part of the City is known as the Old Model Colony (“OMC”) in reference to the City’s founding as a model colony for cities in terms of layout and infrastructure. Generally, the City is bounded by Benson Avenue and Euclid Avenue on the west; Interstate 10 (I-10), 8th Street, and 4th Street on the north; Etiwanda Avenue and Hammer Avenue on the east; and Merrill Avenue and the San Bernardino County/Riverside County boundary on the south. Regional circulation to and through the City is provided by Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60), east to west, and by I-15 and SR 83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. The City is also home to the Ontario International Airport and proximate to Chino Airport.
PROJECT REVIEW:
(1) Background — The City of Ontario’s general plan, The Ontario Plan (“TOP”), was comprehensively updated in 2010. Since 1992, the City has adopted numerous general plan amendments (“GPA”), including the 1998 New Model Colony GPA, GPAs for the 2001, 2010, and 2013 Housing Element updates, and various project related GPAs. The State general plan guidelines recommend general plans be updated every ten years.
State law also requires housing elements to be updated every eight years. Since 2010, Figure 1: Project Location Map
217
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
significant state and regional issues affecting the City have developed. An updated general plan is needed to address these issues, meet state mandates, and guide the City through the year 2050 and towards a prosperous future.
Although general plans and their basic content are mandated by the state, cities and counties have the option of organizing and expanding their content to meet the needs of their jurisdiction. TOP meets the state mandate of a general plan and much more. In 2020, the City contracted with PlaceWorks to update the general plan and its component parts. PlaceWorks was tasked with preparing a general plan update that will continue to remain relevant though time, function like a business plan, and provide a foundation for City governance. The state-mandated general plan (the Policy Plan) is just one component of The Ontario Plan.
(2) Project Description — The Ontario Plan serves as the framework for the City’s business plan and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation. TOP includes six key components: Vision; Governance Manual; Policy Plan; Council Priorities; Tracking and Feedback; and Implementation. The Governance Manual and the Policy Plan are the only components that contain policies. Each individual policy has been crafted to support a goal but may also strengthen other goals and policies within other sections in the policy components. These policies were designed to be internally consistent and used together to guide the City’s actions.
Originally adopted in 2010, the Vision still provides a strong foundation for the TOP and only required minor modifications. The Governance Manual received minor refinements to reflect new information and available technologies that could improve municipal operations and decision making.
The TOP 2050 Update focuses on technical updates to the Policy Plan to comply with state housing mandates and conform with new state laws related to community health, environmental justice, climate adaption, resiliency, and mobility. The majority of updates created through the proposed project weave refinements throughout the existing structure of the Policy Plan.
Three component parts were not revised as part of the TOP 2050 update, including Council Priorities, Implementation, and Tracking and Feedback. The Council Priorities are updated concurrently with the annual budgeting process. The Implementation Plan will be updated to reflect changes to the Policy Plan. The Tracking and Feedback component will be advanced and formalized through additional coordination and software improvements.
TOP components include the following:
• The Vision describes the future community of Ontario. Its basic purpose is to state a clear and comprehensive picture of where the City wants to be in 2050. It is the rationale and motivation for everything the City does. The four Points of Vision 218
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
include: Dynamic Balance, Prosperous Economy, Distinctive Development, and Recognized Leadership.
• The Governance Manual describes the foundation for conducting the public’s business on behalf of the present and future people of Ontario. It explains how TOP is a tool for decision-making and communication. The Governance Manual is one of TOP’s two policy components. It contains five sections: Decision-Making, Communication, Implementation, External Factors, and Municipal Finance. • The Policy Plan connects intent with action through a broad range of goals and policies that will guide the long-term growth and development required for the City to achieve its Vision. It also satisfies the California Government Code requirement for a general plan. The Land Use Plan includes land use designations to guide and regulate land use patterns, distributions, densities, and intensities in the City, including residential, employment, retail, recreation, and public uses. The Policy Plan is one of two policy components of TOP and includes nine elements which are discussed below in the Policy Plan section.
• Council Priorities define the short-term direction in City actions and initiatives. They are the primary means for exercising leadership in carrying out the TOP and realizing the Vision through the adoption of the annual Budget. • The Implementation component consists of short and mid-term actions taken to carry out TOP policies. These City actions include day to day activities, Capital Improvement Plan, master plans and initiatives.
• The Tracking and Feedback component allows the City to learn from experience and redirect efforts, as needed. Tracking and Feedback will inform decision makers about progress toward the Vision, as well as track progress toward the Governance Manual, Council Priorities, Policy Plan, and Implementation components on a regular basis. Feedback will help inform the public about how the City is doing toward achieving TOP goals.
(3) Public Participation — The Ontario Plan has been influenced by several factgathering processes, used to gain information and insight from a broad range of persons, professions, and the public. The fact-gathering and public participation process was broad and inclusive and included the following elements:
• June 14, 2021 — Property Owner Open House — Staff hosted a virtual open house to provide an overview of the TOP 2050 Project and land use designation changes on specific properties as part of the City's housing strategy to fulfill the 6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Cycle site inventory obligation that are part of the Housing Element update.
219
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
• June 24, 2021 — Community Health Improvement Association — Staff hosted a virtual workshop to present the TOP 2050 update and to receive comments, and answer questions from the public.
• June 28, 2021 — Community Workshop #1 — Staff hosted a virtual workshop to present the TOP 2050 update, including the City's housing strategy to receive comments, and answer questions from the public.
• July 2, 2021 — In compliance with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 notification requirements (Tribal Consultation), the City mailed a separate project notice to 16 local tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). No consultation requests were received during the requisite 90-day response period. • July 21, 2021 to September 30, 2021 — Environmental Justice Survey — City staff deployed an Environmental Justice Survey to hear about environmental justice issues affecting the community. The survey was accessible by scanning a QR code utilizing a smartphone via the Ontario Plan website, social media, posters displayed at all the city community centers, and City iPads at community events. • July 29, 2021 — Community Workshop #2 — Staff hosted a virtual workshop to facilitate a guided discussion of the environmental justice and survey, community health, and resiliency policies, and share the City's preferred land use plan and housing strategy. The intent of Community Workshop #2 was to further inform the community of policy updates and gather feedback regarding the preferred land use plan. This workshop also included the Community Health Improvement Association meeting group.
• August 25, 2021 and August 26, 2021 — Concerts in the Park — Staff hosted a booth at the public events to provide an overview of the TOP 2050 Project. Visitors were encouraged to participate in an on-line survey regarding the TOP 2050 update.
• March 19, 2022 — Taste of Ontario — Staff hosted a booth at the public event and provided an overview of the TOP 2050 project, snacks, and interactive game. • March 31, 2022, April 28, 2022, May 26, 2022, and June 30, 2022 — Open House/Office Hours with City Staff — Staff hosted a series of Open House/Office Hours available to the public. Topics presented include environmental justice, climate adaption and resiliency, mobility, and economic considerations. Public questions include land use, industrial development, farming, and the availability of water.
• May 9, 2022 — The Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for The Ontario Plan 2050 (State Clearing House No. 2021070364) was posted to the City website. The NOA indicated that 220
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
the SEIR was available for review and that the City would be accepting comments through June 23, 2022.
• June 6, 2022, June 15, 2022, June 16, 2022 — Teen Action Committee (“TAC”) — Staff hosted the TAC and provided an overview of TOP 2050 Project and climate adaptation and resiliency.
TOP 2050 UPDATE:
(1) The Policy Plan Background — The Policy Plan and its elements include an introduction and purpose section to frame the component’s context and intent.
Consistent with the intent for TOP to be a living document with long term relevance, the Policy Plan and its nine elements contain high-level guiding principles which proclaim the fundamental concepts critical to achieving the Vision. Each element includes sections with an introduction, a goal and policies, all of which sustain the Vision. The Policy Plan elements include Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design, and Social Resources.
The Policy Plan stands alone but is strengthened by being a core component of the larger framework of TOP. The Policy Plan was designed to maintain relevance over time; therefore, it is principle-based and relies on implementation plans for details and actions.
The Policy Plan’s nine elements have been organized topically to best meet the City’s needs. Concepts that are critical to the Vision, like economic prosperity, complete community, sustainability, and environmental justice are woven throughout the nine elements. Integrating key concepts into each element reinforces them throughout the document. The seven state mandatory elements are covered in one or more of the Policy Plan Elements. For instance, Noise is addressed in both Land Use and Safety. Open Space is addressed in Land Use, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources and Mobility.
State Mandated Elements
Element Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Land Use
Circulation Mobility
Housing Housing
Open Space Land Use; Parks and Recreation; Environmental Resources; Mobility Conservation Environmental Resources
Noise Safety; Land Use
Safety Safety; Land Use; Adaptation & Resiliency
221
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
Optional Elements (Non-Mandated)
Element Policy Plan (General Plan)
The state does not require or
limit the adoption of optional
elements.
Community Design
Community Economics
Social Resources
Environmental Justice (Interwoven among elements)
ANALYSIS OF POLICY PLAN ELEMENTS:
(1) Land Use Element — The Land Use Element (Sections LU-1 to LU-5) guides and regulates land use patterns, densities, and intensities throughout the City, including residential, employment, retail, recreation, and public uses. It includes five sections:
Balance, Compatibility, Flexibility, Phased Growth, and Airport Planning. This element provides for uses and development that add value to the community, in terms of function, design and fiscal return. The Land Use Plan was designed to provide certainty, flexibility, and accommodate the evolution of development types. The Land Use Element is a key to the development of a physically diverse and complete community.
The Policy Plan Preferred Land Use Plan, Figure LU-01, establishes twenty land use designations within five major categories: Residential, Mixed Use, Retail/Service, Employment, and Other. In addition, three Overlay Zones are also identified.
The Map does not assign a public designation to all publicly owned facilities. Only permanent existing public facilities, such as City Hall, Library, and existing schools are designated as Public Facility or Public School. Future and non- permanent public facilities, such as future schools, are designated with the appropriate underlying land use. As schools and other permanent public facilities are developed, those sites will be noted on the Map accordingly with an amendment to the Policy Plan Map.
Office uses can be found within the Mixed Use, Retail/Service and Employment categories. The Mixed-Use designation provides for a mix of residential, office, and retail uses.
The land use designations in the City will remain as designated under the current General Plan, with adjustments made to the projected land use mix and boundaries of the mixeduse areas. The Buildout Statistical Summary table provides a statistical summary of the buildout potential associated with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan compared to existing conditions and compared to the buildout potential under the currently approved TOP ("approved project" or "approved TOP").
222
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
Buildout Statistical Summary
Scenario Units Population
Nonresidential
Square Feet Employment
Existing Conditions 52,466 179,597 156,065,382 131,999
Approved TOP 104,163 357,957 260,399,271 313,067
Proposed TOP 129,562 410,492 261,491,779 296,002
Net Difference
(Proposed TOP - Approved TOP) 25,399 52,535 1,092,508 -17,065 (2) Housing Element — The Housing Element (Sections H-1 to H-5 and the Housing Element Technical Report) provides direction for the production, preservation, and improvement of housing in Ontario. The Housing Element includes five sections:
Neighborhoods & Housing, Housing Supply & Diversity, Governmental Regulation, Housing Assistance, and Special Needs. The Housing Element Technical Report assesses housing needs through demographic trends and projections.
The Housing Element is one of the seven mandated elements of the general plan, which each city and county in the State is required to periodically adopt (generally every eight years). The Housing Element is required to adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Housing Element was prepared to address the 6th Cycle RHNA period from October 15, 2021, through October 15, 2029, and it was also updated to comply with recently adopted housing element law. The Housing Element is the only element of the general plan reviewed and certified by the State to ensure compliance with State law.
The Housing Element adoption was separated from the balance of The Ontario Plan 2050 Update and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on December 21, 2021 and was approved by the City Council on March 1, 2022. The Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for review in November 2021, and March 2022. On both occasions, HCD requested revision and additional analysis of the document.
The Housing Element is the only element that includes implementation as part of the Policy Plan. An adequate supply of housing is a key component of a complete and economically sustainable community. The City recognizes that economic growth is dependent on growing jobs and providing housing for our workforce. As such, central to the Housing Element’s goals and policies is the concept of matching the type and affordability of housing with the needs of the City’s current and future workforce. The number of housing units projected beyond the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period through to 2050 (buildout of the Land Use Plan) are shown below. 223
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
The City’s RHNA allocation is defined in the Housing Element as Quantified Objectives. A summary of the housing implementation strategies that will be used, as well as the Quantified Objectives, are provided below:
City of Ontario 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation by Income Category Income Category
(Percent of Annual Mean Income) RHNA Allocation
Very Low (31 to 50) 5,640
Low (51 to 80) 3,286
Moderate (81 to 120) 3,329
Above Moderate (121 or more) 8,599
Total 20,854
Source: SCAG 2021
Implementation Program Summary
• Neighborhoods and Housing
• Housing Supply and Diversity
• Governmental Constraints
• Housing Assistance
• Special Needs Housing
Consistent with state law, the Housing Element includes a parcel-level analysis of potential housing sites within the City. Timing of the housing development within these sites is dependent on residential real estate and financial credit conditions, as well as site conditions such as lot size and configuration, existing buildings, and adequacy of infrastructure. Larger, mostly vacant and underutilized sites with adequate infrastructure are more likely to develop first.
(3) Parks and Recreation Element — The Parks and Recreation Element (Sections PR1 to PR-2) includes an analysis of existing park facilities and examines opportunities for new park spaces to accommodate the current and future needs. It also guides the development of recreational corridors that connect local and regional recreational resources and open space. This element includes two sections: Planning & Design, and Programming.
(4) Environmental Resources Element — The Environmental Resources Element (Sections ER-1 to ER-5) guides management of environmental resources and infrastructure and provides policies that support systems integration, resource conservation and regeneration, energy independence, and environmental justice. The Environmental Resources Element includes five sections: Water & Wastewater, Solid Waste & Recycling, Energy, Air Quality, and Biological, Mineral & Agricultural Resources. 224
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
This element includes goals and policies to reduce global warming gas emissions, conserve water, and minimize the community’s waste stream. (5) Community Economics Element — The Community Economics Element (Sections CE-1 to CE-3) establishes goals and policies for attracting private investment, increasing the quantity and quality of jobs, expanding and diversifying the City’s revenue sources, and guiding the City’s financial decisions. Central themes to this element include “create, maintain and grow economic value” and the vision of Ontario as a “complete community”. This element includes three sections: Complete Community, Placemaking, and Fiscal Decision-Making. This element is considered optional but critical to the vision of a prosperous economy.
(6) Safety Element — The Safety Element (Sections S-1 to S-9) provides policies to minimize exposure to man-made and natural disasters and their impacts on life, property, and commerce. It addresses geology and seismicity, flooding, hazardous materials, noise, fire hazards and prevention, emergency preparedness, crime prevention, and adaptation and resiliency. This element includes nine sections: Seismic & Geological Hazards, Flood Hazards, Fire & Rescue Hazards, Noise Hazards, Wind-Related Hazards, Hazardous Materials & Waste, Law Enforcement, Emergency Management, and Energy Resiliency.
(7) Mobility Element — The Mobility Element (Sections M-1 to M-5) guides the design and improvement of our multifaceted transportation system to meet the current and future needs of our residents, businesses, and the region. This element includes an evaluation of forecasts of future traffic levels and includes a variety of travel modes, including automobile, transit, rail, air, and non-motorized forms of travel. The Mobility Element includes mobility policies that will accommodate Ontario’s Vision and projected growth. The Element includes five sections: Roadway System, Active Transportation, Public Transit, Goods Movement, and Regional Transportation. This Element provides policies to ensure mobility options are integrated into land use planning, in terms aesthetically pleasing and functional roadways, transportation facilities, linkages, and nodes.
(8) Community Design — The Community Design Element (Sections CD-1 to CD-5) establishes the goals and policies that will create a built environment that fosters the enjoyment, financial benefit, and well-being of the entire community and protect the built environment as an investment. The Community Design Element reflects the City’s current high-quality design expectations and process. The Element includes five sections:
Image and Identity, Design Quality, Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types, Historic Preservation, and Protection of Investment. This element is a key to the functional and aesthetic future of the City and primarily supports the Land Use, Mobility, Safety, and Community Economics Elements. This element also includes eight Place Types Categories for areas that are geographically large, culturally unique, and regionally significant Districts that include: Downtown District, Airport/Metro Entertainment District, Guasti 225
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
District, South Euclid District, South Employment District, East Holt Boulevard Corridor, Inland Empire Boulevard Corridor, and Neighborhood Center Infill (a-j). (9) Social Resources Element — The Social Resources Element (Section SR-1 to SR-5) provides goals and policies for the health and well-being of the community, addressing the City’s role in such issues as health care, education, and community services for the full spectrum of our population. This element includes five sections: Health, Education, Community & Leisure Activities, Library, and Entertainment & Culture. Although this is an optional element, its goals and policies are necessary to fulfill the Vision of a prosperous economy through enrichment of community education, health, culture, and the arts.
COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CCAP) UPDATE:
(1) Background — On December 16, 2014, the City of Ontario adopted its Community Climate Action Plan (“CCAP”), which was prepared in response to Assembly Bill 32 (“AB 32”) (2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 required the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to adopt State-wide regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission reduction measures to help mitigate risks associated with climate change, improve energy efficiency, expand the use of renewable resources and cleaner transportation, and reduce waste. These regulations, in the form of the AB 32 Scoping Plan adopted by CARB, laid out California's plan for achieving the required GHG reductions. The Scoping Plan identifies the measures the State will undertake, and the expected GHG reductions associated with these measures, but the State does not have direct jurisdictional control over many of the activities that product GHG emissions within the state, so the AB 32 Scoping Plan identified local governments' responsibilities for achieving the State GHG reduction goals. To accomplish the identified GHG reduction measures the City adopted its CCAP.
The CCAP was designed to comply with the direction of AB 32 and associated implementation programs, while attempting to distribute the GHG reduction strategies evenly across the full spectrum of GHG generating activities. It was a comprehensive approach to all sectors of the community to participate and implement feasible strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated within the City consistent with statewide GHG emission reduction efforts. Where possible, it encouraged the implementation of voluntary programs and incentives to achieve the City's GHG reduction goals.
The CCAP consists of 1) an inventory of GHG emissions that identifies and quantifies existing emissions and projected future emissions, 2) a reduction target to reduce existing GHG emissions to 30 percent below business as usual (BAU) year 2020 projected levels, 3) policies and measures to reduce existing emissions to meet the reduction target consistent with the adopted TOP EIR, and 4) streamlined environmental review – with respect to GHG emissions – for development projects that are consistent with the CCAP. 226
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
The CCAP was intended to be a dynamic program, in that it required implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation. Its emission reduction measures were organized by the following:
• State and regional measures include adopted, implemented, and proposed state and regional measures that do not require additional City action and that will result in quantifiable GHG emission reductions in the inventory. • Local measures include community wide quantifiable measures that would further reduce GHG emissions for the City.
• Performance standards for new development, providing a streamlined and flexible program for new residential and nonresidential projects to reduce their emissions.
The implementation of the 2014 CCAP resulted in a per capita GHG emissions steady decline from 2008 levels. Per capita emissions in Ontario decreased from approximately
8.25 MTCO2e in 2008 to approximately 5.55 MTCO2e per person in 2019, a decrease of 33 percent. Overall sectors showed an emissions decrease with the following four sectors experienced the largest decreases in annual GHG emissions between 2008 and 2019 including land use and sequestration, agriculture, water and wastewater, and nonresidential energy, which reduced emissions by 77 percent, 75 percent, 56 percent, and 54 percent, respectively.
(2) Community Climate Action Plan Update — The 2022 CCAP is the City's strategic plan to reduce GHG emissions and foster a sustainable community through 2050 and beyond. TOP directs the preparation, ongoing implementation, and update of the CCAP, providing the framework for the City to reduce its community wide GHG emissions in a manner consistent with the adopted state reduction target for 2030 and the longerterm goals for 2045 and 2050. The CCAP allows for City decision-makers, staff, and the community to understand the sources and magnitude of local GHG emissions, reduce GHG emissions, and prioritize steps to achieve GHG emission-reduced targets.
The 2022 CCAP is consistent with CEQA Guidelines for the reduction of GHG emissions.
This allows the CCAP to support and streamline environmental review of GHG emissions for future development projects and serves as the programmatic tiering document for review of the climate change impacts of projects under CEQA and is included in the SEIR for the TOP 2050 Update.
The 2022 CCAP is an update of the 2014 CCAP, providing updated analyses and background information, an expanded set of GHG reduction strategies, and a planning horizon out to 2050. It contains an inventory of the community's GHG emissions from the transportation, energy, waste, off-road equipment, agriculture, water and wastewater sectors, land use sequestration, stationary sources, and goals strategies and actions to 227
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
address climate change adaptation and GHG emissions. The CCAP also presents a work plan for the City to implement strategies and track progress over time.
In conjunction with existing and planned local and state programs, these updated strategies provide a flexible path to reduce the community’s GHG emissions to meet the City’s 2030 and 2050 emission targets and to support the State’s adopted target for 2030 and its goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The City’s GHG reduction targets are to reduce emissions to a level below 6.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2030 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita by 2050, as shown below.
Per Capita GHG Emissions Targets
Target 2030 Per Capita 2050 Per Capita
State 6.0 MTCO2e per person 2.0 MTCO2e per person
City Strategies with All Reductions 3.52 MTCO2e per person 1.31 MTCO2e per person 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. (1) Ontario International Airport — On April 19, 2011, the City of Ontario 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.
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 ONT ALUCP.
(2) Chino Airport — On July 19, 2022, the City of Ontario adopted the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), establishing the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport (“CNO”), which encompasses lands within the City of Ontario, and addresses four compatibility factors, which includes safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight impacts. A portion of the proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the CNO ALUCP.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) has been prepared for The Ontario Plan and addressed the following areas that may have a potentially significant impact on the environment between the adopted Plan and the proposed Project (2050 Update). These areas included: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, 228
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Through the EIR process these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant. Of the 20 areas analyzed by the SEIR, all but four of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant. The four remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant and the impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied. These areas include:
• Air Quality — Buildout of The Ontario Plan will cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (“SoCAB”), create shortterm emissions from construction activities that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations, generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB nonattainment designations, and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (“TAC”); • Cultural Resources — Although protective regulations are in place and preservation policies are included in The Ontario Plan, implementation of the proposed Land Use Plan has the potential to impact Tier III historic resources. Major modification or demolition of Tier III resources may be appropriate under certain circumstances;
• Noise — Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan will result in impacts related to the proximity of construction activities to sensitive users, construction vibration impacts from individual development projects, and from excessive airport-related noise related impacts from traffic on local roadways and construction activities in the City. These activities will substantially increase noise levels and affect noise– sensitive uses; and
• Transportation — Total vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) would increase under the Proposed Land Use Plan due to increased residential development. Future development projects will need to consider transportation demand management (“TDM”) measures consistent with the Mobility Element.
The City of Ontario circulated the Draft SEIR on May 9, 2022, through June 23, 2022, for public review. At the end of the public review period 43 comments were received. Areas of concern include loss of agricultural land, environmental impacts associated with warehouse development, and request for a warehouse moratorium. Refer to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 2. Response to Comments. 229
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PGPA20-002 and PADV22-002
July 26, 2022
While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the Staff believes that the benefits of The Ontario Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan. As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures. The environmental documentation for this project is available for public review at the Planning Department public counter. 230
RESOLUTION NO. PC22-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364) FOR THE
ONTARIO PLAN 2050 TECHNICAL UPDATE FOR FILE NO. PGPA20-002
PART A AND ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario Certified the Environmental Impact Report prepared for The Ontario Plan and associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and issued Resolution No. 2010-003; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for The Ontario Plan on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010-004; and
WHEREAS, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”), for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update consists of the Draft SEIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR; and WHEREAS, the SEIR Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, File No. PGPA20-002, for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan was circulated for a 45-day public review period and a notice of its availability was published in a local newspaper, submitted to the state clearinghouse, and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County; and WHEREAS, copies of the SEIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and WHEREAS, the SEIR for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan has been prepared to address the environmental effects of The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update which establishes a Vision, Plan Governance Manual, Policy Plan, City Council Priorities, Implementation Plan and Tracking and Feedback for the City of Ontario; and 231
Planning Commission Resolution - The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR File No. PGPA20-002
July 26, 2022
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the SEIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the SEIR (SCH# 2021070364) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The SEIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based on the entire record before the Planning Commission and all written and oral evidence presented, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council finds the SEIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(a) The SEIR analyzes the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and finds that, if The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update is adopted as proposed by this plan, and with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable: air quality, cultural resources (historic), noise (mobile source, construction-related noise, construction-related vibration, noise compatibility), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled); and (b) The Planning Commission further finds that the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, demonstrates that The Ontario Plan’s benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the City would be justified in approving The Ontario Plan notwithstanding said significant and unavoidable impacts. 232
233
234
Planning Commission Resolution - The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR File No. PGPA20-002
July 26, 2022
ATTACHMENT A:
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364)
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
235
July 2022 | Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050
City of Ontario
Prepared for:
City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
909.395.2036
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
236
237
THE ONT ARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
July 2022 Page i
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................. 1-2
2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RESPONSES..................................................................................................2-2
2.2.1 Scenic Vistas.........................................................................................................................................2-2
2.2.2 Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts.....................................................................................2-3
2.2.3 Environmental Justice Policies..........................................................................................................2-3
2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts.............................................................................................................................2-6
2.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-7
2.4 RESIDENT AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS ............................................................................2-23
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3-1
3.2 DRAFT SEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ......................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Revised Draft SEIR Figures
Appendix B. Environmental Justice Goals, Policies, and Actions 238
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
239
July 2022 Page 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) during the public review period, which began on Monday, May 9, 2022, and closed Thursday, June 23, 2022. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft SEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.
1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:
Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.
Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft SEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-2 for letters received from agencies and Tribes, and R-1 through R-43 for letters received from residents and organizations). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. 240
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINA L SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
1. Introduction
Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft SEIR for public review.
The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Ontario has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft SEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
Written responses are prepared consistent with Section 15088 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Pursuant to this section, the level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EIRs.
241
July 2022 Page 2-1
2. Response to Comments
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Ontario) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft SEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides written responses received on the Draft SEIR and the City of Ontario’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period.
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.
Agencies & Tribes
A1 Quechan Historic Preservation May 14, 2022 2-7
A2 City of Chino June 23, 2022 2-11
Residents & Organizations
R1 Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer June 15, 2022 2-23 R2 Inland Equity Partnership June 23, 2022 2-27
R3
Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) de Inland Empire; and Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
June 23, 2022 2-31
R4 Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) June 23, 2022 2-63
R5 Robert Barragan June 14, 2022 2-73
R6 Vanessa Yambot June 14, 2022 2-79
R7 Ilianna Romero June 14, 2022 2-83
R8 Verlynn Gojit June 14, 2022 2-89
R9 Inmi Chao June 14, 2022 2-93
R10 Katie Crofford June 16, 2022 2-99
R11 Elvia Velazco June 16, 2022 2-105
R12 Aldo Velazco June 16, 2022 2-111
R13 Inez Cardenas June 16, 2022 2-117
R14 Caroline Lanspa June 16, 2022 2-121
R15 Daniel Lo June 16, 2022 2-125
R16 Eva Ramirez June 16, 2022 2-131
R17 Cara Butler June 17, 2022 2-135
R18 Antoinette Anderson June 17, 2022 2-139
R19 Jackie Deans June 17, 2022 2-145
242
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.
R20 Danielle Martinez June 17, 2022 2-149
R21 Cynthia Serrano June 19, 2022 2-155
R22 Tina Silva June 19, 2022 2-161
R23 Jamie Ortega June 21, 2022 2-167
R24 Dessa D’Aquila Bentson June 21, 2022 2-171
R25 Malina Shaw June 21, 2022 2-175
R26 Lisa Collinsworth June 21, 2022 2-181
R27 Jarius Martinez June 21, 2022 2-185
R28 Raquel Alba June 21, 2022 2-189
R29 Jocelyn Dimacali June 22, 2022 2-193
R30 Amber Bound June 22, 2022 2-197
R31 Andrea Alvarado June 22, 2022 2-201
R32 Deborah Rodriguez June 22, 2022 2-205
R33 Amanda Wheeler June 22, 2022 2-209
R34 Dena Apodaca June 22, 2022 2-213
R35 Andrei Pitsko June 22, 2022 2-217
R36 Randy Bekendam June 22, 2022 2-221
R37 Elizabeth Rocco June 23, 2022 2-227
R38 Martha Lopez June 23, 2022 2-231
R39 Karen and Guy Caparelli June 23, 2022 2-235
R40 Elias Luviano June 23, 2022 2-239
R41 Nazareth Bracamontes June 23, 2022 2-243
R42 Estela Ballon June 23, 2022 2-247
R43 Rosemary Ramos June 23, 2022 2-251
2.2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RESPONSES
Several common issues were raised in the comment letters, such as Letters R1 through R43, received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. This section provides a summary of general responses to recurring comments raised by responding agencies and the public. The summary of general responses provides a more comprehensive explanation and response to these common issues raised during the public review period.
2.2.1 Scenic Vistas
The Draft SEIR includes an evaluation of impacts to scenic vistas. Scenic resources within the City are identified on page 5.1-3 through 5.1-4. It should be noted that protected viewsheds are public viewsheds of scenic resources and not private viewsheds. As such, scenic vistas identified on page 5.1-4 include views of scenic vistas from the City’s formal and informal trail network. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Neither the 2010 Certified EIR nor the Draft SEIR identifies impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which, as described in Section 5.1.1.1, Regulatory 243
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-3
Background, of the Draft SEIR and includes general development requirements for development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetic of the City.
2.2.2 Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts
The Draft SEIR includes an analysis of conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract on pages 5.2-12 through 5.2-13. The baseline for the Draft SEIR is the current TOP. The current TOP does not have Agriculture land use designations.
Statewide concern over the rapid conversion of agricultural land to urban uses led to the enactment of the Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act. This Act enabled the County of San Bernardino to establish an Agricultural Preserve where property owners could contract with the County to preserve the property and quality for a property tax assessment based upon use and economic yield rather than the full market value of the property. With the annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999, the City of Ontario assumed responsibility for administering land conservation contracts on those properties.
A Land Conservation Contract (LCC) has a minimum term of 10 years and is automatically renewed each year for an additional year, thereby keeping the term of the contract to a period of 10 years. The perpetual contract continues until the City or the owner files a Notice of Non-renewal, which will then terminate the contract at the end of its remaining term, usually 9 years. When a Non-renewal is filed, the property tax assessment gradually reverts back to being computed based upon full market value rather than use.
The Draft SEIR identifies the current Williamson Act contract lands within the City in Figure 5.12-12. As identified in the Draft SEIR, any land held in a Williamson Act contract would have to be filed for nonrenewal, and the contract would have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of these contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. As such, impacts from the Proposed Project in this respect would be less than significant.
2.2.3 Environmental Justice Policies
California Government Code Section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires jurisdictions when updating their general plan to identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.
The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. TOP 2050 includes policies that address impacts to disadvantaged communities and access to healthy foods (see Policy SR-1.2).
In addition to weaving environmental justice policies throughout TOP 2050 (see Appendix B), the City also conducted outreach with community. As part of its outreach strategy, the City of Ontario emphasized the topic of environmental justice through advertising materials, stakeholder interviews, survey materials, educational 244
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
materials, and online and in-person outreach activities. The City also posted announcements of the outreach activities in English and Spanish through various social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram). As this effort was conducted during COVID, the City conducted a substantial amount of outreach online through virtual meetings, workshops, and office hours to maintain compliance with local and state regulations. Public input from the outreach activities led directly to the addition of new policies to TOP:
Public Workshops. One online property owner workshop and two online public workshops were conducted on June 14, 2021, June 28, 2021, and July 29, 2021. At the property owner workshop, the City provided an overview of the TOP 2050 Update and land use designation changes. At the first public workshop, the City introduced and discussed the overall land use strategy and requirements and issues related to environmental justice and climate adaptation and resiliency. At the second public workshop, the City also presented areas that could be identified as environmental justice communities based on state modeling data and discussed aspects of the Environmental Justice Survey with attendees in order for them to reach out to their neighborhoods. Workshop materials were provided in English and Spanish, a Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions of the workshops, and recordings of the presentation (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after the workshops. Environmental Justice Survey. The City conducted an online Environmental Justice Survey between July to September 2021. This survey was available in English and Spanish and was completed by 108 individuals.
The purpose of this survey was to gather the perspectives of local community members living in the City’s environmental justice communities. Survey participants were asked if they were exposed to certain pollutants, if they had access to healthy food, necessary resources, and amenities, experienced structural damages due to environmental hazards, to select TOP actions to improve current conditions, and their demographics. A summary of the results was presented at many of the meetings and is also provided below:
245
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-5
Environmental Justice and Community Health Stakeholders. Throughout June and July 2021, the City reached out to local organizations that serve as advocates and service providers on topics related to environmental justice, including Community Health Improvement Association (CHIA), Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), and Caramel Connections Foundation. Outreach was conducted via telephone, email, interviews, distribution of the survey, and during meetings (of the local organization or at an event held by the City). Information requested and obtained include the organization’s perspective on important EJ issues, current or potential programs and services, and potential new or revised policies and regulations. CHIA was the most responsive organization, providing additional door-to-door outreach TOP 2050 flyer distribution, while the others indicated priorities. Some organizations indicated that they were unable to respond, undergoing a transition in leadership, or had priorities in other communities. For those organizations that did not respond, the City repeated attempts through phone calls, emails, and other means as appropriate to ensure that these organizations were aware of the City’s activities and looked forward to hearing from any stakeholders that were interested. Environmental Justice 101 Story Map. The City developed and published a bilingual (English and Spanish) “Environmental Justice 101” Story Map on its website. The Story Map contains introductory information about environmental justice, explains and illustrates what disadvantaged communities are, state laws, and CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0.
Project Scoping Meeting. The City provided updated about the Supplemental Environmental Review (SEIR) and provided space for public input and comment on the scope of the environmental analysis. The meeting was held online on August 5, 2021 and was conducted in both English and Spanish. The meeting materials were presented in both English and Spanish and Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions of the meeting. Finally, recordings of the meeting (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after the meeting. Office Hours. The City conducted Office Hours on a monthly basis in 2022 to provide the community with periodic updates and offer a low-pressure platform for the community to ask questions and provide 246
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
their perspectives regarding the technical update, including the topic of environmental justice. The first three Office Hours were conducted online (3/31/22, 4/28/22, and 5/26/22) while the fourth was conducted in person (6/30/22). The Office Hours were conducted in both English and Spanish. The meeting materials were presented in both English and Spanish and Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions for each meeting. Finally, recordings of the online Office Hours (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after each meeting. The dates for all four office hours were advertised through the City’s social media accounts and through a bilingual (English and Spanish) insert mailed with the utility bill sent in February 2022 to every resident and business owner in Ontario.
Teen Action Committee. The City held three meetings with the Teen Action Committee, which is the City’s largest community-oriented teen organization in Ontario and addresses a wide variety of community issues. The City held meetings on June 6, 15, and 16 in 2022 at the Dorothy A. Quesada Community Center, De Anza Community & Teen Center, and Westwind Community Center. The City facilitated discussions and obtained feedback concerning issues related to environmental justice and community health. General Outreach. The City also attended outreach events to share the TOP 2050 Update with the community at two Concert in the Park events and the Taste of Ontario where the City displayed the Draft Land Use Plan and gathered input on what folks would like to see in their neighborhood. The City provided a variety of giveaways at the events and encourage participation in an interactive City building bloc activity.
It is important to note that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts associated with buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project (see Impact 5.3-1).
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project (see Impact 5.3-4). It should be noted that Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would ensure mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) not covered under South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD. However, implementation of TOP 2050 would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. 247
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-7
2.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COMMENTS
LETTER A1 – Quechan Historic Preservation (1 page)
248
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
249
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-9
A1. Response to Comments from Quechan Historic Preservation, dated May 14, 2022.
A1-1 The Commenter indicates that they do not wish to comment and defer to local Tribes.
Therefore, as the comment does not raise an issue with the analysis of the DEIR, no further response is necessary.
250
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
251
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-11
LETTER A2 – City of Chino (5 pages)
252
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
253
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-13
254
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
255
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-15
256
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
257
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-17
A2. Response to Comments from Warren Morelion, AICP, City Planner, City of Chino, dated June 23, 2022.
Intro
A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
A2-4
A2-5
Response to comments provided on behalf of the City of Chino are provided in responses A2-1 through A2-17 below.
At the request of the Commenter, the symbology on Figure 5.19-4 has been revised to show the City of Chino proposed storm drain (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Revised Draft SEIR Figures).
Comment noted. The parcels referenced are Chino-owned parcels in the City of Ontario.
This is a comment on the Housing Element, which was adopted in March 2022.
These three parcels are currently and are recommended to remain designated for LowDensity Residential (LDR). Additionally, these parcels are not listed in the Sites Inventory (Housing Element Tables B-1 and B-2) and are not shown on any of the maps showing the opportunity areas (see Housing Element Figures 5-1 through 5-11) of the adopted Housing Element. Finally, these parcels are not outlined as Housing Element Sites on the City’s Proposed Housing Strategy and Land Use Scenario (Draft) map that is posted on the City’s webpage for TOP 2050.
In 2014, City of Chino developed their Eastside Water Treatment Facility on the southeast corner of Schaefer Avenue and Campus Avenue. Since no permanent downstream storm drain was available, development of the Eastside Water Treatment Facility was required to detain stormwater on site. There is no proposed storm drain in Campus Avenue. The City of Chino site is accounted for in the tributary areas that drain to Line C-15 (BNVWXIV-1) in Bon View Avenue and Line C-16 (EULD-XIV-3) in Edison Avenue (attached is a detailed hydrology map that illustrates this). Development of the project included payment of required Development Impact Fees. The fulfilment of their Development Impact Fee obligation pays for their fair-share cost of the master plan facilities that would serve the property.
See response to Comment A2-3. The fulfilment of their Development Impact Fee obligation pays for their fair-share cost of the master plan facilities that would serve the property.
The Commenter was mistakenly reviewing the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and not the TOP 2050 SEIR. There is no table in the utilities section of the TOP 2050 SEIR that provides Ontario’s Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) and the Water Facilities Authority (WFA) water supplies.
To the extent Chino intended to comment on the 2010 EIR, a subsequent CEQA review that addresses changes to the project is required to provide only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. It is not required to reconsider the analysis in the prior EIR (California Coastkeeper Alliance v. State Lands 258
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
Commission (2021) 64 CalApp.5th 36, 58). The project impacts reviewed in the prior EIR are properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). The prior CEQA review for a project cannot be attacked in a case challenging the adequacy of a subsequent or supplemental EIR that is prepared to address changes to the project.
A2-6 The City’s proposed Official Land Use Map in the Policy Plan identifies utility easements with an Open Space – Non-Recreational land use designation. An easement for Southern California Edison high voltage (500-kV) transmission lines runs through the properties that contain the City of Chino Eastside Water Treatment Facility (Chino EWTF). Such easements must remain clear of obstruction to ensure free access to and the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines. Accordingly, this portion of the parcels referenced in the comment are appropriately designated as nonrecreational open space.
While open space facilities, such as unprogrammed grass areas, trails, or bikeways can be developed on these easements, the City of Ontario does not intend for the easement to support active open space, such as parklands, trails, or bikeways south of Shaefer Avenue (the parcels that contain the Chino EWTF are south of Schaefer Avenue), as shown on the City’s proposed map of multipurpose trails and bikeways (TOP 2050 Figure M-02) and the proposed map of park and recreational facilities (TOP 2050 Figure PR-01).
A2-7 The Commenter is mistakenly reviewing the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and provides a comment regarding the Municipal Water District (MWD) Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Update on page 5.17-3. TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section is Section 5.19 and not Section
5.17 and there is no discussion of MWD IRP on page 3 of the TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section.
A2-8 As stated previously, this comment refers to the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and discusses a DWR Reliability Report from 2008. There is no discussion of the DWR Reliability Report in the TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section and the long-term planning for water supply is extended to 2050 in the current utilities section.
A2-9 The Commenter references a table on page 5.17-12 that provides water demand calculations and asks for projections through 2050. Again, this table is from the previous 2010 EIR utilities chapter; the current TOP 2050 SEIR does provide water demand projections through 2050.
A2-10 The Commenter provides a comment regarding mitigation measure 17-3 from the previous 2010 EIR. This mitigation measure has been deleted from the current TOP 2050 SEIR.
A2-11 The City will continue to coordinate with the City of Chino on bike and pedestrian planning.
259
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-19
A2-12 The City will continue to coordinate with the City of Chino on designation of Truck Routes.
A2-13 The roadway is being widening consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways which designates Merrill Avenue as #11 with a 108-foot right-of-way (ROW) width and 84-foot curb-to-curb width. This allows for at least two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. The forecasting and capacity assessment included as Appendix K to the Draft SEIR determined four lanes are adequate to accommodate future growth. The roadway is also being designed as a truck route and designed to handle heavier loads. It should be noted that under the Senate Bill 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-related metric(s) that evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects are required beginning on July 1, 2020. The legislation does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements that require evaluation of level of service (LOS), but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA. The Draft SEIR Section 5.17, Transportation, evaluates the VMT impacts of TOP 2050 compared to that of the Approved Project. As a result, LOS for roadway capacity and intersection delay is not utilized for evaluating impacts in the SEIR. However, TOP 2050 Mobility Element includes roadway classifications (see Figure 5.17-3, Roadway Classification), which are informed by the LOS Memorandum included in Appendix K of the Draft SEIR.
A2-14 Regarding Hellman Avenue, the model is a simplification of the roadway network and not all roadways are necessarily depicted in the model. Traffic volume that would be distributed to Hellman Avenue is otherwise distributed to nearby roadways, which are shown to operate at acceptable levels of service. This aggregation of minor roadways has no bearing on the SEIR’s conclusions.
The magenta line drawn on the Commenter’s map and reference to it as a "roadway" shown in the model roadway network is incorrect. The line highlighted in magenta is a ‘centroid connector’. This connector indicates all of the local roadways and driveways that would access Merrill Avenue from the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and is not meant to represent a roadway through the airport.
The Commenter is correct. The model incorrectly shows one westbound lane under future conditions. However, this lower capacity does not result in a shift in traffic to adjacent roadways as there is adequate capacity to handle the forecast traffic volumes.
Therefore, this error does not alter findings or conclusions.
A2-15 The comment regarding the increase in land designated as Industrial and Business Park associated with TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is noted. 260
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
The City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds were adopted in June 2020. The City’s guidelines require use of the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) to evaluate how a proposed project changes VMT in the City of Ontario.
It is important to note that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) VMT Guidelines1, shifts the CEQA transportation metrics to promote outcomes that reduce reliance on automobile travel. Neither the Technical Advisory nor CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) directly address how to analyze transportation impacts associated with changes to goods movement, which is largely carried out by heavy-duty trucks. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) specifies that VMT to be analyzed is defined as the amount and distance of automobile travel (emphasis added) attributable to a project. The term ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (emphasis added).2 SB 743 is not intended to require the inclusion of heavy-duty truck trips, utility vehicles, or other types of vehicles in the VMT analysis.3 In the case of trucks (other than light trucks), based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the state’s primary strategy for the goods movement sector is not in VMT reduction, but in advances in technology (zeroemissions [ZE] and near-zero-emissions [NZE] control strategies).4 This is consistent with observations that transportation demand management strategies (TDM) for VMT reductions identified by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPOCA) do not apply to truck VMT. However, the City’s VMT threshold conservatively includes VMT from both passenger vehicles and trucks under the origin-destination (OD) criteria.
The VMT methodology is described on page 6 of VMT Memorandum (see Appendix J to the Draft SEIR). The City of Ontario's VMT threshold for the General Plan under Project analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP5 (for the land use plan) exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions." VMT/SP means all VMT generated by all trips that either begin or end in Ontario, including trucks, divided by the City's service population, which consists of all people living and/or working in Ontario.
1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 2 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 3 PlaceWorks coordinated with staff at OPR on January 12, 2021 to confirm how to address heavy-duty freight VMT in CEQA documents. OPR staff identified that the intent of SB 743 was to address passenger vehicle VMT impact and not freight VMT, as cited under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a). Therefore, lead agencies could exclude freight VMT from transportation VMT impact analyses under CEQA.
4 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 5 Service Population (SP)
261
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-21
Under the Project-level VMT significance threshold, the proposed Plan reduces VMT/SP as compared to the current Plan. The City's cumulative VMT threshold for the General Plan analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions." Compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Plan is adding capacity for 25,399 residential units and 1,092,508 square feet of nonresidential square footage. This includes additional capacity for 5,189,888 square feet of Business Park (BP) and 8,099,949 square feet of Industrial (IND), and reduced capacity for 8,990,532 square feet of Mixed Use (MU) and 3,206,797 square feet of Commercial and Hospitality (NC, GC, OC, and HOS), which results in an absolute increase in VMT.
However, as demonstrated by the reduction in VMT/SP, this increase in residents and jobs results in less VMT per person. The Proposed Project increases both housing and jobs, pursuant to the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) of maintaining and improving the jobs/housing balance. The Proposed Project demonstrates that it accomplishes this goal because the VMT per resident and per employee decreases as compared to the current TOP.
Furthermore, the SEIR consider emissions from freight and freight-related VMT in emissions modeling conducted for TOP 2050 included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For example, modeling in Appendix C provides a breakdown of daily VMT for passenger vehicles, light-heavy duty trucks, medium-heavy duty truck, and heavy-heavy duty truck emission (see page C-17) as well as emissions by vehicle type (see page C-18 through C-25). Therefore, the SEIR considers the impacts associated with the increase in land designated for Industrial and Business Park. Despite the increase in truck VMT, Table 5.3-10, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, shows that NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would decrease compared to the Approved Project. Only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would increase compared to the Approved Project and the vast majority of those emissions would be associated with an increase in consumer product use. As identified in Section
5.3, Air Quality, this was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of TOP 2050.
A2-16 Section 3.4.2.3, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR, provides a detailed description of the land use changes of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP. Figure 3-6, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR also provides the location of the focused land use changes. As identified in this section, the majority of changes are concentrated in four growth areas and the Ontario Ranch.
A2-17 See response to Comment A2-16. The reduction in Industrial development would primarily occur in the four growth areas. At the request of the Commenter, a new Figure 7-1, Reduced Industrial Alternative Parcels, has been incorporated into the SEIR (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Revised Draft SEIR Figures). 262
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
263
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-23
2.4 RESIDENT AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
LETTER R1 – Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer (1 page) 264
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
265
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-25
R1. Response to Comments from Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer, dated June 15, 2022.
R1-1 Responses to the Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R1-2 through R1-6 below.
R1-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute as substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R1-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R1-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R1-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R1-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R1-7 Responses to CASA Pitzer’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R1-2 through R1-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 266
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
267
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-27
LETTER R2 – Inland Equity Partnership (1 page)
268
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
269
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-29
R2. Response to Comments from Maribel Nunez, Inland Equity Partnership, dated June 23, 2022.
R2-1 Responses to Inland Equity Partnership’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R2-2 through R2-4 below.
R2-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R2-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.
However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).
R2-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R2-5 The Housing Element is required to be updated on an eight-year cycle, as established by the State of California. The City’s 6th cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update was recently adopted on March 1, 2022. Responses to Inland Equity Partnership’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R2-2 through R2-4 above. 270
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
271
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-31
LETTER R3 – Susan A. Philips, Professor of Environmental Analysis, Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Randy Bekendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Ana Gonzales, Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Anthony Noriega, Director, District 5, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) de Inland Empire; and Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter (15 pages) 272
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
273
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-33
274
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
275
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-35
276
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
277
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-37
278
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
279
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-39
280
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
281
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-41
282
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
283
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-43
284
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
285
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-45
286
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
287
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-47
R3. Response to Comments from Susan A. Philips, Professor of Environmental Analysis, Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Randy Bekendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Ana Gonzales, Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Anthony Noriega, Director, District 5, LULAC de Inland Empire; and Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter dated June 23, 2022.
R3-1 The Commenter requests additional time for the Draft SEIR review period of TOP 2050 and the Community Climate Action Plan, as well as a separation of 3 to 6 months between the two documents. The public review period of 45 days, beginning on May 9, 2022, and ending on June 23, 2022, met CEQA’s requirement of 45 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a) for Draft EIRs submitted to the State Clearinghouse for public review by State agencies. The request for additional time for TOP 2050 and the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) 2022 update will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. Additionally, see Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, for a description of the outreach conducted for TOP 2050.
R3-2 The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
See response to Comments R3-3 through R3-10 regarding emissions modeling for the CCAP and SEIR. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling conducted for the CCAP and Draft SEIR was conducted using agency-approved protocols, including the U.S.
Community Protocol and the Global Protocol. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR provides an accurate assessment of the existing, Approved Project, and Proposed Project GHG emissions in the City. No changes to the SEIR are warranted.
See response to Comments R3-14 through R3-16 and Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the CEQA baseline for this SEIR is the Approved Project. The Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050, including the increase in Industrial and Business Park designations, within Ontario Ranch and the Original Model Colony (OMC) of Ontario.
R3-3 The Commenter is incorrect that the CCAP excludes heavy-duty trucks that travel to Ontario’s warehouses. The CCAP is based on transportation modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers for TOP 2050. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) modeling is consistent with the City 288
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, which was adopted in June 2020. The City’s guidelines require use of the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) to evaluate how a proposed project changes VMT in the City of Ontario.
The SBTAM origin-destination (OD) modeling accounts for both passenger vehicle and truck traffic in Ontario that is generated by land uses within the City. As a result, the GHG modeling in the CCAP and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR accounts for emissions from both passenger vehicles and trucks generated by land uses in the City.
R3-4 The Commenter cites the CCAP storymap citation regarding industrial facilities. It should be noted that for air quality and GHG emissions modeling “industrial” sector emission specifically reference emissions that are regulated by an Air District. This is also known as permitted emissions and includes emissions sources such as boilers, emergency generators, gas stations, and other emissions from equipment that requires a permit from an Air District. Stationary source infrastructure does not include cargo handling equipment and truck idling emissions that are area source emissions, which are not directly regulated by an Air District.
The CCAP GHG emissions inventory and forecasts include warehouse/industrial mobilesource and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions from light-duty vehicles and heavy trucks associated with warehouse/industrial properties and activities are included under the on-road transportation sector emissions. Emissions from cargo handling equipment are included under the off-road equipment sector. The energy used by these facilities is included in the nonresidential energy sector emissions.
R3-5 The Commenter is requesting additional control measures for industrial development and truck VMT. See response to Comment R3-6.
See response to Comment R3-3. The Draft SEIR and CCAP include emissions from industrial/warehouse developments, including truck VMT. It should be noted that Appendix C-17 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed accounting of light-heavy duty trucks (LHDT), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and passenger vehicle VMT provided by Fehr and Peers and modeling with SBTAM. The primary driver for demand for new warehouse is e-commerce. E-commerce requires three times the warehouse space to carry a wider variety of goods expected to be delivered within two days to local consumers. Warehousing that is close to consumers conserves fuel and improve efficiency, and ultimately reduces VM. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Mobile Source Strategy6 outlines State strategies to reduce emissions from goods movement and trucks, this includes the Truck and Bus Regulation, Heavy6 California Air Resources Board. 2020, October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 289
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-49
Duty Omnibus Regulation, Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, and the proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.
The CCAP includes control measures for warehouse development including requiring that most new warehouses will use electricity as their sole energy source for building appliances and equipment, and that this electricity will be generated by on-site solar panels. The CCAP also considers energy efficiency retrofits, fuel switching, and on-site solar panels for some existing warehouse developments. This is in addition to state policies that are applicable to warehouse developments, including increased supplies of electricity from renewable sources and stricter building codes requiring new buildings to be constructed to meet higher energy efficiency standards. It should be noted that in the South Coast AQMD region, warehouses that are 100,000 square feet or larger are subject to South Coast AQMD’s Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program (Rule 2305). Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would also ensure that new warehouse development consider additional mitigation measure that would reduce emissions below the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds including electric truck charging.
The Draft SEIR and CCAP considers an increase in warehousing in the City of Ontario.
Emissions forecasts are based on the land use statistics included in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR considers the increase in warehousing between the current TOP and TOP 2050. Table 3-3, TOP 2050 Proposed Land Use Summary, includes a detailed summary of the nonresidential square feet and jobs for Business Park (BP) and Industrial (IND) land uses in the City. The CCAP considers the increase in emissions from existing conditions to buildout of TOP 2050.
R3-6 The SEIR is a programmatic, plan-level analysis of impacts of the City’s general plan, TOP 2050. The SEIR evaluates impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the impacts associated with the current TOP in accordance with evaluates the physical environmental impacts associated with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.
It should be noted that the SEIR and CCAP evaluate emissions within the jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario. Permitted sources of emissions (i.e., emissions that are regulated under the California or Federal Clean Air Act) are outside of the City’s jurisdictional control. Furthermore, such sources are subject to increasingly stringent emissions reductions programs outline in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The SEIR evaluated impacts associated with TOP 2050. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial and Business Park land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
Specifically, the Reduced Industrial Alternative evaluated an alternative that would reduce Industrial development on 338 acres in the City. This reduction in Industrial development would primarily occur in the four growth area and Ontario Ranch, as identified in Section 290
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
3.4.2.3, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR. As a result, the SEIR considers a plan that reduces industrial emissions activity in the City.
R3-7 As identified in the SEIR and CCAP, the emissions inventory and forecast consider the following sectors within the jurisdiction control (see response to Comment R3-6) of the City of Ontario: On-Road Transportation, Energy, Solid Waste, Off-Road Equipment, Agriculture, Water and Water, and Land Use and Sequestration. This methodology is consistent with the U.S. Community Protocol and Global Protocol. Freight trains are not within the jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario.
Buildout of the land uses in the City of Ontario associated with the Approved Project or Proposed Project would not directly result in an increase in trains or air traffic. The Proposed Project does not result in a change in land use associated with the Ontario International Airport or railroads in the City. Freight traffic is managed independently by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and Union Pacific Railroad. Interstate freight trains and airplanes are subject to Federal Regulations and exempt from regulation by CARB and South Coast AQMD. CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy7 provides the State’s strategy to reduce emissions from airplanes and trains in California. Additionally, the Commenter hasn’t provided evidence that there would be an increase in trains or airplanes as a result of the increase in Industrial use in the City.
The City does have land use authority associated with warehouses in the City. Warehouses are allowed in the Industrial and Business Park land use designations. The SEIR does consider emissions from freight and freight-related VMT in emissions modeling conducted for TOP 2050 included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For example, modeling in Appendix C provides a breakdown of daily VMT for passenger vehicles, light-heavy duty trucks, medium-heavy duty truck, and heavy-heavy duty truck emission (see page C-17) as well as emissions by vehicle type (see page C-18 through C-25). Therefore, the SEIR considers the impacts associated with the increase in land designated for Industrial and Business Park. Despite the increase in truck VMT, Table
5.3-10, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, shows that NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would decrease compared to the Approved Project. Only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would increase compared to the Approved Project and the vast majority of those emissions would be associated with an increase in consumer product use. As identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, this was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of TOP 2050.
R3-8 Modeling of passenger vehicle and heavy-duty truck VMT is based on SBTAM. This is consistent with the City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, which were adopted in June 2020. The Commenter claims that warehouse square footage has 7 California Air Resources Board. 2021. October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 291
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-51
doubled since 2008, therefore diesel VMT has also doubled. This is an unsubstantiated claim that is counter to the traffic data collected to calibrate/validate the City's transportation demand model (a focused model based on SBTAM), and inconsistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The data referred to by the Commenter as "a radical underestimation" is based on both a regionally and federally approved regional transportation plan model, the SCAG RTP/SCS. It should be noted that the figure referencing truck traffic counts on SR-60 includes pass-through traffic that does not have an origin or destination in the City of Ontario. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15163, the CEQA baseline for the SEIR is the Approved Project not 2008 conditions or 2019 conditions.
Table 1 in the CCAP shows a 19 percent decline in the GHG emissions per mile from light-duty vehicles and a 25 percent increase in GHG emissions per mile from heavy-duty vehicles, translating to an overall 9 percent decline in GHG emissions per mile from the average vehicle. As illustrated in Tables 2 and 5, both heavy-duty and light-duty VMT increased from 2008 to 2019.
GHG emissions modeling conducted for the CCAP and Draft SEIR was conducted using agency-approved protocols, including the U.S. Community Protocol and the Global Protocol. The webtool cited by the Commenter is not an agency-approved tool for estimating GHG emissions in a GHG reduction plan or EIR. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR provides an accurate assessment of the existing, Approved Project, and Proposed Project GHG emissions in the City. No changes to the SEIR are warranted.
As described on page 1-4 of the Draft SEIR, the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project are defined as the incremental impacts between the current TOP and TOP 2050. To accurately assess the incremental impact, this SEIR analyzes the difference between the buildout of the current TOP to buildout of TOP 2050 (i.e., compares “buildout” to “buildout”). Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the Proposed Project, as described in Section 3.4.2.3, Areas of Change. While warehouse square footage in the City has doubled since 2008, this growth is associated with the Approved Project and not the Proposed Project. Therefore, the comments regarding the increase in truck traffic in the City and on State Route 60 since 2008 are noted.
This comment identifies the social cost of carbon and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No further response is necessary.
R3-9 The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 292
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
See response to Comment R3-4 regarding the inclusion of emissions from heavy trucks and cargo handling equipment from warehouses in the CCAP and Draft SEIR.
See response to Comment R3-5. Appendix C-17 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed accounting of light-heavy duty trucks (LHDT), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and passenger vehicle VMT provided by Fehr and Peers and modeling with SBTAM. The truck VMT conducted by Fehr & Peers includes trucks from all land uses in the City including warehouses, grocery stores, hospitals, restaurants, the Ontario Mills Outlets, and more. It is not possible to disaggregate the magnitude of GHG emissions from warehouses in the energy, solid waste, and water/wastewater sectors as these are based on aggregated data sources, either with other nonresidential activities or with all other land uses in Ontario. However, since truck VMT was provided, it can be estimated that heavy-duty VMT comprises 28 percent of total 2019 on-road mobile source GHG emissions.
The measures put into place to slow the spread of COVID-19 resulted in significant changes in human activity and VMT. Most notable are the temporary reductions in both heavy-duty and light-duty VMT across the state’s highways and local roads, and the resulting temporary emission reductions. In California, VMT fell to its lowest point in early- to mid-April, with an approximately 25 percent reduction in heavy-duty VMT and 50 to 60 percent reduction in light-duty VMT. Since that time, both heavy-duty and lightduty VMT have steadily increased, with heavy-duty VMT returning to pre–COVID-19 levels in early June.8 Furthermore, VMT modeling conducted for the Proposed Project in TOP 2050 and the CCAP are based on SBTAM and counts were conducted in 2019 prior to the start of the pandemic, as identified on page 2 of the LOS Memorandum (Appendix K to the Draft SEIR). Forecasts were prepared utilizing traffic models that assume trends consistent with pre-pandemic conditions. No changes to the Draft SEIR or VMT analysis are warranted.
This comment identifies the social cost of carbon and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The CCAP and Draft SEIR consider the increase in GHG emissions from development in the City, include new warehouses. No further response is necessary.
See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources.
Environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, such that the comment’s claims about the 8 California Air Resources Board. 2021. October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 293
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-53
minimization of environmental justice “impacts of logistics” are not comments on the adequacy of the SEIR. See also response to Comments R3-14 through 3-16.
R3-10 This comment is requesting additional data in the CCAP and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR includes the results of CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 indicator results for the City of Ontario for pollution burden (see Figure 5.3-4) and asthma (see Figure 5.3-4). As identified in Figure 5.3-4, most of Ontario ranks within the 75th percentile or higher for pollution burden. Additionally, page 5.3-22 cites that most census tracks in Ontario rank in the 60th to 80th percentiles for asthma.
R3-11 The comment incorrectly states "the lack of independent traffic analysis specifically for the City of Ontario". The City independently developed a Request for Proposals and went through the appropriate procurement process for hiring a planning and environmental consulting team to update TOP. The selection process followed all State and City procurement requirements. The selected team consists of several expert subconsultants to conduct analyses required for each resource area. The City's Engineering Department developed the scope of work for the transportation analysis, including direction on the VMT analysis, provisions of assumed future roadway design and buildout for the consulting team to update in the City's focus model, which is a more detailed model based on SBTAM that provides more granularity for analyzing operations in the City, direction on future bus rapid transit (BRT) operations, and data and input on bike and pedestrian facility plans.
R3-12 A traffic analysis was conducted for TOP 2050 and is included in Appendix J (VMT) and Appendix K (Level of Service) of the Draft SEIR. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are warranted.
This comment is requesting additional information on the policies in TOP 2050 and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The Mobility Element of the Policy Plan provides additional detail on the purpose of the specific measures M-1.2, M-1.6, M-4.2, M-4.4, M-4.5, and M-5.2 cited by the Commenter. Measures M-1.2 and M-1.6 are applied upon receipt of development applications or initiation of a public works project. All other measures included in the Commenter's letter are on-going and intended to inform the community that the City works with regional partners (e.g., SBCTA, Caltrans, Ontario Airport, etc.) to achieve goals towards reducing impacts, notably emissions.
See response to Comment R3-9 regarding the effect of the pandemic on VMT. The traffic analysis utilized traffic data from 2019 (pre-pandemic), as identified on page 2 of the LOS Memorandum (Appendix K to the Draft SEIR). Forecasts were prepared utilizing traffic 294
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
models that assume trends consistent with pre-pandemic conditions. No changes to the Draft SEIR or VMT analysis are warranted.
R3-13 The VMT methodology is described on page 6 of VMT Memorandum (see Appendix J to the Draft SEIR). There are two thresholds that are analyzed: project (OriginDestination approach) and cumulative (Boundary Method approach).
The City's cumulative VMT threshold for the General Plan analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions." The cumulative threshold is based on the Boundary Method, which considers all VMT within the boundary of the City regardless of whether or not the City has jurisdictional authority over these trips. Compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Plan is adding capacity for 25,399 residential units and 1,092,508 square feet of nonresidential square footage.
This includes additional capacity for 5,189,888 square feet of Business Park (BP) and 8,099,949 square feet of Industrial (IND), and reduced capacity for 8,990,532 square feet of Mixed Use (MU) and 3,206,797 square feet of Commercial and Hospitality (NC, GC, OC, and HOS), which results in an absolute increase in VMT. As a result, VMT impacts were identified as a significant unavoidable impact in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR.
The City of Ontario's VMT threshold for the General Plan under project analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions." VMT/SP means all VMT generated by all trips that either begin or end in Ontario, including trucks, divided by the City's service population, which consists of all people living and/or working in Ontario. Under the project-level VMT significance threshold, TOP 2050 reduces VMT/SP as compared to the current TOP, which indicates that the Proposed Project is a more transportation-efficient plan. Likewise, Appendix J shows that VMT per employee and VMT per resident also would decrease with the Proposed Project. This is because the Proposed Project increases both housing and jobs and is therefore consistent with the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) of maintaining and improving the jobs/housing balance. The Proposed Project demonstrates that it accomplishes this goal because the VMT per resident and per employee decreases as compared to the current TOP. As a result, TOP 2050 result in beneficial impact relative the SB 743 goal of encouraging infill development and densification towards more efficient travel and lower VMT per person. As a result, while the Draft SEIR identified a significant unavoidable impact to VMT for cumulative VMT growth, TOP 2050 is a more transportation-efficient plan.
The Commenter has not identified additional mitigation measures that could be incorporated in the SEIR to mitigate the Proposed Project’s significant unavoidable VMT 295
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-55
impact. In the case of trucks (other than light trucks), based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the state’s primary strategy for the goods movement sector is not in VMT reduction, but in advances in technology (zero-emissions [ZE] and near-zero-emissions [NZE] control strategies). 9 This is consistent with observations that transportation demand management strategies (TDM) for VMT reductions identified by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) do not apply to truck VMT.
See response to Comment R3-6. Limits on industrial development in the City is a Project alternative. Placing limits on heavy-duty truck travel is not a feasible mitigation measure as trucks are utilized for goods movement and a warehouse operator does not have the ability to restrict truck movements offsite. Likewise, placing limits on the amount of industrial construction or downsizing industrial development plans is not feasible at a general plan-level. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
R3-14 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
The City of Ontario complied with requirements in place for noticing in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-54-20 (April 22, 2020) and N-80-20 (September 23, 2020) in response to the threat of COVID-19, which expired on September 30, 2021.
TOP 2050 complied with the requirements of Senate Bill 1000. As part of TOP 2050 disadvantaged communities were identified using CES 4.0. See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. It should be noted that the Scoping Meeting presentation was translated to Spanish and posted on the City’s website.
R3-15 See response to Comment R3-15. As identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, long-term regional (Impact 5.3-3) and localized (Impact 5.3-4) impacts were identified as significant unavoidable impacts of TOP 2050. The MATES V results and the CES4 pollution burden map were incorporated into Section 5.3 (see Figure 5.3-1 and Figure 5.3-4, respectively).
For long-term regional impacts, the increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with TOP 2050 is primarily from consumer product use as a result of the substantial increase in housing units in the City. For localized impacts, impacts are 9 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 296
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
associated with the cumulative increase in toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with warehouse development projects in the City. To address this impact, the City incorporated a new Policy ER-4.9, which requires new developments that generate 100 trucks per day or more or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use to conduct a health risk assessment to mitigate cancer and acute health risks as well as additional public outreach to residents within 500 feet of the project site.
No additional measures have been identified by the Commenter.
R3-16 See also response to Comment R3-14 regarding outreach conducted for TOP 2050, which occurred during the COVID 19 pandemic. The City of Ontario complied with requirements in place for noticing in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-54-20 (April 22, 2020) and N-80-20 (September 23, 2020) in response to the threat of COVID-19, which expired on September 30, 2021.
The Commenter requests a delay of one additional year for the approval of the Proposed Project. See response to Comments R3-1 and R3-2 regarding the delay of approval. The request for additional time for TOP 2050 and the CCAP will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration.
See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
See response to Comments R3-5 and 3-6. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial and Business Park land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.
TOP 2050 includes Land Use Element Policy LU-2.1, Land Use Decisions, which requires new development to minimize impacts on adjacent properties, which could include green buffers as well as other site design measures such as placement of docking bays, sound walls, landscaping, and other setback requirements.
The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
Section 5.17, Transportation, Figure 5.17-1, Truck Routes, of the Draft SEIR illustrates the existing truck routes in the City of Ontario as well as connections to truck routes in adjacent cities. As identified in the Policy Plan, to mitigate impacts the City is committed to building grade-separated rail crossings, designing and locating industrial and warehousing land uses, and developing truck routes to protect our neighborhoods from truck traffic (see Policy M-4.1).
297
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-57
R3-17 The request for the City to conduct a Shade Equity Tree Analysis for the neighborhoods south of Holt Boulevard will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
R3-18 The Draft SEIR and the CCAP included GHG emissions from the agricultural land uses in the City. As noted in response to Comment R3-2, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the CEQA baseline for this SEIR is the Approved Project. As a result, for the SEIR, there are no changes in the agricultural sector emissions of the Proposed Project compared to the Approved Project since the current TOP does not have agricultural land use designations. However, both the Draft SEIR and the CCAP include the existing agricultural sector emissions estimates and the reduction in emissions from this sector.
The GHG analysis in the Draft SEIR and the CCAP do not treat agricultural land uses as a sink for GHG emissions. While crops do sequester carbon due to the growth in biomass, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s guidance10 on the topic notes that for annual crops, the increase in biomass is equal to the loss in biomass from harvest and crop mortality, and thus there is no net accumulation of carbon in agricultural biomass. As more than 90 percent of the crop activity in Ontario is estimated to be annual crops, there is no substantive increase in agricultural biomass in Ontario. Additionally, agriculture does generate GHG emissions from nitrogen used for fertilizer, enteric fermentation and manure management associated with livestock, fuel use from agricultural equipment, and other activities.
The GHG analysis does consider that an amount of carbon is sequestered in the soil of agricultural lands, but as this does not change annually, this source only shows as an increase or decrease in GHG emissions if the agricultural land is expanded or developed.
Loss of this sequestration from the development of agricultural lands is accounted for in the “Land Use Change” emissions shown in Table 14 of the CCAP.
This comment is requesting nature-based solutions to offset the carbon footprint of industrial land uses. GHG emissions were not identified as a significant impact of the Proposed Project and this comment does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. Since agricultural land uses are often a source of GHG emissions and not a sink, a regenerative agricultural preserve would not offset the carbon footprint of warehouses in the City.
R3-19 An evaluation of the environment impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is included in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Commenter’s concerns 10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use; Section 5.2.1.1 https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol4.html 298
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
about the loss of agricultural land are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
As noted in response to Comment R3-18, agricultural land uses in Ontario are not a net sink for GHG emissions.
As identified in the CCAP, the City has planted 1,000 trees in public property since 2019.
In fiscal year 2021-2022 the City has planted more than 6,000 trees in private and public property. Urban tree planting is a component of the CCAP. Table 14 in the CCAP notes the decrease in Ontario’s GHG emissions resulting from urban tree biomass.
R3-20 See response to Comment R3-19. The request to create alternative plans for open and working lands (including agriculture) will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
R3-21 TOP 2050 is a focused updated to the current TOP. Neither the current TOP nor TOP 2050 envision agricultural land uses in Ontario Ranch at buildout of the Proposed Project, aside from the Farm Hub in the Great Park. As a result, the CCAP is consistent with the buildout assumptions of TOP 2050 and the current TOP.
Regarding agrivoltaics, the City has a Right-to-Farm Ordinance and the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) supports the installation of solar panels and solar panels are permitted within the City, including Ontario Ranch.
See response to Comments R3-2, R3-6, and R3-18. The Proposed Project would not result in any additional land use changes to agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project. The request to analyze carbon benefits of retaining agricultural land will be forwarded to decision-makers for their review and consideration.
As noted in response to Comments R3-18 and R3-22, agricultural land uses in Ontario are not a sink for GHG emissions.
R3-22 An evaluation of the environment impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is included in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Figure 5.2-1 shows Farmland in the City of Ontario and Figure 5.2-2 shows the Williamson Act lands in Ontario.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino.
The Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project.
299
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-59
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The 2010 Certified EIR included an Agricultural Land Preserve Alternative, which was considered and rejected during the scoping process. The 2010 Certified EIR found that overall continuation of agriculture in this area is likely not feasible, given the social pressures on these areas to meet the increasing population, and also because agricultural uses in this area are being driven out by competition from operations in other sectors. In addition, many of the support services the dairies rely on, including feed/hay for the cattle, have closed as a result of closure of many of the diaries, and few dairies remain. Additionally, this alternative did not meet the objectives of TOP of meeting demands for urban growth.
The Commenter’s concerns about the loss of agricultural land are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
R3-23 Discussion of the loss of agricultural farmlands has been added to Section 1.7, Areas of Controversy, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).
R3-24 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.
However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. As a result, no impacts were identified in the SEIR and no mitigation is required.
In the CCAP, GHG Reduction Strategies 4 (Green Roofs), 5 (Urban Cooling), 22 (Water Efficient Landscapes and Water Recycling), 26 (Climate Change Awareness and Education), and 27 (Carbon Sequestration) all make use of nature-based solutions to reduce Ontario’s GHG emissions. The California Air Resources Board’s Draft 2022 Scoping Plan identifies that the natural and working land are a source of GHG emissions and not a sink of GHG emissions in 2045.11 The land use types considered in the natural working lands sector include cropland. However, agricultural use is a source, not a sink for GHG emission. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies implementation of smart agricultural practices to reduce GHG emissions from cropland, such as improving water use efficiency, increasing pollinator habitat, and reducing synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use.
R3-25 See response to Comment R3-22 regarding alternatives identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. This comment identifies a request to create an agricultural preserve in the Ontario Ranch and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The request for creation of 11 California Air Resources Board. 2022, May. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix I – Natural and Working Lands Technical Support Document. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp-appendix-i-nwl-modeling.pdf 300
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation Agricultural Heritage and Innovation (AHI) zone within and/or adjacent to the Great Park will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. The 340-acre Great Park allows for continues agricultural use and existing agricultural use is allowed to continue under the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance. Additionally, the Great Park envisions creation of a Farm Hub as well as potential agricultural uses.
R3-26 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, identifies that Ontario has eight historic districts, and four proposed and five potential historic districts are deemed eligible for listing (see Figure 5.5-1). The Proposed Project would result in an increase in land use intensity compared to the Approved Project but would not result in development in areas of the City that were not planned for development under the Current TOP.
The 2004 document cited by the Commenter identifies two potential districts based on their associated with the mechanization of the dairy industry and building type. However, significant alteration of land and regional context has occurred since this 2004 study and the 2004 study identified that additional evaluation would be necessary prior to making the determination that dairies qualified as a historic district. The request for the City to evaluate the potential value of dairies as a historic district will be forwarded to the City for their review and consideration.
See response to Comment R3-24 regarding smart agricultural practices.
R3-27 The Commenter’s concerns about the loss of agricultural land and request to create an agricultural preserve are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. It should be noted that the City of Ontario is not a participant in the San Bernardino County Proposition 70 implementation. The Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation managed 200 acres of farmland within Ontario Ranch through a 1988 Park Bond Act with San Bernardino County. The County of San Bernardino deed restrictions remain in effect until either a conservation easement is recorded or until the County of San Bernardino sells or exchanges the property. For the City of Ontario, the City evaluated conversation of agricultural land to non-agricultural use as part of the 2010 Certified EIR and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. However, the Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project (see Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft SEIR).
R3-28 TOP 2050 SEIR will include findings consistent with the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. As identified in response to Comment R3- 22, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the 301
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-61
potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino.
The Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project.
The Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The 2010 Certified EIR considered and rejected an alternative that would result in the creation of an Agricultural Land Preserve Alternative.
See response to Comment R3-16. TOP 2050 includes Land Use Element Policy LU-2.1, Land Use Decisions, which requires new development to minimize impacts on adjacent properties, which could include green buffers as well as other site design measures such as placement of docking bays, sound walls, landscaping, and other setback requirements.
Additionally, TOP 2050 includes a new Policy ER-4.9, which requires new developments that generate 100 trucks per day or more or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of sensitive uses to conduct a health risk assessment to mitigate cancer and acute health risks as well as additional public outreach to residents within 500 feet of the project site.
302
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
303
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-63
LETTER R4 – Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (7 pages) 304
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
305
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-65
306
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
307
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-67
308
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
309
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-69
310
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
311
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-71
R4. Response to Comments from Victoria Yundt, Lozeau │ Drury, LLP, representing the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), dated June 23, 2022.
R4-1 Responses to the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility’s (SAFER) comments are addressed in response to Comments R4-2 through R4-5 below. The City of Ontario will determine the appropriate CEQA approach for future discretionary projects based on the CEQA Guidelines and discretionary action involved. It would not be appropriate to identify the type of future environmental analysis that may be required for future discretionary projects in TOP 2050 SEIR.
R4-2 This comment describes the framework of TOP 2050 and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No response is warranted.
R4-3 This comment identifies that future project-level CEQA review may be necessary for future discretionary projects and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No response is warranted. The City of Ontario will determine the appropriate CEQA approach for future discretionary projects based on the CEQA Guidelines and discretionary action involved.
R4-4 See response to Comment R4-3 above. Comments regarding statements on air quality impacts identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR are noted. Mitigation Measure 3-1, AQ-1, and TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9 would require future discretionary projects to prepare site-specific technical studies to mitigate air quality impacts below the South Coast AQMD thresholds.
R4-5 See response to Comments R4-2 through R4-4 above. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a Draft EIR is required to be recirculated only when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The Proposed Project’s Draft SEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR comprehensive assesses the significant environmental effects of the project, provides a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project, and feasible mitigation measures to reduce and avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. No “significant new information” has been added to the revised Draft SEIR; and therefore, the Draft SEIR are not inadequate and does not need to be recirculated.
R4-6 Responses to SAFER’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R4-1 through R4-5 above.
312
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
313
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-73
LETTER R5 – Robert Barragan (3 pages)
314
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
315
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-75
316
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
317
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-77
R5. Response to Comments from Robert Barragan, dated June 14, 2022.
R5-1 Responses to Robert Barragan’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R5-2 through R5-6 below.
R5-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R5-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R5-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R5-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R5-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R5-7 Responses to Robert Barragan’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R5-2 through R5-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 318
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
319
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-79
LETTER R6 – Vanessa Yambot (1 page)
320
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
321
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-81
R6. Response to Comments from Vanessa Yambot, dated June 14, 2022.
R6-1 Responses to Vanessa Yambot’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R6-2 through R6-6 below.
R6-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R6-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R6-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R6-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R6-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R6-7 Responses to Vanessa Yambot’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R6-2 through R6-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 322
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
323
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-83
LETTER R7 – Ilianna Romero (3 pages)
324
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
325
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-85
326
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
327
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-87
R7. Response to Comments from Ilianna Romero, dated June 14, 2022.
R7-1 Responses to Ilianna Romero’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R7-2 through R7-6 below.
R7-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R7-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R7-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R7-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R7-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R7-7 Responses to Ilianna Romero’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R7-2 through R7-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 328
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
329
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-89
LETTER R8 – Verlynn Gojit (1 page)
330
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
331
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-91
R8. Response to Comments from Verlynn Gojit, dated June 14, 2022.
R8-1 Responses to Verlynn Gojit’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R8-2 through R8-6 below.
R8-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R8-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R8-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R8-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R8-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R8-7 Responses to Verlynn Gojit’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R8-2 through R8-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 332
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
333
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-93
LETTER R9 – Inmi Chao (3 pages)
334
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
335
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-95
336
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
337
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-97
R9. Response to Comments from Inmi Chao, dated June 14, 2022.
R9-1 Responses to Inmi Chao’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R9-2 through R9-6 below.
R9-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R9-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R9-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R9-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R9-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R9-7 Responses to Inmi Chao’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R9-2 through R9-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 338
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
339
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-99
LETTER R10 – Katie Crofford (3 pages)
340
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
341
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-101
342
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
343
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-103
R10. Response to Comments from Katie Crofford, dated June 16, 2022.
R10-1 Responses to Katie Crofford’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R10-2 through R10-6 below.
R10-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R10-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R10-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R10-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R10-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R10-7 Responses to Katie Crofford’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R10-2 through R10-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 344
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
345
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-105
LETTER R11 – Elvia Velazco (3 pages)
346
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
347
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-107
348
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
349
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-109
R11. Response to Comments from Elvia Velazco, dated June 16, 2022.
R11-1 Responses to Elvia Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R11-2 through R11-6 below.
R11-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R11-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R11-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R11-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R11-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R11-7 Responses to Elvia Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R11-2 through R11-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 350
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
351
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-111
LETTER R12 –Aldo Velazco (3 pages)
352
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
353
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-113
354
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
355
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-115
R12. Response to Comments from Aldo Velazco, dated June 16, 2022.
R12-1 Responses to Aldo Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R12-2 through R12-6 below.
R12-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R12-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R12-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R12-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R12-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R12-7 Responses to Aldo Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R12-2 through R12-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 356
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
357
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-117
LETTER R13 – Inez Cardenas (1 page)
358
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
359
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-119
R13. Response to Comments from Inez Cardenas, dated June 16, 2022.
R13-1 Responses to Inez Cardenas’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R13-2 through R13-6 below.
R13-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R13-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R13-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R13-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R13-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R13-7 Responses to Inez Cardenas’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R13-2 through R13-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 360
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
361
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-121
LETTER R14 – Caroline Lanspa (1 page)
362
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
363
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-123
R14. Response to Comments from Caroline Lanspa, dated June 16, 2022.
R14-1 Responses to Caroline Lanspa’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R14- 2 through R14-6 below.
R14-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R14-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R14-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R14-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R14-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R14-7 Responses to Caroline Lanspa’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R14- 2 through R14-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 364
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
365
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-125
LETTER R15 – Daniel Lo (3 pages)
366
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
367
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-127
368
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
369
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-129
R15. Response to Comments from Daniel Lo, dated June 16, 2022.
R15-1 Responses to Daniel Lo’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R15-2 through R15-6 below.
R15-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R15-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R15-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R15-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R15-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R15-7 Responses to Daniel Lo’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R15-2 through R15-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 370
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
371
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-131
LETTER R16 – Eva Ramirez (1 page)
372
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
373
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-133
R16. Response to Comments from Eva Ramirez, dated June 16, 2022.
R16-1 Responses to Eva Ramirez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R16-2 below.
R16-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.
However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).
R16-3 Responses to Eva Ramirez’s comments are addressed in response to Comment R16-2 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. 374
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
375
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-135
LETTER R17 – Cara Butler (1 page)
376
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
377
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-137
R17. Response to Comments from Cara Butler, dated June 17, 2022.
R17-1 Responses to Cara Butler’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R17-2 through R17-4 below.
R17-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R17-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R17-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
378
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
379
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-139
LETTER R18 – Antoinette Anderson (3 pages)
380
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
381
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-141
382
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
383
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-143
R18. Response to Comments from Antoinette Anderson, dated June 17, 2022.
R18-1 Responses to Antoinette Anderson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R18-2 through R18-6 below.
R18-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R18-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R18-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R18-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R18-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R18-7 Responses to Antoinette Anderson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R18-2 through R18-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 384
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
385
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-145
LETTER R19 – Jackie Deans (1 page)
386
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
387
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-147
R19. Response to Comments from Jackie Deans, dated June 17, 2022.
R19-1 Responses to Jackie Dean’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R19-2 below.
R19-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.
However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).
R19-3 Responses to Jackie Dean’s comments are addressed in response to Comment R19-2 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. 388
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
389
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-149
LETTER R20 – Danielle Martinez (3 pages)
390
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
391
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-151
392
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
393
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-153
R20. Response to Comments from Danielle Martinez, dated June 17, 2022.
R20-1 Responses to Danielle Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R20- 2 through R20-6 below.
R20-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R20-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R20-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R20-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R20-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R20-7 Responses to Danielle Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R20- 2 through R20-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 394
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
395
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-155
LETTER R21 – Cynthia Serrano (3 pages)
396
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
397
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-157
398
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
399
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-159
R21. Response to Comments from Cynthia Serrano, dated June 19, 2022.
R21-1 Responses to Cynthia Serrano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R21- 2 through R21-6 below.
R21-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R21-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R21-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R21-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R21-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R21-7 Responses to Cynthia Serrano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R21- 2 through R21-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 400
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
401
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-161
LETTER R22 – Tina Silva (3 pages)
402
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
403
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-163
404
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
405
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-165
R22. Response to Comments from Tina Silva, dated June 19, 2022.
R22-1 Responses to Tina Silva’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R22-2 through R22-6 below.
R22-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R22-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R22-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R22-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R22-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R22-7 Responses to Tina Silva’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R22-2 through R22-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 406
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
407
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-167
LETTER R23 – Jamie Ortega (1 page)
408
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
409
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-169
R23. Response to Comments from Jamie Ortega, dated June 21, 2022.
R23-1 Responses to Jamie Ortega s comments are addressed in response to Comments R23-2 through R23-6 below.
R23-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R23-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R23-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R23-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R23-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R23-7 Responses to Jamie Ortega’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R23-2 through R23-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 410
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
411
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-171
LETTER R24 – Dessa D’Aquila Bentson (1 page)
412
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
413
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-173
R24. Response to Comments from Dessa D’Aquila Bentson, dated June 21, 2022.
R24-1 Responses to Dessa D’Aquila Bentson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R24-2 through R24-6 below.
R24-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R24-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R24-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R24-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R24-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R24-7 Responses to Dessa D’Aquila Bentson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R24-2 through R24-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 414
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
415
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-175
LETTER R25 – Malina Shaw (3 pages)
416
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
417
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-177
418
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
419
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-179
R25. Response to Comments from Malina Shaw, dated June 21, 2022.
R25-1 Responses to Malina Shaw’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R25-2 through R25-6 below.
R25-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R25-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R25-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R25-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R25-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R25-7 Responses to Malina Shaw’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R25-2 through R25-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 420
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
421
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-181
LETTER R26 – Lisa Collinsworth (1 page)
422
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
423
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-183
R26. Response to Comments from Lisa Collinsworth, dated June 21, 2022.
R26-1 Responses to Lisa Collinsworth’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R26- 2 through R26-6 below.
R26-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R26-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R26-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R26-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R26-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R26-7 Responses to Lisa Collinsworth’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R26- 2 through R26-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 424
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
425
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-185
LETTER R27 – Jarius Martinez (1 page)
426
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
427
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-187
R27. Response to Comments from Jarius Martinez, dated June 21, 2022.
R27-1 Responses to Jarius Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R27-2 through R27-6 below.
R27-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R27-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R27-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R27-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R27-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R27-7 Responses to Jarius Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R27-2 through R27-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 428
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
429
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-189
LETTER R28 – Raquel Alba (1 page)
430
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
431
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-191
R28. Response to Comments from Raquel Alba, dated June 21, 2022.
R28-1 Responses to Raquel Alba’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R28-2 through R28-6 below.
R28-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R28-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R28-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R28-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R28-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R28-7 Responses to Raquel Alba’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R28-2 through R28-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 432
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
433
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-193
LETTER R29 – Jocelyn Dimacali (2 pages)
434
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
435
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-195
R29. Response to Comments from Jocelyn Dimacali, dated June 22, 2022.
R29-1 Responses to Jocelyn Dimacali’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R29- 2 through R29-6 below.
R29-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R29-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R29-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R29-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R29-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R29-7 Responses to Jocelyn Dimacali’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R29- 2 through R29-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 436
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
437
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-197
LETTER R30 – Amber Bound (1 page)
438
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
439
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-199
R30. Response to Comments from Amber Bound, dated June 22, 2022.
R30-1 Responses to Amber Bound’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R30-2 through R30-6 below.
R30-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R30-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R30-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R30-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R30-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R30-7 Responses to Amber Bound’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R30-2 through R30-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 440
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
441
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-201
LETTER R31 – Andrea Alvarado (1 page)
442
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
443
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-203
R31. Response to Comments from Andrea Alvarado, dated June 22, 2022.
R31-1 Responses to Andrea Alvarado’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R31- 2 through R31-6 below.
R31-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R31-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R31-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R31-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R31-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R31-7 Responses to Andrea Alvarado’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R31- 2 through R31-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 444
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
445
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-205
LETTER R32 – Deborah Rodriguez (1 page)
446
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
447
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-207
R32. Response to Comments from Deborah Rodriguez, dated June 22, 2022.
R32-1 Responses to Deborah Rodriguez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R32-2 through R32-6 below.
R32-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R32-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R32-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R32-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R32-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R32-7 Responses to Deborah Rodriguez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R32-2 through R32-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 448
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
449
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-209
LETTER R33 – Amanda Wheeler (2 pages)
450
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
451
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-211
R33. Response to Comments from Amanda Wheeler, dated June 22, 2022.
R33-1 Responses to Amanda Wheeler’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R33- 2 through R33-6 below.
R33-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R33-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R33-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R33-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R33-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R33-7 Responses to Amanda Wheeler’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R33- 2 through R33-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 452
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
453
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-213
LETTER R34 – Dena Apodaca (2 pages)
454
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
455
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-215
R34. Response to Comments from Dena Apodaca, dated June 22, 2022.
R34-1 Responses to Dena Apodaca’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R34-2 through R34-6 below.
R34-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R34-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R34-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R34-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R34-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R34-7 Responses to Dena Apodaca’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R34-2 through R34-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 456
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
457
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-217
LETTER R35 – Andrei Pitsko (2 pages)
458
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
459
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-219
R35. Response to Comments from Andrei Pitsko, dated June 22, 2022.
R35-1 Responses to Andrei Pitsko’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R35-2 through R35-6 below.
R35-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R35-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R35-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R35-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R35-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R35-7 Responses to Andrei Pitsko’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R35-2 through R35-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 460
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
461
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-221
LETTER R36 – Randy Bekendam (2 pages)
462
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
463
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-223
R36. Response to Comments from Randy Bekendam, dated June 22, 2022.
R36-1 Responses to Randy Bekendam’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R36- 2 through R36-4 below.
The City of Ontario complied with requirements in place for noticing in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-54-20 (April 22, 2020) and N-80-20 (September 23, 2020) in response to the threat of COVID-19, which expired on September 30, 2021.
TOP 2050 complied with the requirements of Senate Bill 1000. As part of TOP 2050 disadvantaged communities were identified using CES 4.0. See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies.
The public review period of 45 days, beginning on May 9, 2022, and ending on June 23, 2022, met CEQA’s requirement of 45 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a) for Draft EIRs submitted to the State Clearinghouse for public review by State agencies.
An evaluation of the environment impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is included in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Commenter’s concerns about the loss of agricultural land are noted and the request for additional time will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
R36-2 The SEIR is a programmatic, plan-level analysis of impacts of the City’s general plan, TOP 2050. The SEIR evaluates impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the impacts associated with the current TOP in accordance with evaluates the physical environmental impacts associated with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the CEQA baseline for this SEIR is the Approved Project. The Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. The Proposed Project would not result in any additional land use changes to agricultural land in Ontario.
This comment identifies a request to create an agricultural preserve in the Ontario Ranch and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The request for creation of the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation Agricultural Heritage and Innovation (AHI) zone within and/or adjacent to the Great Park will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. The 340-acre Great Park allows for continues agricultural use and existing agricultural use is allowed to continue under the City’s Rightto-Farm Ordinance. Additionally, the Great Park envisions creation of a Farm Hub as well as potential agricultural uses.
464
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
R36-3 See response to Comment R36-2 regarding creation of an AHI Zone.
TOP 2050 includes Land Use Element Policy LU2-1, Land Use Decisions, which requires new development to minimize impacts on adjacent properties, which could include green buffers as well as other site design measures such as placement of docking bays, sound walls, landscaping, and other setback requirements. Future industrial land uses would be required to adhere to Policy ER-4.9, which requires new developments that generate 100 trucks per day or more or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive use to conduct a health risk assessment to mitigate cancer and acute health risks as well as additional public outreach to residents within 500 feet of the project site. The request to provide a buffer between warehouses and the Great Park will be forwarded to decision-makers for their review and consideration.
The GHG analysis in the Draft SEIR and the CCAP do not treat agricultural land uses as a sink for GHG emissions. While crops do sequester carbon due to the growth in biomass, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s guidance12 on the topic notes that for annual crops, the increase in biomass is equal to the loss in biomass from harvest and crop mortality, and thus there is no net accumulation of carbon in agricultural biomass. As more than 90 percent of the crop activity in Ontario is estimated to be annual crops, there is no substantive increase in agricultural biomass in Ontario. Additionally, agriculture does generate GHG emissions from nitrogen used for fertilizer, enteric fermentation and manure management associated with livestock, fuel use from agricultural equipment, and other activities. The GHG analysis does consider that an amount of carbon is sequestered in the soil of agricultural lands, but as this does not change annually, this source only shows as an increase or decrease in GHG emissions if the agricultural land is expanded or developed. Loss of this sequestration from the development of agricultural lands is accounted for in the “Land Use Change” emissions shown in Table 14 of the CCAP. TOP 2050 includes policies that address impacts to disadvantaged communities and access to healthy foods (see Policy SR-1.2) (see Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section
2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies.
Regarding agrivoltaics, the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) supports the installation of solar panels and solar panels are permitted within the City, including Ontario Ranch.
Section 5.4, Biological Resources, evaluates potential impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP. As identified in Section 5.4, the Ontario Ranch supports little native vegetation as a result of long-standing agricultural use (see page 5.4-6). However, sensitive species are known to occur within Ontario; and therefore, to mitigate impacts to biological resources in the City, the City of Ontario has established a Biological Resources Habitat 12 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use; Section 5.2.1.1 https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol4.html 465
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-225
Mitigation Fee for projects in the Ontario Ranch. The request to create habitat for endangered species will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.
The request to create a living history museum and educational facility for dairy in Ontario Ranch will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. As noted in response to Comment R36-2, the Great Park includes a Farm Hub.
The request to preserve Amy’s Farm has been forwarded to decision-makers for their review and consideration.
R36-4 Responses to Randy Bekendam’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R36- 2 through R36-3 above. The environmental impacts of the Proposed Project are addressed in the Draft SEIR, which is available for review on the City’s website. The request to meet will be forwarded to decision-makers for their review and consideration. 466
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
467
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-227
LETTER R37 – Elizabeth Rocco (1 page)
468
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
469
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-229
R37. Response to Comments from Elizabeth Rocco, dated June 23, 2022.
R37-1 Responses to Elizabeth Rocco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R37- 2 through R37-6 below.
R37-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R37-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R37-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R37-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R37-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R37-7 Responses to Elizabeth Rocco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R37- 2 through R37-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 470
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
471
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-231
LETTER R38 – Martha Lopez (2 pages)
472
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
473
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-233
R38. Response to Comments from Martha Lopez, dated June 23, 2022.
R38-1 Responses to Martha Lopez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R38-2 through R38-6 below.
R38-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R38-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R38-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R38-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R38-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R38-7 Responses to Martha Lopez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R38-2 through R38-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 474
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
475
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-235
LETTER R39 – Karen and Guy Caparelli (2 pages)
476
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
477
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-237
R39. Response to Comments from Karen and Guy Caparelli, dated June 23, 2022.
R39-1 Responses to Karen and Guy Caparelli’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R39-2 through R39-6 below.
R39-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R39-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R39-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R39-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R39-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R39-7 Responses to Karen and Guy Caparelli’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R39-2 through R39-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 478
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
479
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-239
LETTER R40 – Elias Luviano (2 pages)
480
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
481
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-241
R40. Response to Comments from Elias Luviano, dated June 23, 2022.
R40-1 Responses to Elias Luviano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R40-2 through R40-6 below.
R40-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R40-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R40-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R40-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R40-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R40-7 Responses to Elias Luviano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R40-2 through R40-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 482
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
483
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-243
LETTER R41 – Nazareth Bracamontes (1 page)
484
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
485
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-245
R41. Response to Comments from Nazareth Bracamontes, dated June 23, 2022.
R41-1 Responses to Nazareth Bracamontes’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R41-2 through R41-6 below.
R41-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R41-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R41-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R41-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R41-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R41-7 Responses to Nazareth Bracamontes’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R41-2 through R41-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 486
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
487
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-247
LETTER R42 – Estela Ballon (2 pages)
488
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
489
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-249
R42. Response to Comments from Estela Ballon, dated June 23, 2022.
R42-1 Responses to Estela Ballon’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R42-2 through R42-6 below.
R42-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R42-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R42-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R42-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R42-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R42-7 Responses to Estela Ballon’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R42-2 through R42-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 490
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
491
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-251
LETTER R43 – Rosemary Ramos (2 pages)
492
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
493
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-253
R43. Response to Comments from Rosemary Ramos, dated June 23, 2022.
R43-1 Responses to Rosemary Ramos’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R42- 3 through R43-6 below.
R43-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.
R43-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.
R43-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R43-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R43-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.
Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
R43-7 Responses to Rosemary Ramos’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R43-2 through R43-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration 494
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
2. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
.
495
July 2022 Page 3-1
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Draft SEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the Draft SEIR.
None of the revisions to the Draft SEIR require recirculation of the document. Recirculation is only required when significant new information is added. Information is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Recirculation is not required where the new information merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.) As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.
Changes made to the Draft SEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in double underlined text to signify additions.
3.2 DRAFT SEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft SEIR.
City.
The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (31,958 32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI).
496
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
include discussion about loss of agricultural farmlands in response to Comments from Susan A. Philips, Professor of Environmental Analysis, Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Randy Bekendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Ana Gonzales, Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Anthony Noriega, Director, District 5, LULAC de Inland Empire; and Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter.
In accordance with Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR summary must identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. The City of Ontario has no knowledge of expressed opposition to the Proposed Project. Prior to preparation of the Supplemental DEIR, a public scoping meeting was held on August 5, 2021, to determine the concerns of responsible and trustee agencies and the community regarding the Proposed Project. The scoping meeting was held virtually and identified concerns to traffic, recreational access, and aircraft noise. In addition, NOP comment letters received during the review period are summarized in Chapter 2, Introduction (see Table 2-1, NOP Comment Summary). There has been growing opposition to the loss of agricultural land to industrial development within the City of Ontario. The City received 43 Comment Letters on the Draft SEIR expressing growing opposition to the loss of agriculture uses.
497
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
July 2022 Page 3-3
Pages 1-28 and 1-29, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure 3-1 has been revised to correct a typographical error.
Impact 5.3-2. Construction activities
associated with future development that would
be accommodated under TOP 2050 could
generate short-term emissions in exceedance
of the South Coast AQMD’s threshold criteria.
Potentially significant 2010 Certified EIR
3-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval.
The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, The City of Ontario bBuilding dDepartment shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. o 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 Tier 4 interim 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/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
Significant and
unavoidable
498
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Pages 1-32 and 1-33, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure 5-1 has been revised to provide additional detail on the City of Ontario procedures for evaluating historic resources.
Impact 5.5-1. Implementation of TOP 2050
could impact a historic resource.
Potentially significant. 2010 Certified EIR
5-1 Historic or potentially historic resources in the City shall be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s tier system prior to the issuance of plan or development approvals in the Focus Areas. Pursuant to City’s Development Code (Chapter 7, Historic Preservation), mitigation measures for all Tier III Historic Resources shall include the following:
a) Eeach historic resource shall be fully documented and cataloged pursuant to Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) standards, to provide a record of the resource, including, but not limited to: [i] the preparation of site plans, floor plans, exterior and interior elevations, and detail drawings of character defining features (such as moldings, stairs, etc.); and [ii] photographs of the resource, including the exterior, interior, and interior and exterior character defining features (such as moldings, light fixtures, trim patterns, etc.).
b) A mitigation fee established pursuant to Section 7.01.025 (Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee) shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for Tier III historic resources. Fees for Tier I and II historic resources shall be determined during the Environmental Impact Report process. The fees established for Tier III will be used as a reference point for establishing fees for Tier I and II historic resources.
c) A Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be issued for the demolition of an historic resource, either in whole or in part, until such time that a demolition permit application and a replacement structure has been approved by the City, and appropriate permits have been issued for its construction, unless: [i] a waiver is granted pursuant to Subsection H (Replacement Structure Waiver for Historic Resources Located within Industrial Zoning Districts) of this Section; [ii] a deferral of the replacement structure requirement is granted pursuant to Subsection G (Replacement Structure Deferral) of this Section; or [iii] demolition is required pursuant to Section 7.01.050 (Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions) of this Development Code.
d) In an effort to preserve features and artifacts from historic resources, a determination whether items within or on the resource should be Significant and
unavoidable
499
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
July 2022 Page 3-5
salvaged must be made by the Planning Department and may include the local historical society prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.
The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation, storage, and donation of such items selected for salvaging. The applicant shall provide an inventory of salvaged items to the Planning Department, and shall include a list of each item name, description and dimension (as necessary), and the location of each item on a floor plan.
Pages 1-55, 1-56, and 1-57, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. Mitigation Measure 12-4 has been revised to reflect the appropriate department.
Impact 5.13-1. Construction activities
associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would
result in temporary noise increases at sensitive
receptors during construction activities.
Potentially significant 2010 Certified EIR
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 constructionrelated noise to the extent feasible. Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities conducted in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans submitted to the City. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits. • Construction activity is limited to the hours: Between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic Significant and
unavoidable
500
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools. • Stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noisesensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department Planning and Building Departments.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
• During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
• Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq.
Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material. 501
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
July 2022 Page 3-7
The City comprises approximately 50 square miles (31,958 32,022 acres), including the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch in the southern part of the City—formerly known as the New Model Colony (NMC) and formerly the City’s sphere of influence (SOI).
updated to include a statement specifying that Mixed Use Neighborhoods Activity Hub projects located outside of Ontario Ranch will be subject to Planned Unit Development (PUD) at the City’s discretion.
Mixed Use
Neighborhood Activity
Hubs4
(MU-NH)
6th and Mountain
4th and Mountain
Francis and Euclid
Walnut and Euclid
Riverside and Euclid
20.0 to 75.0 dwelling units
per acre
1.0 FAR for retail and
office
Subject to Specific Plan3
Projects located outside of
Ontario Ranch will be
subject to PUD at City’s
Discretion
Envisioned as a low-rise (3 to 5 stories), mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place along the corridor and serve the surrounding residents.
Land uses surrounding the City mostly support residential industrial, commercial and industrial residential uses with minimal agricultural land parcels dispersed intermittently.
policy.
Implementation of the following TOP 2050 policies would reduce project-level localized impacts from industrial development:
ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet of homes, childcare facilities, schools, and hospitals from sensitive land uses (California Health and Safety Code Section 42705.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending 502
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.
policy (highlighted).
ER-3.5: Fuel -Efficient and Alternative Energy Vehicles and Equipment. We should require purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or surpass state emissions requirements and/or use renewable sources of energy.
policy (highlighted).
ER-4.9: New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet of homes, childcare facilities, schools, and hospitals from sensitive land uses (California Health and Safety Code Section 42705.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.
3-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, The the City of Ontario bBuilding dDepartment shall require that all new construction projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
503
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR
July 2022 Page 3-9
Require 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 Tier 4 interim 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.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
Pages 5.4-29 and 5.4-30, Chapter 4, Biological Resources. The following has been revised to remove extraneous information.
The settlement agreement for the City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment governs mitigation for biological resources impacts in Ontario Ranch associated with potential impacts to the burrowing owl, the DSFLF, raptor foraging and wildlife habitat, loss of open space, actual and potential habitat and agricultural land, and sensitive species (listed and nonlisted). The terms of the settlement agreement were discussed in the “Local Regulations” section under “City of Ontario Sphere of Influence General Plan Amendment, Final EIR, and Settlement Agreement.” Per the conditions of the settlement agreement, the City will be soliciting RFPs to select a non-profit land trust and/or organization specializing in habitat conservation.
The selected non-profit and/or organization will be responsible for the administration of the habitat mitigation fees and creation of a habitat program pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement between the City of Ontario, the Endangered Habitats League, and the Sierra Club. In partnership with the CDFW, the City 504
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR
CITY OF ONTARIO
3. Revisions to the Draft EIR