Recessed primary entry doors
• Two story glazing
• Punched square first and second floor windows with thin concrete legs in a pattern to create an office look
• Concrete trellis with metal fin with canopy top
• Higher parapets at the primary entry to create hierarchy • Higher parapets at the secondary corners to create additional hierarchy Landscaping. Landscaping is proposed along all streets frontages, along Toyota Way, on the front and side setbacks adjacent to the buildings, and throughout the parking areas. The Project provides landscaping which exceeds the 15 percent landscaping requirement, and includes 29.80 percent for Building A and 35.59 percent for Building B. A landscaping plan is shown in Figure 6.
2258
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Figure 5: CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS
2259
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Drainage. For Building A, runoff from the east portion of the site, along with the northerly landscaped area, would be conveyed through storm drain Line A. Runoff from the west half of the site along with the parking lot along the south of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line B. These storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the central portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume, as well as mitigate discharge to existing conditions for the Project site. The system would have a footprint of approximately 54-feet by 160-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line A, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way.

For Building B, runoff from north of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line C. Runoff from south of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line D. The Figure 6: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
2260
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

proposed storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the southwest portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume. The system would have a footprint of approximately 24-feet by 105-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line D and release in Line E, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way.

Circulation. There are two driveways off Toyota Way that would provide access to the site. A 35-foot wide driveway, located east of Building A, would be for automobile and truck use. To the south of Building B there would be a 29-foot wide driveway for automobile use only. A 40- foot wide driveway located along Milliken Avenue would provide direct access to the truck courts of both buildings.

Emergency vehicle access would be provided around the two buildings with 24-foot wide drive aisles through the parking areas and truck court. The majority of the automobile parking would be located along the perimeter of the proposed buildings.

Prior Environmental Analysis of Project Site. The Project site is located within the boundary of the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which was adopted in August 1993. The Specific Plan area is Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0238-121-75, totaling 95.35 gross acres
On January 27, 2010, the Ontario City Council adopted The Ontario Plan (TOP). TOP serves as the framework for the City’s business plan and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation that consists of six distinct components: 1) Vision; 2) Governance Manual; 3) Policy Plan; 4) Council Priorities; 5) Implementation; and 6) Tracking and Feedback.

The Policy Plan component of TOP meets the functional and legal mandate of a General Plan and contains nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design and Social Resources.

An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for TOP (TOP FEIR) (SCH # 2008101140) and certified by the City Council on January 27, 2010 and included Mitigation Measures, Findings, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA. TOP FEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP, focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan, and the associated population and employment growth in the City. The Project site was analyzed in TOP FEIR as industrial (See Exhibit A, TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan) to be consistent with the industrial uses to the north, west, and south of the Project site, Interstate I-15 freeway to the east, and the Project site’s location under the landing path of the Ontario International Airport. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in TOP FEIR included: agriculture resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation/traffic.

In 2019, Toyota requested a Specific Plan Amendment to change the zoning of the Project site (identified as Planning Area 1 in the Specific Plan) from Office/Research & Development (Office/R&D) to Industrial Mixed Use, which would allow for both Office/R&D and warehouse/distribution/manufacturing uses on the site. The Specific Plan Amendment also updated the landscape palette to conform to current drought tolerant landscape practices, which apply to any development in the Specific Plan area. Revisions to the Specific Plan also included:
• Any graphic that showed Planning Area 1 zoning as Office/R&D was changed to Industrial Mixed Use.
• Text in the Specific Plan that referred to Office/R&D was revised to reflect the new 2261
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

designation of Industrial Mixed Use.
• Permitted Uses under Industrial Mixed Use was updated to include warehouse and distribution uses.
• Graphic and text references to Rockefeller Drive within the Specific Plan area were changed to reflect the actual street name: Toyota Way.
• The landscape palette and graphic representations of landscape were updated to reflect more drought tolerant materials.
• Specific Design Guidelines for Office/R&D district were retitled to Industrial Mixed Use.

To evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the Specific Plan Amendment, the City prepared an Addendum to TOP FEIR. The Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA 19-004 was approved in 2020 with an environmental Addendum Resolution No. 2020-063, which included the review and approval of three updated technical studies including a Traffic Trip Generation Comparison Letter, Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables, and a Cultural Resources Report.

Use of an Addendum. According to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162, requiring the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR, have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:

1. Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the Project, and Project construction and operation would not require revisions to TOP FEIR. TOP FEIR analyzed the environmental impacts that would be caused by implementation of TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The Project site is located in the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan area, with a zoning designation of Industrial Mixed Use, which would allow warehouse/distribution uses along with the Office/R&D uses. As described in the Specific Plan and, therefore, analyzed in TOP FEIR, maximum development within Planning Area 1 could be up to 300,000 square feet. The proposed Project would include 168,722 square feet of warehouse use on the site, which would be significantly less development than assumed at the site in TOP FEIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in the less development than TOP FEIR analyzed at buildout.

Because the proposed Project would result in reduction in development, compared to the site development assumptions originally included in TOP FEIR analysis, no revisions to TOP FEIR are required. A trip generation comparison was conducted by Ganddini Group, and reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineering Division, which compares trip generation at the Project site under the original zoning versus the development proposed under the Specific Plan Amendment. As shown below in Table 3, the Specific Plan Amendment zoning would result in 2,528 fewer daily personal car equivalent (PCE) trips compared to the development allowed under the prior zoning included in TOP FEIR. It should also be noted that the proposed Project would include less square footage than analyzed within the Ganddini Group trip generation comparison, so the reduction in trips would likely be greater than what was identified in Table 3.
2262
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Table 3: Trip Generation Comparison
Zoning Quantity
Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Original Zoning
(Office) 300,000 SF 299 49 348 55 290 345 2,922
Proposed
(Warehouse) 173,247 SF 35 14 49 16 36 52 394
Trip Generation Comparison
(Proposed Project – Original Zoning) -264 -35 -299 -39 -254 -293 -2,528 Source: Ganddini Group Inc, 2019.

In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP FEIR are applicable to the Project and are incorporated herein by reference. Additionally, City Standard Conditions of Approval, and Development and Performance Standards included in the Specific Plan, would be applicable to the proposed Project. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the proposed Project and verification that the Project would not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

2. Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes have not occurred that would require major revisions to TOP FEIR. TOP FEIR evaluated the Project site as Industrial with a maximum FAR of 0.55 (see attached Exhibit “A”- TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan), consistent with the surrounding industrial properties to the north, west, and south. A Specific Plan Amendment was adopted by the City Council and an Addendum to TOP FEIR was prepared and adopted in 2020. The proposed Project would result in the construction of two warehouse buildings, and associated site improvements, and would be consistent with the Industrial Mixed Use land use designation included in the Specific Plan Amendment. No proposed changes or revisions to TOP FEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP FEIR are applicable to the Project and are incorporated herein by reference. Lastly, City Standard Conditions of Approval, and Development and Performance Standards included in the Specific Plan, would be applicable to the proposed Project. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the proposed Project and verification that the Project would not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

3. Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

No new information has been provided that would indicate the proposed Project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in TOP FEIR. As stated above in Section 2, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken. TOP FEIR evaluated the site as Industrial with a maximum FAR of 0.55 (see attached Exhibit “A”- TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan), consistent with the surrounding industrial properties to the north, west, and south.

Since adoption of the 1992 General Plan and the 2010 TOP FEIR, the Project site and 2263
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

surrounding area have been planned for and remained industrial use (see attached Exhibit “B”- 1992 General Plan Land Use Map). Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to TOP FEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP FEIR are applicable to the Project and are incorporated herein by reference. Finally, City Standard Conditions of Approval, and Development and Performance Standards included in the Specific Plan, would be applicable to the proposed Project. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the proposed Project and verification that the Project would not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

CEQA Requirements for an Addendum. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the negative declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Thus, if the proposed Project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may properly adopt an addendum to TOP FEIR.
2264
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Conclusion. TOP FEIR, certified by City Council on January 27, 2010, was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA and in accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). TOP FEIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment associated with implementation of TOP. Consequently, TOP FEIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City’s Land Use Plan, and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed Project is consistent with the existing uses of the properties and uses within the surrounding areas. As described above, the amount of development associated with the proposed Project would be lower for Planning Area 1 than TOP FEIR analyzed.

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the previously certified TOP FEIR, the analysis above, the attached Initial Study, and CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOPF EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Therefore, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the Ontario City Council hereby adopts this Addendum to TOP FEIR.

9. Project Setting: The Project site is relatively flat with minimal topographic variation, with the majority of the area being developed with the warehouse building, parking lot and landscaping. The vacant area of the project site being proposed for new development is primarily covered in grass. Mature palm trees are planted at various locations along the perimeter of the site with shrubs located along the Toyota Way frontage. Existing sidewalks are located along the Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street frontages. Street lighting is also located along the perimeter of the site. A city well and structure is south of Jurupa Street immediately adjacent to the Project site; however, this area is not included within the Project site. The Project site is located in a developed, urban area of the City of Ontario, and is surrounded by business park uses, warehouses, and distribution facilities.

The Project site is located within the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which identifies the land use of the site as Industrial Mixed Use and Warehouse/Distribution. As described in the Specific Plan, which was adopted in August 1993, the purpose of the document is to assure the systematic implementation of the goals and policies contained in the Ontario General Plan. The Specific Plan contains development standards for the classifications of land use within the Project site, and addresses transportation and circulation, streetscape and landscape guidelines, and infrastructure and public services.

The proposed new industrial buildings would be located on approximately 13 acres of vacant land in the northwest corner of the Project site and bounded by Jurupa Street to the north, Toyota Way to the south and east, and Milliken Avenue to the west.

10. Surrounding Land Uses:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
Site: Warehouse,
vacant Industrial
Toyota Ontario
Business Park Specific
Plan
Industrial Mixed Use,
Warehouse/Distribution
North: Warehouse/
Distribution Industrial
California
Commerce Center
Specific Plan
Light Industrial
2265
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
South: Warehouse Industrial Entratter Industrial
Specific Plan Industrial
East: Interstate 15
Freeway
Interstate 15
Freeway
Interstate 15
Freeway
Interstate 15
Freeway
West: Office/Business
Park Industrial
California
Commerce Center
Specific Plan
Light Industrial,
Commercial/Food/Hotel

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None

12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? ☐Yes ☒ No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Completed

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been 2266
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date: November 16, 2021
Printed Name: Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner For: City of Ontario

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from the "Earlier Analyses” Section may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
2267
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. (Note: Example explanations have been provided. Add, remove, or replace as needed.) Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant 2268
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2269
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2270
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2271
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
involving wildland fires?

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2272
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2273
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
2274
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact /
No Impact
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15065(a).)
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve shortterm environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.

Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v.

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: The Policy Plan (General Plan) does not identify scenic vistas within the City. However, the Policy Plan (Policy CD1-5) requires all major require north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountain. The project site is located along Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street, both principal arterials, as identified in the Functional Roadway Classification Plan (Figure M-2) of the Mobility Element within the Policy Plan.

The proposed Project would allow for the construction of warehouses within an area that has warehouse, business park, and industrial development. While construction of the Project may block some public views to the north, intermittent views of the San Gabriel Mountains would still be available, and the Project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts with 2275
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

regard to views of the San Gabriel Mountains; no significant adverse impacts on a scenic vista would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion of Effects: The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. In addition, there are no historic buildings or any scenic resources identified on or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, it will not result in adverse environmental impacts.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Discussion of Effects: The project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The project site is located in an urban area that is characterized by industrial development and is surrounded by urban land uses. Development of the proposed Project would be required to meet policies of the TOP Community Design Element and zoning designations on the property. Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to be consistent with the design guidelines and development standards of the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan. The Project site is zoned for Industrial Mixed Use, and the Project would not conflict with regulations governing scenic quality.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: New lighting will be introduced to the site with the development of the project. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, project on-site lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site and minimize light spillage.

Furthermore, as required by the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan, a Master Lighting Plan would be submitted to the City of Ontario for review and approval. The Master Plan would contain criteria and standards governing lighting along Toyota Way, lighting within parking lots and access drives, and lighting improvements for pedestrian walkways. The Master Plan would also establish minimum illumination criteria consistent with City of Ontario policies on exterior illumination. Site lighting would be directed inward and downward, to avoid spillover of light and glare onto the adjacent freeway, nearby public streets or onto adjacent properties. 2276
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Additionally, the Project would be required to adhere to the following performance standard included in the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan:

5.11.3 Light and Glare: No lighting fixture shall create any illumination which exceeds five foot candles on adjacent parcels of land, whether such illumination is direct or indirect.

Glare levels shall be measured with a photoelectric photometer following standard spectral luminous efficiency curves adopted by the International Commission of Illumination.

Site lighting plans are subject to review by the Planning Department and Ontario Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance); no significant adverse impacts would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: The proposed development site is presently vacant and does not contain any agricultural uses. Further, the site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project site zoned is Industrial Mixed Use (Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the development standards and allowed land uses of the proposed zone.

Furthermore, there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 2277
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Discussion of Effects: Impacts to forest land were not analyzed in TOP FEIR, but this topic has since been included as part of the revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines. The Project site is zoned Industrial Mixed Use. Development of the proposed Project would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production as those land use designations do not exist within the City of Ontario. No impacts to forest or timberland would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact would occur and no further analysis of impacts to forest resources or timberland is required in TOP FEIR; no changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion of Effects: There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g). Neither The Ontario Plan nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur and no further analysis of impacts to forest resources is required in TOP FEIR; no changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: Construction of the proposed Project would not result in changes to the existing environment that would result in the loss of farmland. While conversion of farmland increases the potential for adjacent areas to also be converted from farmland to urban uses, there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site; the Project does not directly or indirectly result in conversion of farmland. No new cumulative impacts beyond those identified in the Certified TOP FEIR would result from Project construction. As a result, the Project would not result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Additionally, there is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. The proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation is required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, TOP would not be consistent with the South 2278
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the City of Ontario would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Furthermore, buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would exceed estimates of population, employment, and VMT for Ontario; these emissions are not included in the regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB used for the analysis within TOP FEIR. Therefore TOP was considered inconsistent with the AQMP resulting in a significant unavoidable impact.

Because the proposed Project would result in a decrease in the amount of development than was anticipated at the Project site under TOP FEIR, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not increase the identified significant air quality impact associated with implementation of TOP
Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, both construction and operational air quality impacts associated with implementation of TOP Land Use Plan were deemed to be significant.

Mitigation measures were identified, but the impacts were still considered significant and unavoidable. These mitigation measures are applicable to the proposed Project, and are included below:
3-1: The City of Ontario Building Department shall require that all new construction projects incorporate all feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Requiring fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
• Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. • Applying water every four hours to active soil-disturbing activities. • Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf. 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

Because the proposed Project would result in a decrease in the amount of development anticipated at the Project site compared to what was assumed in TOP FEIR, construction and 2279
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

operation of the proposed Project would not increase the anticipated air quality impacts identified within TOP FEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary. c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, eight high vehicle count intersections were evaluated for CO emissions, and it was determined that sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly adversely affected by CO emissions generated at buildout of the Land Use Plan.

Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions were identified as being less than significant.

In addition, as noted in TOP FEIR, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) developed and approved the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in May 2005 to address the siting of sensitive land uses in the vicinity of freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome-plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline-dispensing facilities. This guidance document was developed to assess compatibility and associated health risks when placing sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources.

As detailed in TOP FEIR Table 5.3-9, CARB provides the following recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses for distributions centers:
• Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).
• Take into account the configuration of existing distribution centers and avoid locating residences and other sensitive land uses near entry and exit points.

The Project site is located within an industrial area, and is not located in close proximity to any sensitive receptors.

The proposed warehouse would not be located within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor, and is not anticipated to generate 100 truck trips per day; the trip generation analysis provided by Ganddini Group estimated 61 truck trips per day. The proposed Project would not place sensitive receptors near existing pollution sources. Therefore, impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would not occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, construction activity would require the operation of equipment that may generate exhaust from either gasoline or diesel fuel.

Construction and development would also require the application of paints and the paving of roads, which could generate odors from materials such as paints and asphalt. As these odors are short-term in nature and quickly disperse into the atmosphere, this is not considered significant.

Additionally, commercial, industrial, and residential projects, associated with implantation of TOP are also required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrence of public nuisances.

As a result, Project-related odors are required to avoid the creation of a public nuisance. Odorous emissions attributable to implementation of TOP are not considered a significant adverse impact to air quality.
2280
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within an urbanized area, characterized by industrial development, and lacks native habitat. However, the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) has identified the Project vicinity as an area where the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) is known to currently or to have at one time existed. Because the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly requires a specific habitat type, this species requires site specific considerations, protection and enhancement of its limited habitat type, and species specific management to maintain the habitat and populations. To avoid potential impacts to this species, the proposed Project conducted pre-construction surveys for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly to determine if the species or its habitat are currently located on the Project site.

The pre-construction surveys of the site determined that there is currently no extant habitat for the species nor were any individuals of the species observed on the Project site. Therefore, impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species will not occur as a result of the proposed Project.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within an urbanized area and lacks native habitat.

According to the United States National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), no riparian habitat is found within the Project site. Therefore, no significant impact would occur to riparian or other sensitive natural communities as a result of construction and operation of the proposed Project.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. 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? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within an urbanized area and lacks any wetlands.

According to the United States National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), no wetlands occur within the Project site; no significant wetlands impact would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. 2281
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, and most of the City is ill-suited for the purposes of wildlife movement. Furthermore, the Project site is within an urban area with industrial uses and is bounded on all sides by development. As a result, there are no wildlife corridors connecting this site to other areas. Therefore, no significant wildlife corridor impacts would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP EIR, while the City of Ontario does not have any municipal ordinances for the protection of trees on private property, Municipal Code Sections 10-

1.25 and 10-2.05 prohibit the damaging or destruction of trees on City property, except under conditions specified in the Municipal Code. Additionally, TOP Policy ER5-2 notes that the City will comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protection biological resources.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is vacant and does not contain any buildings or structures constructed more than 50 years ago (generally, structures need to be at least 50 years or older to be considered historical resources). As such, there are no structures onsite eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.

A Cultural Resources Records Search was conducted on July 16, 2019 at the California Historic Resource Inventory System at the South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRISSCCIC). The records search indicated that there are no cultural resources (prehistoric, historic, or built environments) recorded within the Project boundaries. There was one historic resource (CASBR-008857H) located within a one-half mile radius of the Project site. The historic resource is a section of the Southern California Edison Company’s Lugo-Mira No. 1 500kv Transmission Line. The 2282
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

transmission line was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP) under Criteria A and C, and therefore, is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources. However, this historic resource would not be impacted (directly or indirectly) by the proposed Project. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, a records review at the Archaeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) indicated no known prehistoric archaeological resources in the City of Ontario; however, only about 10 percent of the City has been adequately surveyed for prehistoric or historic archaeology. Figure 5.5-2 of TOP FEIR shows that the Project site has not been surveyed for archeological resources. The CHRIS-SCCIC records search, noted in subsection “a” above, did not identify prehistoric, historic, or historic built environments within or adjacent to the Project boundaries. Additionally, an NAHC Sacred Lands File search failed to indicate archaeological resources or artifacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) within the Project site.

The Project site has been highly disturbed by modern human activities including agricultural use from the 1940’s through the 1960’s and the development and construction of the Toyota Motors North American Parts Center and supporting infrastructure that would have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources. The proposed Project would not impact cultural (prehistoric, historic, or historic built environments) resources and no mitigation measures are recommended.

While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at the site due to its urbanized nature, the following City Standard Conditions of Approval would be applied should unanticipated archaeological resources be discovered during excavation or construction:

5.2 If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during Project grading, excavation, or construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project is located in an area that has been previously disturbed by human activity. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the Project area, and human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction activities. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. Furthermore, the following City Standard Conditions of Approval would be applied in the event of unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation and construction activities:
2283
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

5.1 If human remains are found during Project grading, excavation, or construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been completed (if deemed applicable).

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: Energy was not analyzed in TOP FEIR, but was included as part of the 2019 revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the Project site and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation. A detailed discussion is provided below:

Electricity
Construction. Temporary electric power would be required for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by the construction crew. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

Operation. Operation of the proposed Project would require electricity for multiple purposes, such as: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Although electricity consumption would increase at the site under implementation of the proposed Project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. The Project would also be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in the CALGreen Code. In addition, the Project would implement additional measures, as detailed in the GHG reduction measures screening table, which would further reduce electricity consumption. For these reasons, the electricity that would be consumed by the Project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction. Natural gas consumption is not anticipated during construction of the Project. Fuels used for construction would generally consists of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed in the next subsection. Any amounts of natural gas that may be consumed during Project construction would be nominal and would have a negligible contribution to the Project’s overall energy consumption.

Operational. The operational phase of the proposed Project would require natural gas consumption for various purposes, such as building heating and cooling. While natural gas consumption would increase at the site with construction of the proposed Project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. The Project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in the CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the natural gas that would be consumed by the Project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
2284
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Diesel and Gasoline Fuel
Construction. Diesel and gasoline fuels, also referred to as petroleum in this subsection, would be consumed throughout construction of the Proposed Project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed over the course of construction, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries to the site) and worker trips to and from the site would also result in petroleum consumption. Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasolinepowered vehicles. Construction-related vehicles would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes.

Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and required to conduct development activities, it would not be wasteful or inefficient, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational. Fuel consumption associated with development pursuant to the proposed Project’s operational phase would primarily be attributable to workers commuting to and from the Project and the operation of large, diesel-powered trucks (e.g., semi-trucks) needed to transport goods. Over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the employees is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation is anticipated to decrease over time. Operation of the Project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to advances in fuel economy. Although the proposed Project would increase petroleum use in the region during construction and operation, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. As such, petroleum consumption associated with the Project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation: The Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Title 24 Building Code contains energy efficiency standards for nonresidential buildings. These standards address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption. As described above, the Project would be required to comply with the 2019 CALGreen standards, and would implement additional measures identified in the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table for Commercial and Industrial Development. Given the above, the proposed Project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: The Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

7. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other 2285
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication

42. Discussion of Effects: There are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The Ontario Plan FEIR (Section 5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City.

Given that the closest fault zone is located more than ten miles from the project site, fault rupture within the project area is not likely. All development will comply with the Uniform Building Code seismic design standards to reduce geologic hazard susceptibility. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: There are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The Land Use Plan (Figure LU-6) of the Policy Plan (General Plan) FEIR (Section 5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The closest fault zone is located more than ten miles from the project site. The proximity of the site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will be in compliance with the California Building Code, the Ontario Municipal Code, The Ontario Plan and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: As identified in the TOP FEIR (Section 5.7), groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. Depth to ground water at the project site during the winter months is estimated to be between 250 to 450 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal.

Implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code and Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
iv. Landslides?
Discussion of Effects: The project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides because the relatively flat topography of the project site (less than 2 percent slope across the city) makes the chance of landslides remote. Implementation of The Ontario Plan strategies, Uniform Building Code and Ontario Municipal Code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 2286
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. However, the following City Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce the potential for substantial erosion:

3.67 Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall specifically identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented on the Project during construction, to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system.

Compliance with the California Building Code, review of grading plans, and approval and implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan by the Engineering Department would ensure no significant erosion impacts occur. Implementation of a NPDES program, the Environmental Resource Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) strategies, California Building Code, and Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion of Effects: Please see Section 7.a.iii for a discussion of liquefaction and Section

7.a.iv for a discussion of landslides.

Lateral spreading is a form of horizontal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other “free” face, such as an excavation boundary. Lateral spreading may also occur where open banks and unsupported cut slopes provide a free face. Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement, and most often results from human activities such as the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater. Effects of subsidence include fissures, sinkholes, depressions, and disruption of surface drainage.

As described in TOP FEIR, projects developed pursuant to TOP would be required to meet the most current seismic safety requirements in the California Building Code (CBC). Chapter 16 of the CBC contains requirements for design and construction of structures to resist loads, including earthquake loads. Chapter 18 contains requirements for excavation, grading, and fill; loadbearing values of soils; and foundations, footings, and piles. Compliance with those requirements would ensure that there would not be substantial impacts related to ground shaking, liquefaction, or seismic settlement. TOP Policy S1-1 would require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading. Implementation of TOP strategies, California Building Code, and Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 2287
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Discussion of Effects: Soils containing expansive clay minerals can shrink or swell substantially as the moisture content decreases or increases. Structures built on these soils may experience shifting, cracking, and breaking damage as soils shrink and subside or expand.

As described in TOP FEIR, expansive soils are likely in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Near-surface soils in the northern and central parts of the City are primarily granular, that is, silty sand, sand, and gravel; such sediments are usually nonexpansive or have very low expansion potential. Projects in the southern part of the City considered for approval under TOP could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion of Effects: The Project area is served by the local sewer system and the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems is not proposed.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
g.

Discussion of Effects: A paleontological resources records search prepared for the Project site commissioned through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) did not identify previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities or unique geological features within the Project Site or within a one-mile radius. There are two previously recorded fossil localities (LACM 7811: Masticophis and LACM 1207: Odocoileus) located within a five-mile radius of the Project site that were discovered within the same sedimentary deposits at depths that extends into the Project area. The results of the literature review and the search at the NHMLAC indicated that the Project site has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north or as dune sands. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain by older sedimentary materials at estimated depths greater than 9 feet. Therefore, MIG concluded that the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to paleontological resources or unique geological features, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

While no paleontological resources are anticipated on the Project site, the following City Standard Conditions of Approval would be applied should unanticipated paleontological resources be uncovered during excavation and construction activities:

5.2: If any archeological or paleontological resources are found during Project grading, excavation, or construction, the area shall not be disturbed until the significance of the resource is determined. If determined to be significant, the resource shall be recovered by 2288
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

a qualified archeologist or paleontologist consistent with current standards and guidelines, or other appropriate measures implemented.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The impact of buildout of The Ontario Plan on the environment due to the emission of greenhouse gases (“GHGs”) was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Policy Plan (General Plan). According to the EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Re-circulated Portions of the Ontario Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, p. 2-118.) This EIR was certified by the City on January 27, 2010, at which time a statement of overriding considerations was also adopted for The Ontario Plan’s significant and unavoidable impacts, including that concerning the emission of greenhouse gases.

The Project applicant has prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table for Commercial and Industrial Development, which identifies the GHG reduction measures that have been incorporated into the Project. As noted in the instructions for completing the table, the Screening Table assigns points for each option incorporated into a project as mitigation or a project design feature. The point values correspond to the minimum emissions reduction expected from each feature. The menu of features allows maximum flexibility and options for how development projects can implement the GHG reduction measures. The point levels are based upon improvements compared to 2008 emission levels of efficiency. Projects that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City's CAP. As such, those projects that garner a total of 100 points or greater would not require quantification of project specific GHG emissions. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines, such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions
As shown in the Project GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table, the Project garners a total of 103 points, and is therefore consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP.

Therefore, quantification of Project-specific GHG emissions is not required and the Project GHG impact is considered less than significant. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

Mitigation Required: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project is consistent with The Ontario Plan Goal ER 4 of improving air quality by, among other things, implementation of Policy ER4-3, regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations.

In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the policies outlined in Section 5.6.4 of the Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan, which aims to reduce the City’s contribution of greenhouse gas emissions at build-out by fifteen (15%), because the project is upholding the applicable City’s adopted mitigation measures as represented in 6-1 through 6-6. Therefore, the 2289
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

proposed project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

As described in more detail in Section 8.a (above), the proposed Project includes enough GHG reduction features to be considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation developed to reduce GHG emissions
Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion of Effects: Construction of the proposed Project would likely involve the use and disposal of chemical agents, solvents, paints, and other hazardous materials associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals typically present during construction would be limited, would be in compliance with existing government regulations, and would not be considered a significant hazard.

It is possible that activities associated with operation of the proposed Project would involve transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. As described in TOP FEIR, current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP policies would regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential releases; exposure; and risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous waste transport, use, and/or disposal that would occur would be less than significant with adherence to the existing regulations.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Discussion of Effects: Operation of the proposed Project may involve the transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials. With existing federal, State and local regulation and oversight of hazardous materials, the risk to the public or the environment from upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be a less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project is a warehouse facility, and is not anticipated to generate or emit hazardous emissions or materials as part of its regular operations. It is possible that the facility could store hazardous materials. However, as described in TOP FEIR, current federal 2290
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP policies would regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential releases; exposure; and risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. Any hazardous waste transport, use, and/or disposal that would occur with operation of the Project would be less than significant with adherence to the existing regulations.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project site is not listed on the hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment and no impact is anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. For a project located within the safety zone of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT or Chino Airports, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project was reviewed and found to be located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport (ONT). An airport influence area includes areas in which current or future airport-related safety, noise, airspace protection, or overflight factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses. The entirety of the City of Ontario is within the ONT influence area. The Project site is located within the ONT airport influence area but outside the airport safety zones. The Project site lies outside the boundaries of the Chino Airport Influence Area.

The Project was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for ONT. The Project is required to file and record an Avigation Easement with the Ontario International Airport Authority prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Any potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion of Effects: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: None required.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not include any changes to surrounding 2291
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

roadways. The City's Safety Element, as included within TOP, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access.

Because the Project will comply with all applicable City codes, any impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. h. 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?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located within an urban industrial area and does not include any changes to roadways. Additionally, according to CalFire mapping, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA), nor is it located in or near lands identified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The closest FHSZ is approximately three miles from the Project site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR; no significant wildland fire impact would occur.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? Discussion of Effects: The project site is served by City water and sewer service and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing, waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work) areas could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids, trash and debris, oil and grease, organic compounds, pesticides, nutrients, heavy metals and bacteria pathogens in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is required to comply with the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Industrial Activities Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code (Title 6, Chapter 6 (Stormwater Drainage System)). This would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance.

Additionally, the Project applicant would be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would establish the site’s compliance with storm water discharge and water quality management requirements. The WQMP will include site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment and evapotranspiration. Furthermore, prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be approved by the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will specifically identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented on the Project during construction, to 2292
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system.

Adherence to federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP policies would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Discussion of Effects: No increases in the current amount of water flow to the project site are anticipated, and the proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge. The water use associated with the proposed use of the property will be negligible. The development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation is expected to be less than three feet and would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 230 to 250 feet below the ground surface.

As described in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, the Chino Basin is the City’s main source of water supply. Chino Basin encompasses about 235 square miles of the upper Santa Ana River watershed and lies within portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles counties. The Chino Basin has approximately 5 to 7 million acre feet of water in storage, and an estimated 1 million acre‐feet of additional unused storage capacity.

TOP FEIR assumed development on the Project site would be an industrial use. The proposed Project includes warehouse uses, which would generally have a lower water demand than Office/Research & Development (Office/R&D), which was the prior zoning of the Project site.

Therefore, this would result in a decrease in demand on groundwater supplies compared to what was evaluated within the TOP FEIR.

While construction of the proposed Project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces, which would decrease the amount of groundwater recharge that occurs on the Project site, given the total size of the Chino Basin, this decrease in pervious surface would not be considered to interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm or potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently undeveloped, and construction of the proposed Project would change the existing drainage pattern of the Project site. However, the Project applicant would be required to submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which would be approved by the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would specifically identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented on the Project site during construction to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City's storm drain system. Furthermore, stormwater generated by the Project would be discharged 2293
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

in compliance with the statewide NPDES Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements. Implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. No streams or streambeds are present on the site.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site or potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm? Discussion of Effects: For Building A, runoff from the east portion of the site, along with the northerly landscaped area, would be conveyed through storm drain Line A. Runoff from the west half of the site along with the parking lot to the south of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line B. These storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the central portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume, as well as mitigate discharge to existing conditions for the project site. The system would have a footprint of approximately 54-feet by 160-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line A, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way.

For Building B, runoff from the area to the north of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line C. Runoff from the area to the south of the site would be conveyed through storm drain Line D. The proposed storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the southwest portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume. The system would have a footprint of approximately 24-feet by 105-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line D and release in Line E, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way. On- or off-site flooding impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (a&b) during construction and/or post-construction activity?
Discussion of Effects: Please see Section 10.b.ii for a discussion of on-site storm drainage facilities. The proposed Project’s underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume as well as mitigate discharge to existing conditions for the Project site.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality or potential for discharge of storm water to 2294
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

affect the beneficial uses of receiving water?
Discussion of Effects: Activities associated with the construction period, could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is required to comply with the statewide NPDES General Construction Permit and the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code (Title 6, Chapter 6 (Stormwater Drainage System)) to minimize water pollution. Thus it is anticipated that there is no potential for discharges of stormwater during construction that will affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. However, with the General Construction Permit requirement and implementation of the policies in The Ontario Plan, any impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Discussion of Effects: The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area, structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: As identified in the Safety Element (Exhibit S-2) of the Policy Plan (General Plan), the site lies outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Discussion of Effects: As identified in the Safety Element (Exhibit S-2) of The Ontario Plan, the site lies outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. No levees or dams are located near the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. j. Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? Discussion of Effects: Impacts associated with flooding are primarily related to the construction or placement of structures in areas prone to flooding including within an unprotected 100-year flood zone, and in areas susceptible to high tides, tsunamis, seiches, mudflows or sea level rise. According to FEMA mapping, the Project site is not located in a known floodplain. No 2295
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

wetlands have been mapped on the Project site according to the NWI. The Project site is located over 60 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not located in a mapped tsunami zone. Additionally, the Project site is not next to a large body of water. Therefore, the Project would not have a significant risk of flood hazard, tsunami, seiche zones.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The Project site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. This Project would be of similar design and size to surrounding development, and would not change any public roadways. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plan, airport land use compatibility plan, specific plan, or development code) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project is consistent with The Ontario Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: There are no adopted habitat conservation plans in the project area.

As such no conflicts or impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: None required.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Discussion of Effects: As shown in Figure 5.11-1 of TOP FEIR, the Project site is located within an area identified as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). As described in TOP FEIR, a designation of MRZ-3 indicates the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data.

The Project site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses 2296
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

and, as noted in TOP FEIR, development in a MRZ-3 would not result in significant impacts as mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified in the California Geological Survey PC maps. Therefore, this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not identified as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and there are no known mineral resources on the Project site. No mineral resource impacts would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Discussion of Effects: Construction Noise. As described in TOP FEIR, there are two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction. First, the transport of workers and movement of materials to and from the site could incrementally increase noise levels along local access roads. However, the amount of construction traffic is typically small in relation to the total daily traffic volumes on those roadway segments.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to demolition, site preparation, grading, and/or physical construction. Construction is performed in distinct steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. However, despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

Construction of individual developments associated with buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would temporally increase the ambient noise environment. However, the City of Ontario restricts the hours of construction activities to the least noise-sensitive portions of the day. According to the Municipal Code, construction activities are restricted to the weekday hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday and Sunday. However, construction activities may occur outside of these hours if the City determines that the maintenance, repair, or improvement is necessary to maintain public services or cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, or if construction activities comply with the stationary source noise standards of the Municipal Code (see Table 5.12-4 of TOP FEIR). Because construction activities associated with any individual development may occur near noise-sensitive receptors and noise disturbances may occur for prolonged periods of time, construction noise impacts from buildout of the Land Use Plan are considered significant.

The Project site is identified as industrial use in TOP Land Use Plan. The industrial land use designation is generally not considered a noise sensitive land use. The Project is located in an industrial area and there are no noise-sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity that may be disturbed by construction of the proposed Project. In addition, the following mitigation measure from TOP FEIR would be applicable:
2297
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Mitigation Measures 12-4: Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts. Mitigation measures such as installation of temporary sound barriers for adjacent construction activities that occur adjacent to occupied noise-sensitive structures, equipping construction equipment with mufflers, and reducing nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five minutes shall be incorporated into the construction operations to reduce construction-related noise to the extent feasible.

Operational Noise. As described in TOP FEIR, the northeastern portion of the City of Ontario is characterized by industrial warehousing operations. In addition to on-site mechanical equipment, warehousing and industrial land uses generate substantial truck traffic that results in additional sources of noise on local roadways in the vicinity of industrial operations.

The City of Ontario regulates noise sources within the City through the City’s Municipal Code (Title 5, Chapter 29, Noise). The City of Ontario Municipal Code has established noise standards for stationary source noise levels, as shown in Table 5.12-4 of TOP FEIR, City of Ontario Maximum Permissible Exterior Noise Levels, at various categories of land uses in the City. The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards to non-transportation noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor.

Industrial noise is less intermittent and can have moderate to high levels on a continual basis. TOP proposes 159,998,711 square feet of industrial land uses at buildout. As shown in Figure 3-6 for TOP FEIR, proposed industrial areas are centered around the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and Chino Airport. In general, new industrial areas would be buffered by business park uses or located around existing major noise sources that would mask most industrial noise (e.g., freeways, Chino Airport, ONT). The siting of new industrial developments may increase noise levels to nearby uses. This can be due to the continual presence of heavy trucks used for the pick-up and delivery of goods and supplies, or from the use of noisy equipment used in the manufacturing or machining process. While vehicle noise on public roadways is exempt from local regulation, for the purposes of the planning process, it may be regulated as a stationary-source noise while operating on private property. To regulate stationary-source noise created by industrial machinery and tools from affecting sensitive land uses, the City of Ontario requires industrial operations to limit noise to no greater than the maximum allowable noise levels as described in the Noise Ordinance.

As shown in TOP FEIR Figure 5.12-6, future noise levels from surface transportation are expected to be between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL, depending on the location within the Project site.

Part of the Project site would be expected to experience a 3 to 4 dBA CNEL increase associated with buildout of TOP land use plan.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Title 5, Chapter 29, Noise). Compliance with the noise ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result less than significant noise impacts from stationary sources.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion of Effects: The Proposed Project would involve a warehouse use, and excessive 2298
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels are not anticipated with operation of the Project.

Groundborne vibration may occur as part of the construction of the proposed Project. As described in TOP FEIR, 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. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor-building construction. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight structural damage at the highest levels.

The Project site is located within an industrial area, and there are no noise-sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity. As specific construction equipment use is not known at this time, the following mitigation measure included in TOP FEIR would be applicable to the Project site, and reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measures 12-2: Individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers, occurring near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. If construction-related vibration is determined to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses (i.e., exceed the Federal Transit Administration vibration-annoyance criteria of 78 VdB during the daytime), additional requirements, such as use of less vibration intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., drilled piles to eliminate use of vibration-intensive pile driver).

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion of Effects: The project will not be a significant noise generator and will not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels because of the limited size and scope of the project. Moreover, the proposed use will be required to operate within the noise levels permitted for commercial development, pursuant to City of Ontario Development Code.

Therefore, no increases in noise levels within the vicinity of the project are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion of Effects: Temporary construction activities will minimally impact ambient noise levels. All construction machinery will be maintained according to industry standards to help minimize the impacts. Normal activities associated with the project are unlikely to increase ambient noise levels.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. 2299
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

e. For a project located within the noise impact zones of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT and Chino Airports, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion of Effects: According to the Safety Element in The Ontario Plan, the proposed site is located within the airport land use plan. However, the project is located outside of the 65CNEL noise contour. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: None required.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion of Effects: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial 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)?
Discussion of Effects: This proposed Project includes construction of two warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. The Project does not include new housing or a large employment generator, which could directly induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Additionally, the proposed Project does not include the expansion of infrastructure, which could indirectly cause unplanned population growth. No population growth impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently vacant and does not include any housing units. Construction of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing; no impact would occur.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: The project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 2300
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: The Ontario Fire Department provides fire service to the Project site. The Ontario Fire Department has ten fire stations, including the Ontario International Airport (ONT) fire station. These fire stations house nine 4-person paramedic engine companies, three 4- person truck companies, an 8-person ARFF station, one fire investigation supervisor, and two battalion chiefs. The closest fire station to the Project site is Ontario Fire Department Station 7, located at 4901 Vanderbilt Street, which is approximately one mile from the Project site.

In 2020, the Ontario Fire Department responded to over 20,000 calls for service, approximately 55 calls per day, ranging from medical emergencies to a traffic collisions to large commercial fires. Ontario Fire Department has 221 personnel comprised of 182 sworn firefighters and 39 professional staff members serving our community across five bureaus – Operations, Fire Prevention, Support Services/Airport Operations, EMS, and Administrative Services.

As described in TOP FEIR, firefighter staffing needs are determined by the Ontario Fire Department by the number of calls and requests for fire services within the service area. The Fire Department also reviews service contracts with the California Department of Forestry to ensure fire services in times of emergency. To ensure the provision of adequate fire protection services, the City of Ontario has established a Development Impact Fee Program to provide funding for services within the City. Fees collected from developers are placed in a fire services fund that can be expended for the acquisition or construction of new fire services facilities and for the improvement or expansion of the City’s existing fire service capabilities, provided that such expenditure from the fund has been authorized by the City Council. The Project applicant would be required to pay all appropriate fire service development fees.

Additionally, as described in detail in TOP FEIR, future growth in accordance with TOP is expected to increase the demand for fire services throughout the city but especially in the New Model Colony (NMC). The Development Impact Fee and Nexus Schedule (2005) recommends that two new stations would be built in the Old Model Colony (OMC) to replace stations number 3 and 7 and that four new stations be built in the NMC. The funding needed to build these stations has been assessed and incorporated into the fee schedule and it would be adequate for the proposed development and relocation of stations. Various localized environmental impacts related to construction of new fire stations could occur; however environmental review would occur once site specific plans have been developed.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary. ii. Police protection?
Discussion of Effects: The Ontario Police Department is a full-service police agency providing a wide range of crime suppression, education, and prevention services to the community. The Ontario Police Department has three main service bureaus: the Uniform Bureau, 2301
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Investigations Bureau, and Service Bureau. Within these bureaus, the department comprises the Police Administration, Air Support Unit, Community Oriented Problem Solving unit, Special Weapons and Tactics Team, Traffic Division, Communications Division, Investigation Division, and Crime Prevention Division.

The Ontario Police Department has implemented a geographical based policing program. As part of this “Geo-Policing” program, the city has been divided into three geographical areas: West, East, and South. Each area has an assigned Lieutenant as Area Commander. The Area Commander is responsible for the delivery of police services in their area of control with an emphasis on the preservation and improvement of the quality of life, safety, and economic value of those who live and do business in the city. Each area has dedicated teams of officers and corporals, headed by police sergeants, who work day-to-day (24/7) patrol operations; traffic officers; Community Oriented Problem Solving (C.O.P.S.) officers, who work special projects; narcotics investigators; and detectives. The Project site is located within the East Area Command.

As described in TOP FEIR, buildout of TOP would result in an increase in demand for police protection services within the City. New facilities, equipment, and personnel may be necessary to maintain adequate levels of service. Development within the City would be subject to development impact fees that would pay for police services. The police services required to cover the new development and population growth for the City of Ontario would be assessed and acquired appropriately based on the needs of the City. The police services would receive adequate funding through the City’s general fund to cover Project needs.

Buildout of TOP would result in an impact on the Ontario Police Department and their ability to deliver police services in a timely manner. Buildout of TOP would require the hiring of new staff and the building of new facilities. Environmental impacts would result from the construction of these facilities and each project would have to complete environmental review under CEQA.

Various localized environmental impacts related to construction of new police facilities could occur; however environmental review would occur once site specific plans have been developed and potential environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation and compliance with existing regulations.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
iii. Schools?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not include residential uses and is not expected to directly increase demand for school services. The proposed Project would be required to pay applicable development impact fees to the Cucamonga School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District, which provide school services to the Project site and surrounding area. Currently, the Cucamonga School District collects a development fee of $0.228 per square foot of Industrial/Warehouse/Manufacturing Use. Based on a revenue sharing agreement, the Chaffey Joint Union High School District receives approximately 31 percent of the school impact fee collected. Payment of school impact fees, as allowed by Government Code 65996, are meant to offset increased student enrollment and has been deemed by the State legislature (per Government Code Section 65995(h)) to constitute full and complete mitigation of impacts of a development project on the provision of adequate school facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered 2302
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
iv. Parks?
Discussion of Effects: This proposed Project includes construction of two warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. The Project does not include new housing or a large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion of Effects: This proposed Project includes construction of two warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. The Project does not include new housing or a large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of public facilities, such as libraries; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. 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? Discussion of Effects: This proposed Project includes construction of two warehouse buildings and associated site improvements. The Project does not include new housing or a large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion of Effects: The Project does not include construction of recreational facilities.

Additionally, the Project is not proposing any new housing or a large employment generator that would require the construction or expansion neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
2303
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited?
Discussion of Effects: The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements existing. The number of vehicle trips per day is not expected to be increased as a result of this Project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion of Effects: TOP FEIR concluded that trips generated as a result of buildout TOP Land Use Plan would cause a deficient level of service (LOS) for existing area intersections without implementation of the recommended lane geometry improvements. In addition, buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would also cumulatively contribute to the cumulatively significant freeway level of service impact that is already projected to occur in the future. TOP FEIR Mitigation Measure 16-1 includes development of more enhanced intersections throughout the City, as identified in Table

5.16-6 of TOP FEIR, and construction of additional turn and through lanes. As further described in TOP FEIR, implementation of these improvements would result in LOS E or above at all intersections during both AM and PM peak hours. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts to local roadways would be less than significant. However, buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would result in additional traffic volume that would significantly cumulatively contribute to mainline freeway segment impacts. The City’s development impact fees cannot be used for improvements to roadway facilities under the sole jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), such as freeway mainline segments, and the City cannot widen the freeway itself.

Consequently, impacts to freeway segments within the City were identified as significant and unavoidable.

As described in more detail in Section 17.b, below, the proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer trips than the original zoning of the site, which was incorporated in TOP FEIR. The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered consistent with and less than the traffic impacts projected and analyzed in TOP FEIR. The proposed Project would not create an increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion at intersections than has already been evaluated in TOP FEIR.

As described in TOP FEIR, the Mobility Element would introduce and implement various strategies and approaches to accommodate multiple modes of travel. The plan accounts for improvements and enhancements to roadways (for passenger cars, trucks, buses, and bicycles), rail lines (for freight and passenger rail), and trails and walkways (for bicycles and pedestrians).

The strategies and approaches to improvements to public transit and nonmotorized transportation would ensure that this impact would be less than significant. Construction of the proposed Project would not impede implementation of the strategies identified in the Mobility Element, and the impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a 2304
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Discussion of Effects: The project will not create a substantial safety risk or interfere with air traffic patterns at Ontario International Airport as it is under such height restrictions. No impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Discussion of Effects: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) has been included in the 2018 CEQA Guidelines update as part of the implementation of SB 743, which requires local jurisdictions use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS) methodologies for the purpose of determining the significance of traffic impacts under CEQA. As part of the implementation of SB 743, local jurisdiction were given until July 1, 2020 to develop and implement thresholds of significance criteria and methodologies for evaluating VMT under the new SB 743 requirements. TOP FEIR was certified prior to adoption of SB 743. As such, the analysis of traffic impacts within TOP FEIR is based on Level of Service (LOS) methodologies, not Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). As TOP FEIR relies on LOS for the analysis of the transportation impacts, this Addendum also includes a discussion of LOS.

TOP FEIR concluded that trips generated as a result of buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would cause a deficient LOS for the existing area intersections without implementation of the recommended lane geometry improvements. In addition, buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would also cumulatively contribute to the cumulatively significant freeway level of service impact that were projected to occur in the future. TOP FEIR Mitigation Measure 16-1 includes development of more enhanced intersections throughout the City, as identified in Table 5.16-6 of the TOP FEIR, and construction of additional turn and through lanes. As further described in TOP FEIR, implementation of these improvements would result in LOS E or above at all intersections during both AM and PM peak hours. Under the City’s development impact fee program, project applicants for new developments can either contribute their fair share toward traffic improvements or make the improvements as part of the project. Additionally, the City of Ontario has a Capital Improvement Program that details the implementation of regional improvements. With implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts to local roadways would be less than significant. However, buildout of TOP Land Use Plan would result in additional traffic volume that would significantly cumulatively contribute to mainline freeway segment impacts. The City’s development impact fees cannot be used for improvements to roadway facilities under Caltrans’ sole jurisdiction, such as freeway mainline segments, and the City cannot widen the freeway itself. Consequently, impacts to freeway segments within the City were identified as significant and unavoidable.

TOP FEIR analysis assumed that the Project site would have an Industrial land use. The Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan identified the site as having a maximum development potential of 300,000 square feet. The Specific Plan Amendment to the Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in 2020 changed the zoning of the site from Office/Research & Development (Office/R&D) to Industrial Mixed Use. The proposed Project includes development of two warehouse buildings totaling 168,772 square feet, which includes approximately 15,000 square feet of office space and approximately 153,772 square feet of warehouse space.

To evaluate the potential change in trips associated with the Specific Plan Amendment for the Project site, Ganddini evaluated the trip generation associated with the original Office/Research and Development zoning designation, as well as the development for the Specific Plan Amendment. It should be noted that for the Specific Plan Amendment development 2305
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

analysis, the Ganddini Group evaluated a development scenario that was slightly larger (approximately 4,475 square feet) than what the Project proposes. As shown in Table 5, the Proposed Project would result in a reduction in the number of trips generated on the Project site compared to the prior zoning designation.

Table 5: Trip Generation Comparison
Zoning Quantity
Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Original Zoning (Office) 300,000 SF 299 49 348 55 290 345 2,922 Proposed (Warehouse) 173,247 SF(A) 35 14 49 16 36 52 394 Trip Generation Comparison
(Proposed – Original) -264 -35 -299 -39 -254 -293 -2,528 Source: Ganddini Group Inc, 2019.
(A) While the proposed Project includes 168,772 square feet of floor area, the Ganddini report analyzed impacts from 173,247 square feet of floor area.

The proposed Project is forecast to generate fewer trips than the original zoning of the site.

The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project would be considered consistent with and less than the traffic impacts projected and analyzed with TOP FEIR. The proposed Project would not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume or congestion at intersections than has already been evaluated within the FEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion of Effects: The Project is in an area that is mostly developed, and no alterations are proposed for adjacent intersections or arterials. The Project would not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature; this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. f. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would not include any changes to adjacent roadways. Additionally, development of the proposed Project includes fire lanes and would provide access for all emergency vehicles. The proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to inadequate emergency access.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. g. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Discussion of Effects: The project is required to meet parking standards established by the Ontario Development Code and will therefore not create an inadequate parking capacity. No impacts are anticipated.
2306
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. h. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion of Effects: The project does not conflict with any transportation policies, plans or programs. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: None required.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: The results of the records research compiled from the CHRIS-SCCIC, the Scared Lands File Search (commissioned through the NAHC) failed to indicate known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) within the Project boundaries or within a one-mile radius of the Project area as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC): 210741, 5020.1(k), or 5024.

Moreover, there was no indication of known TCRs within the Project site or within a onemile radius of the Project Area. In compliance with AB 52, it is the responsibility of the Public Agency (e.g. Lead Agency) to consult with Native American tribes early in the CEQA process to allow tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the appropriate level of environment review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process (see PRC Section 2108.3.2). Specifically, government-to-government consultation may provide “tribal knowledge” of the Project Area that can be used in identifying TCRs that cannot be obtained through other investigative means.

The Project Site has been highly disturbed by modern human activities to include agricultural use from the 1940’s through the 1960’s and the development and construction of the Toyota Motors North American Parts Center and supporting infrastructure that would have displaced surface and subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project would not impact Tribal Cultural Resources or Native America artifacts relating to TCR’s and as such, no mitigation measures are recommended.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
2307
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Discussion of Effects: The subject site is not listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. It is anticipated that during the application process the Lead Agency will notify the tribes of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and will commence AB 52 Consultations as specified in the regulations. In addition, the results of the records research compiled from the CHRIS-SCCIC, the Scared Lands File Search (commissioned through the NAHC) failed to indicate known Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) within the Project boundaries or within a one-mile radius of the Project area as specified in Public Resources Code (PRC): 210741, 5020.1(k), or 5024. Moreover, there was no indication of known TCRs within the Project site or within a one-mile radius of the Project Area. No impacts are anticipated through Project implementation.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project is served by the City of Ontario sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-1 treatment plant. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Ontario Engineering Department regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed project is served by the City of Ontario sewer system and which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-1 treatment plant.

RP-1 is not at capacity and this project will not cause RP-1 to exceed capacity. The project will therefore not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, the potable water network in Ontario includes 536 miles of pipeline, ranging from 2 to 42 inches in diameter. The City has four pressure zones. Locally obtained water comes from approximately 20 operating groundwater wells in Ontario and the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA). The Project Site would be served by City of Ontario water system and there is a 12-inch water line available for connection in Jurupa Street. 2308
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

TOP FEIR includes a discussion of the City’s sewer system. The City sewer mains are primarily constructed of vitrified clay pipe ranging from 4 to 42 inches in diameter. Approximately 75 percent of the pipes are 8 inches in diameter. The City’s sewers are classified into two groups:
primary sewers, greater than 15 inches in diameter, and secondary sewers, 15 inches or smaller in diameter. The City has about 375 miles of gravity sewers. The City’s wastewater collection system also consists of two City-owned pump stations, one privately owned/City-maintained pump station, over 7,000 feet of associated force mains, and five siphons. The Project would connect to an 8-inch sewer line off Jurupa Street.

Wastewater generated at the Project site would be treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1). RP-1 is located in the City of Ontario and has undergone several expansions to increase the design hydraulic domestic wastewater treatment capacity to 44 million gallons per day. The plant treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 28 million gallons per day. The plant serves areas of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and solids removed from RP-4, located in Rancho Cucamonga. RP-1 has treatment capacity and future development of this Project site would not cause RP-1 to exceed capacity.

The City of Ontario maintains the local stormwater drainage system, which includes regional (major) drainage facilities designed to convey peak 100-year discharge flows and secondary drainage facilities designed for peak 10-, 25-, or 100-year flows that convey locally generated flows to regional facilities. The City’s stormwater is collected and diverted into various channels that empty into the Santa Ana River; a small portion is reclaimed in spreading basins for reuse as percolated groundwater. The primary direction of drainage flow in the Chino watershed is from the San Gabriel Mountains southward to the Santa Ana River, then southwest in the river.

For Building A, runoff from the east portion of the site, along with the northerly landscaped area, would be conveyed through storm drain Line A. Runoff from the west half of the site along with the parking lot to the south of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line B.

These storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the central portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume, as well as mitigate discharge to existing conditions for the Project site. The system would have a footprint of approximately 54-feet by 160-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line A, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way.

For Building B, runoff from the north of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line C. Runoff from the south of the building would be conveyed through storm drain Line D. The proposed storm drain lines would discharge into an underground infiltration chamber system located in the southwest portion of the site. The underground infiltration system would be sized to capture and retain the required water quality design capture volume. The system would have a footprint of approximately 24-feet by 105-feet and consist of 60-inch diameter perforated corrugated metal pipes surrounded by gravel. The excess flow generated from higher storm events would be designed to back up in proposed Line D and release in Line E, which would convey and then discharge to the existing private storm drain line in Toyota Way.

The proposed Project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities. As discussed in the Energy Section above (Section 6), the Project would have less than significant impacts with regard to electric power and natural gas. In addition, the Project would not have an impact on telecommunications facilities.

Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to utilities services.
2309
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221).

Discussion of Effects: As a water supplier, the City is required to prepare and Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). A UWMP provides a framework for long term water supply and evaluates existing water conservation efforts. As described in the City’s UWMP, purchased water and groundwater supplies are sufficient in meeting the City’s water demands under all base years, including during normal, single, and multiple dry years. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the proposed Project.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Discussion of Effects: Wastewater generated at the Project site would be treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1). RP-1 is located in the City of Ontario and has undergone several expansions to increase the design hydraulic domestic wastewater treatment capacity to 44 million gallons per day. The plant treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 28 million gallons per day. The plant serves areas of Chino, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and solids removed from the Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 4 (RP-4), located in Rancho Cucamonga. RP-1 has treatment capacity, and future development of this Project site would not cause RP-1 to exceed capacity.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The proposed Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion of Effects: City of Ontario serves the proposed project. Currently, the City of Ontario contracts with a waste disposal company that transports trash to a landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City’s solid waste disposal needs. No impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: None required.
g. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Discussion of Effects: As described in TOP FEIR, increases in population in the City of Ontario would result in increases in solid waste disposal needs. Buildout of TOP would result in the generation of 2,017 tons per day of solid waste in the City. This would be 1,009 more tons per day 2310
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

(368,488 more tons per year) of solid waste than in 2007. To reduce waste disposal, AB 939 requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000.

The City of Ontario has met this waste diversion requirement through local recycling programs and participation in regional recycling programs.

As noted in TOP FEIR, the El Sobrante landfill has a capacity of 184,930,000 tons and is expected to close in 2030. Growth in the surrounding communities that use El Sobrante landfill will cause additional increases in waste generation. According to AB 939, jurisdictions are required to begin planning for new landfills when the jurisdiction’s primary disposal site reaches its 15-year capacity. To reduce waste disposal, AB 939 also requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. The City of Ontario has exceeded this requirement by diverting approximately 64 percent of waste through local recycling programs and participation in regional recycling programs. Continuation of these recycling programs would ensure compliance with AB 939. All impacts on waste disposal services would be less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. h. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would comply with all with federal, state, and local statues and regulations regarding solid waste; potential impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: Wildfire was not analyzed in TOP FEIR but has since been included as part of the 2019 revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines. A discussion of potential wildfire impacts is provided below.

The Project site is located within an urban industrial area and does not include any changes to roadways. Additionally, according to CalFire mapping, the Project site is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA), nor is it located in or near lands classified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The closest FHSZ is approximately three miles from the Project site. The proposed Project would not substantially impair and emergency response or evacuation plan.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
2311
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located in or near an SRA nor is it located in or near lands classified as a very high FHSZ. The closest FHSZ is approximately three miles from the Project site. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project would include construction of two warehouse buildings and associated onsite improvements, and would not require the installation of off-site infrastructure, such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, or other utilities. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA nor is it located in or near lands classified as a very high FHSZ.

The closest fire hazard severity zone is approximately three miles from the Project site. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is relatively flat and is located in an urban industrial area. The Project site is not located in or near an SRA nor is it located in or near lands classified as a very high FHSZ. The closest FHSZ is approximately three miles from the Project site. This potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation: No new mitigation measures are required. The proposed Project would not result in any new significant impacts. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion of Effects: The results of the preceding analysis indicate that the proposed Project would have less-than-significant impacts to sensitive biological, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in TOP FEIR and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval. Impacts related to degradation of the environment would be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve shortterm environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. TOP land use 2312
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

plan has anticipated industrial uses on the Project site, and all applicable TOP FEIR mitigation measures and City Standard Conditions of Approval would be applicable.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Discussion of Effects: Cumulative impacts resulting from the development of the Project site were included in TOP FEIR analysis. The proposed Project does not include any changes to land use plan designations and thus is generally consistent with the project analyzed in TOP FEIR.

The proposed Project’s individual contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts is not considerable and no mitigation is required.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation is required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analysis are necessary. d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Effects: As supported by the preceding environmental evaluation, the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. It has been determined through analysis within TOP FEIR and this Addendum that the proposed Project would not result in a significant substantial adverse effect on human beings.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP FEIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.

EARLIER ANALYSES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
a) The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
b) The Ontario Plan
c) City of Ontario Zoning
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal 2313
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

standards.

MITIGATION MEASURES
(For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.) The Mitigation Measures contained in the Certified TOP Final Environmental Impact Report adequately mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project. These mitigation measures are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

No additional mitigation beyond that previously imposed is required. 2314
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Additional Reference Materials
California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. San Bernardino County, Important Farmland 2016. Website:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/ (accessed September 19, 2021).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ (accessed September 22, 2021).

City of Ontario, 2017. Resolution No. 2017-027, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Ontario, California, Amending the Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development Projects, and Making Findings in Support Thereof, April 18.

City of Ontario, 2021. Completed Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial and Industrial Development, May 6.

City of Ontario, Fire Department, 2021. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire (accessed September 22, 2021).

City of Ontario, Police Department, 2021. https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police (accessed September 22, 2021).

City of Ontario, Toyota/Ontario Business Park Specific Plan.

Cooperative Strategies, 2020. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, Cucamonga School District, February 27.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed September 2021).

Ganddini Group, Inc, 2019. Toyota-Ontario Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Trip Generation Analysis, July 5.

Gill, Mike, 2021. Completed Table 2: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial and Industrial Development, May 6.

Huitt-Zollars, Inc., 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Milliken at Jurupa Industrial, April 8.

Inland Empire Utilities Agency, 2021. Regional Water Recycling Plan No. 1, https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ (accessed September 24, 2021).

Mead & Hunt, Inc, 2011. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, April 19.

Ontario Airport Planning, 2021. Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning Consistency Determination Report, July 6.

Purtell, Christopher W., Senior Archaeologist, MIG, 2019. Cultural Resources Search Review for a Proposed Specific Plan Addendum for Toyota Motor Sales, USA, City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California, July 25.

Stetson Engineers, Inc. City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, Final Draft, June.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed September 21, 2021). 2315
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Exhibit A
TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan
2316
Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report File Nos.: PMTT21-010 and PDEV21-018

Exhibit B
1992 General Plan Land Use Map
2317
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 20147 (FILE NO. PMTT21-010), SUBDIVIDING 95.35 ACRES OF

LAND INTO THREE PARCELS TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF

TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—
APN: 0238-121-75.

WHEREAS, MIG, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") filed an Application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 20147, File No. PMTT21-010, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 95.35 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Jurupa Street and Milliken Avenue, at 1425 South Toyota Way within the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan, and is presently partially improved with a warehouse and distribution facility; and
WHEREAS, the properties to the north are within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan zoning district and are developed with warehouse and commercial uses.

The properties to the south are within the Entratter Industrial Specific Plan and the IG (General Industrial) zoning district and are developed with warehouse uses. The land to the east is the Interstate 15 freeway. The properties to the west are within the California Commerce Center Specific Plan and are developed with light industrial and business park uses; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the Project site into three parcels. Parcel 1 will be 81.67 acres in size and encompass the area already developed with the Toyota warehouse and distribution facility, Toyota Way (private street), and existing landscaped areas. Parcel 2 is the northwest parcel, occupying the corner of Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street, and will be 8.24 acres in size. Parcel 3 is located to the south of Parcel 2 and located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Toyota Way, encompassing 3.79 acres of land. Parcels 2 and 3 comprise the existing vacant land in the northwest portion of the Project site; and
WHEREAS, the lot sizes proposed by Tentative Parcel Map No. 20147 exceed the one-acre minimum lot size required by the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 20147 was filed in conjunction with a Development Plan, File No. PDEV21-018, to construct two industrial warehouse buildings totaling 168,772 square feet on Parcels 2 and 3; and
2318
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to analyze possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) was certified on January 27, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as “Certified EIR”), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as “EIR Addendum”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as “CEQA”); and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the EIR Addendum, which concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an EIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
2319
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2021, and December 17, 2021, the Planning Department sent public hearing notices to property owners within 300 feet of the project site via first class mail and to Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) via email, respectively, informing the recipient of the Project’s upcoming public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, the Development Advisory Board of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Decision Nos. DAB21-060, recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 20, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the use of an EIR Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC21-087, approving the Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2021, the Appellant submitted an Appeal, through email, of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve File No. PMTT21-010; and WHEREAS, the Ontario Development Code, Division 2.01 (Appeals), Sections

2.01.010.B.1 and B.2, state that an appeal shall include a statement identifying the specific action or decision of the Approving Authority that is being appealed, the specific grounds for the appeal, and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority; and that an appeal of an action shall be limited to those matters raised during the hearing and contained in the appeal statement.

WHEREAS, the City Council is the Appeal Authority for Planning Commission decisions; and
WHEREAS, the basis of the Appellant’s appeal is a statement that the Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant did not provide any facts or reasons to support their assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and did not include a relief request from the Appeal Authority; and WHEREAS, the Appellant failed to raise their concerns during the public hearing or provide written notice of their concerns prior to the public hearing and therefore the City Council cannot consider the appeal statement; and
2320
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on March 15, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Appeal, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all 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 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period.

Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140), certified by the Ontario City Council on January 27, 2010, in conjunction with File No. PGPA06-001; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts. 2321
SECTION 2. Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the EIR Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Certified EIR is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, 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.

SECTION 4. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted 2322
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (“ONT”), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 4, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, and applicable area and specific plans, and planned unit developments. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, as the project will contribute to the establishment of “[a] dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses” (Goal CD1). Furthermore, the project will promote the City’s policy to “take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing the diverse character of our existing viable neighborhoods” (Policy CD1-1 City Identity). (2) The design or improvement of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, and applicable specific plans and planned unit developments. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is located within the Industrial land use district of the Policy Plan Land Use Map, and the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district. The proposed design or improvement of the subdivision is consistent with the goals, policies, plans, and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan, as the project will provide “[a] high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional and distinct (Goal CD2). Furthermore, the project will promote the City’s policy to “collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, 2323
outdoor spaces, landscaping and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials and construction techniques” (Policy CD2-7 Sustainability).
(3) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.

The project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district, and is physically suitable for the type of industrial development proposed in terms of zoning, land use and development activity proposed, and existing and proposed site conditions.
(4) The site is physically suitable for the density/intensity of development proposed. The project site is proposed for industrial development at a floor-area ratio ranging from 0.23 to 0.33. The project site meets the minimum lot area and dimensions of the Toyota Ontario Business Park Specific Plan zoning district, and is physically suitable for this proposed density / intensity of development. (5) The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is not located in an area that has been identified as containing 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor does the site contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no wetland habitat is present on site; therefore, the design of the subdivision, or improvements proposed thereon, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat. (6) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed subdivision, and the industrial improvements existing or proposed on the project site, are not likely to cause serious public health problems, as the project is not anticipated to involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or project implementation, include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels, nor are there any known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the subject site that use/store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors or occupants to the project site. (7) The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements thereon, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision has provided for all necessary public easements and dedications for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. Furthermore, all such public easements and dedications have been designed pursuant to: (a) the requirements of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan and applicable area plans; (b) applicable specific plans or planned unit developments; (c) applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code; (d) applicable master plans and design guidelines of the City; and (e) applicable Standard Drawings of the City.
2324
(8) The Ontario Development Code specifies the Appeal process and requirements for filing an appeal. The Ontario Development Code requires that an appeal shall include a statement identifying the specific action or decision of the Approving Authority that is being appealed, the specific grounds for the appeal, and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority; and that an appeal of an action shall be limited to those matters raised during the hearing and contained in the appeal statement. (9) The submitted Appeal does not include specific grounds for the appeal and the relief requested from the Appeal Authority. The submitted Appeal did not provide any specific facts or reasons to support their assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and did not include a relief request from the Appeal Authority.
(10) The Appeal assertion that the Project Addendum fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act was not raised during the public hearing.

The Appellant failed to raise their concerns regarding the Project Addendum compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act during the public hearing or provide written notice of their concerns prior to the public hearing.

SECTION 6. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the City Council hereby UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S PREVIOUS ACTION ON THE PROJECT AND DENIES THE APPEAL, and based upon the entire record of proceedings before it and all information received, hereby approves the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as “Attachment A,” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7. 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 this approval. 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.

SECTION 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
2325
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
2326

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held March 15, 2022, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held March 15, 2022. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
2327
ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PMTT21-010 (TPM 20147)
Departmental Conditions of Approval
(Document follows this page)
2328