(1) The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report — On January 27, 2010, the City Council adopted The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) and certified the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140). TOP includes the General Plan for the entire City, including the NMC (now referred to as “Ontario Ranch”). TOP EIR identified many areas that might have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These areas included: 1) Aesthetics; 2) Biological Resources; 3) Geology and Soils; 4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5) Hydrology and Water Quality; 6) Land Use and Planning; 7) Mineral Resources; 8) Population and Housing; 9) Public Services; 10) Recreation; and 11) Utilities and Service Systems. 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.
TOP also identified several potential impacts that, even with revisions and/or mitigation measures, could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These areas included:
(a) Agriculture Resources.
Impact 5.2-1. Buildout of TOP would convert 3,269.3 acres of California Resource Agency designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance to residential, commercial, mixed-use, and industrial land uses.
Consequently, Impact 5.2-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.2-2. There are a number of Williamson Act contracts within the City that have yet to expire. Buildout of TOP would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of these contracts. The current use of these contracts would slow the rate of conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural land but it would not impede the conversion. Since there are some Williamson Act contracts still active in the Ontario Ranch, implementation of the proposed land use plan for The Ontario Plan would conflict with these contracts and cause a significant impact. Consequently, Impact 5.2-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.2-3. Development of the City in accordance with TOP would increase the amount of nonagricultural land uses. When nonagricultural land uses are placed near agricultural uses, the odors, noises, and other hazards related to agriculture conflict with the activities and the quality of life of the people living and working in the surrounding areas. Consequently, conversion of agricultural uses in the city may cause farms and agricultural land uses outside the City to be converted to nonagricultural uses because of the nuisances related to agriculture. Impact 5.2-3 would remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
(b) Air Quality.
153
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
Impact 5.3-1. The Project would not be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (“AQMP”) because air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of the City of Ontario would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (“SoCAB”). Furthermore, buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would exceed current estimates of population, employment, and vehicle miles traveled for Ontario and, therefore, these emissions are not included in the current regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. As both criteria must be met in order for a project to be considered consistent with the AQMP, the Project would be considered inconsistent with the AQMP. Consequently, Impact 5.3-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.3-2. Construction activities associated with buildout of TOP would generate short-term emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) regional significance thresholds; cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB’s nonattainment designations for O3, PM10, and PM2.5; and potentially elevate concentrations of air pollutants at sensitive receptors. Consequently, Impact 5.3-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.3-3. Buildout of TOP would generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’S regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB nonattainment designations for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Consequently, Impact 5.3-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.3-5. Approval of residential and other sensitive land uses within 500 feet of I-10, I-15, or SR-60 would result in exposure of persons to substantial concentrations of diesel particulate matter. Consequently, Impact 5.3-5 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.3-6. Conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses would temporarily expose residents to objectionable odors. Consequently, Impact 5.3-6 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
(c) Cultural Resources
Impact 5.5-1. Although protective regulations are in place and preservation policies are included in TOP, implementation of the Proposed Land Use Plan, especially within growth focus areas, has the potential to impact Tier III historic resources.
Mitigation Measure 5-1 would require a historical evaluation for properties within historic resources in the Focus Areas under the City’s ordinance. However, the ordinance does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III resources. As a result, historical resources categorized under the Ordinance as Tier III could potentially be impacts with 154
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
implementation of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Consequently, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
(d) Global Climate Change.
Impact 5.6-1. Buildout of the City of Ontario would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly contribute to global climate change impacts in California. GHG emissions generated in the City would significantly contribute to climate change impacts in California as a result of the growth in population and employment in the City and scale of development activity associated with buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan. Consequently, Impact 5.6-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. (e) Noise.
Impact 5.12-1. Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would result in an increase in traffic on local roadways in the City of Ontario, which would substantially increase noise levels. Consequently, Impact 5.12-1 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.12-2. Noise-sensitive uses could be exposed to elevated noise levels from transportation sources. Any siting of new sensitive land uses within a noise environment that exceeds the normally acceptable land use compatibility criterion would result in a potentially significant impact and would require a separate noise study through the development review process to determine the level of impacts and required mitigation. Consequently, Impact 5.12-2 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.12-3. Construction activities associated with buildout of the individual land uses associated with the Proposed Land Use Plan would expose sensitive uses to strong levels of ground borne vibration. Consequently, Impact 5.12-3 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.12-5. Construction activities associated with buildout of the individual land uses associated with the Proposed Land Use Plan would substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of sensitive land uses. Consequently, Impact 5.12-5 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
Impact 5.12-6. Noise-sensitive land uses within the 65 dBA CNEL contour of the Los Angeles/Ontario International Airport would be exposed to substantial levels of airport-related noise. Consequently, Impact 5.12-6 would remain significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. 155
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
(f) Transportation and Traffic.
Impact 5.15-1. Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan would result in additional traffic volume that would significantly cumulatively contribute to main-line freeway segment impacts. The City’s development impact fees cannot be used for improvements to roadway facilities under Caltrans jurisdiction. Consequently, impacts to freeway segments within the City under Impact 5.16-1 would be significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required.
While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the City determined that the benefits of the Ontario Ranch development outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan. As a result, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of “less than significant.”
(2) Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Subsequent Environmental Impact Report — A Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018) was prepared for this Project, in accordance with CEQA requirements. Through the Notice of Preparation and scoping meeting discussion, the following areas of potential impact were identified and addressed:
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Public Services
Transportation and Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Subsequent EIR evaluates each of these various areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of impact. With the implementation of the various mitigation measures, many of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Of the 16 areas considered by the EIR, all but four of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant, after adoption of the TOP 2050 Update. The four remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced 156
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas include:
(a) Agriculture and Forestry Resources.
Impact 4.1-1. The proposed Project would convert Farmland to nonagricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate agricultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-5. The proposed Project would convert Farmland to nonagricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would mitigate agricultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
(b) Air Quality.
Impact 4.2-1. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan. Implementation of the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds following completion of the Project. Although MMs AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce Project emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.
In addition, in accordance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting of the Subsequent Draft Subsequent EIR) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18.).
Impact 4.2-2. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the applicable air quality plan. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions.
Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.
As indicated in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9, operation of the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. The majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by 157
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ 11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ 6, operational emissions of NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-20 through 4.2-23.). (c) Greenhouse Gases.
Impact 4.6-1. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in both short-term construction and long-term operational greenhouse gas emissions. The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are shown in Table 4.7-2, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
The Project would result in the generation of approximately 5,988 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 200 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Project-generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment.
Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table
4.7-3, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft Subsequent EIR. As shown in Table
4.7-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 24,929 MTCO2e annually from both construction (amortized) and operations. Project-related GHG 158
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s 10,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for industrial uses. The majority of the GHG emissions (70 percent) are associated with nonconstruction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.
The Project would generate approximately 19,268 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks.
MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.
Standard condition (SC) GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, as required by the CBC, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times.
Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to offset the Project’s energy consumption and MM GHG 2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency.
With mitigation, the majority (89 percent) of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions to less than significant levels. While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. However, MM GHG-3 would require that the Project incorporate Project Design Features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant. However, at the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.76-2. Implementation of the proposed Project would conflict with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (“CAP”). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require future individual projects accommodated under the 159
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
proposed Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. This measure would ensure that future individual projects are consistent with the City’s Community CAP and would reduce Impact 4.6-2 to less than significant. However, there is the potential for the Project to generate GHG emissions that would result in significant impacts on the environment. Pending adoption of the City CAP update; a determination that the City CAP as updated is consistent with applicable State and regional GHG emissions reduction plans; and a determination that the proposed Project is consistent with the CAP as updated, the potential for Project GHG emissions to result in a significant impact on the environment is conservatively considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact.
(d) Transportation and Traffic.
Impact 4.13-2. The proposed Project was found to exceed the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) threshold by 19.61 percent. Although the Project VMT could be reduced through the measures identified above, this analysis has conservatively not taken any credit for these VMT measures. Inclusion of such VMT reduction measures in areas that are characteristically suburban in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 15 percent, which is not enough to reduce Project-generated VMT to a level below the City’s adopted significance threshold.
Finally, as future Project design features and building tenants are not yet known, reductions in VMT related to the above TDM measures cannot be accurately estimated or guaranteed. Therefore, the Project’s transportation impact based on VMT is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact would be significant, unavoidable, and unmitigable for the Project. The VMT reduction measures could include VMT measures 1, 6 and 7 above.
Furthermore, MM GHG-1 may provide further VMT reduction depending on which GHG reduction strategies are chosen from the City’s CAP Screening Table discussed in Section
4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No other mitigation measures are feasible to reduce VMT below the City’s thresholds of significance.
(e) Land Use and Planning.
At the time of publication of the Draft SEIR, the Project’s proposed land uses were inconsistent with the City’s 2010 TOP. However, the City’s 2050 TOP Update was approved and certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022, which established TOP Land Use districts which are consistent with the proposed Project’s land use districts. As such, the previously analyzed significant cumulative Land Use and Planning Impact is no longer applicable to the Project.
While mitigation of all potential impacts to a level of less than significant is desirable, the fact that four areas will remain significant and unavoidable is not unexpected. The identification of these areas as significant and unavoidable validates the work previously completed for the 2010 TOP and 2050 TOP Update. Staff continues to believe that the 160
Planning Commission Staff Report
File No.: PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
benefits of the proposed development outweigh the potential impacts associated with it. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council 1) certify the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Subsequent EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018) and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted for the Project, and 2) approve the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment document.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: See attached department reports. 161
162
RESOLUTION NO. PC22-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE PROJECT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050018) AND ADOPT
FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FILE NO. PSPA21-
002, THE ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT, LOCATED WITHIN ONTARIO RANCH AND GENERALLY
BORDERED BY EUCALPYTUS AVENUE TO THE NORTH, SULTANA
AVENUE TO THE WEST, MERRILL AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, AND
CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 1054-041-01, 1054-041-02, 1054-031-01, 1054-031-02, 1054-261-01, 1054-261-02, 1054-291-01, AND 1054-291-02.
WHEREAS, Euclid Land Venture LLC ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA21-002, for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in conjunction with the following: [1] The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) 2050 update General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA20-002) to the Vision, Governance Manual, and Policy Plan components of TOP, and [2] an update to the Community Climate Action Plan (File No. PADV22-002); and
WHEREAS, the Project EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for File No. PGPA20-002, a General Plan Amendment, and File No. PSPA21-002, the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, 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 EIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of a Specific Plan Amendment (Ontario Ranch Business Park) to establish land use designations, development standards, and design guidelines for approximately 71.69 acres of land within Ontario Ranch, generally located north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Campus Avenue, and east of Sultana Avenue; and WHEREAS, the EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft EIR; and
163
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
WHEREAS, the EIR for File No. PSPA21-002 was circulated for a 45-day public review period and a notice of its availability was published in a local newspaper and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, a public notification was posted on the Project site (one sign facing Eucalyptus Avenue and one facing Merrill Avenue) for minimum of ten days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. The signs shall be removed within fourteen days of the Project’s final approval by City Council; and
WHEREAS, copies of the EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR and continued the Project to the August 30, 2022, Special Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public special hearing on the EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR 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 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR (SCH# 2019050018) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
164
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, and finds that, if the Specific Plan Amendment is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Air Quality – Impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
(b) Agricultural Resources – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and
(c) Transportation – Impacts related to intersections are projected to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable; and
(d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 3: Recommendation. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Project EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program also be approved by the City Council.
SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
165
166
167
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
ATTACHMENT A:
Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and
Appendices
(Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Appendices to follow this page) 168
ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS PARK
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018
Specific Plan Amendment PSPA21-002
Lead Agency:
City of Ontario
Contact: Alexis Vaughn, Assistant Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91761
909.395.2036
Consultant:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, California 92501
Contact: Mr. Kevin Thomas, CEP, ENV SP
June 2022
J
CITY OF
ONTARIO
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Kimley>>>Horn
169
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Environmental Procedures..................................................................................1-1
1.2.1 EIR Format............................................................................................1-2
1.3 Project Location................................................................................................1-3
1.4 Project Summary...............................................................................................1-4
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives .........................................................................1-5
1.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative ...............................................................1-6
1.5.2 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative..............................................1-7
1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative..................................................................1-8
1.6 Issues to be Resolved.........................................................................................1-9
1.7 Areas of Controversy .........................................................................................1-9
1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation................................................................ 1-10
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.......................................................................................2-1
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report........................................................2-1
2.2 Notice of Preparation.........................................................................................2-2
2.3 Scope of this Draft Subsequent EIR ......................................................................2-4
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant..................................................2-4
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts.....................................................2-4
2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts...................................................2-5
2.4 Incorporation by Reference ................................................................................2-5
2.5 Final EIR Certification.........................................................................................2-7
2.6 Mitigation Monitoring........................................................................................2-7
2.7 Lead Agency.....................................................................................................2-7
2.7.1 City of Ontario.......................................................................................2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Project Location................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Project Background ...........................................................................................3-1
3.3 Purpose and Statement of Objectives...................................................................3-2
3.4 Project Site and Surrounding Land Use Considerations............................................3-3
3.4.1 Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations................................................3-3
3.4.2 Airport Influence Areas...........................................................................3-4
3.4.3 Williamson Act Contracts ........................................................................3-5 170
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 ii Table of Contents
3.5 Project Characteristics .......................................................................................3-5
3.5.1 Proposed Zoning Designations.................................................................3-5
3.5.2 SB330 Compliance..................................................................................3-6
3.5.3 Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (PSPA21-002) ...........3-6
3.5.4 Specific Plan Phasing ............................................................................ 3-25
3.6 Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required....................................................... 3-26
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS...............................................................................4-1
4.0.1 Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts .........................................................4-2
4.0.2 Related Projects................................................................................................4-4
4.1 ARGICULTURE AND FORESTRY.......................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.1-6
4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................... 4.1-8
4.1.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies................................................................ 4.1-9
4.1.5 Methodology...................................................................................... 4.1-9
4.1.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................... 4.1-9
4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.1-12
4.1.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.1-12
4.1.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.1-12
4.1.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation................................................... 4.1-16
4.1.11 References....................................................................................... 4.1-17
4.2 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................. 4.2-1
4.2.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.2-5
4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.2-11
4.2.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.2-15
4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.2-17
4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.2-33
4.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.2-34
4.2.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.2-34
4.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.2-37
4.2.11 References....................................................................................... 4.2-37
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.3-9
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.3-13
4.3.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.3-14 171
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 iii Table of Contents
4.3.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.3-14
4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.3-15
4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.3-19
4.3.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.3-20
4.3.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.3-21
4.3.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.3-22
4.3.11 References....................................................................................... 4.3-23
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.4-9
4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.4-24
4.4.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.4-25
4.4.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.4-25
4.4.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.4-27
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.4-28
4.4.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.4-29
4.4.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.4-29
4.4.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.4-29
4.4.11 References....................................................................................... 4.4-29
4.5 ENERGY ........................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.5-2
4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................... 4.5-8
4.5.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies................................................................ 4.5-8
4.5.5 Methodology...................................................................................... 4.5-9
4.5.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.5-10
4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.5-15
4.5.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.5-15
4.5.9 Mitigation Measures......................................................................... 4.5-15
4.5.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.5-15
4.5.11 References....................................................................................... 4.5-16
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.6-7
4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................... 4.6-9
4.6.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.6-10
4.6.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.6-10 172
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 iv Table of Contents
4.6.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.6-12
4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.6-15
4.6.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.6-15
4.6.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.6-16
4.6.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.6-17
4.6.11 References....................................................................................... 4.6-17
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.7-3
4.7.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.7-15
4.7.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.7-16
4.7.5 Project Design Features..................................................................... 4.7-17
4.7.6 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.7-17
4.7.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.7-18
4.7.8 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.7-35
4.7.9 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.7-35
4.7.10 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.7-35
4.7.11 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.7-36
4.7.12 References....................................................................................... 4.7-36
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS............................................................ 4.8-1
4.8.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.8-9
4.8.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.8-20
4.8.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.8-21
4.8.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.8-22
4.8.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.8-22
4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.8-27
4.8.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.8-27
4.8.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.8-27
4.8.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.8-30
4.8.11 References....................................................................................... 4.8-31
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................... 4.9-4
4.9.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................... 4.9-9
4.9.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.9-10
4.9.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.9-11 173
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 v Table of Contents
4.9.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.9-11
4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................... 4.9-18
4.9.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................. 4.9-18
4.9.9 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 4.9-18
4.9.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ................................................... 4.9-19
4.9.11 References....................................................................................... 4.9-19
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.10-3
4.10.3 Threshold of Significance.................................................................... 4.10-6
4.10.4 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.10-6
4.10.5 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.10-6
4.10.6 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.10-21
4.10.7 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.10-21
4.10.8 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................4.10-21
4.10.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................4.10-21
4.10.10 References......................................................................................4.10-22
4.11 NOISE......................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.11-9
4.11.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................4.11-13
4.11.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................4.11-13
4.11.5 Methodology...................................................................................4.11-13
4.11.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................4.11-15
4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.11-23
4.11.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.11-26
4.11.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................4.11-26
4.11.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................4.11-26
4.11.11 References......................................................................................4.11-27
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING.......................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.12-4
4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.12-7
4.12.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.12-7
4.12.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.12-7
4.12.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.12-8
4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.12-10 174
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 vi Table of Contents
4.12.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.12-11
4.12.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................4.12-11
4.12.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................4.12-11
4.12.11 References......................................................................................4.12-11
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES.......................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.13-4
4.13.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.13-8
4.13.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.13-9
4.13.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.13-9
4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.13-9
4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.13-11
4.13.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.13-12
4.13.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................4.13-12
4.13.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................4.13-12
4.13.11 References......................................................................................4.13-13
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC .................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.14-4
4.14.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.14-8
4.14.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.14-8
4.14.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.14-9
4.14.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................. 4.14-9
4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.14-26
4.14.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.14-26
4.14.9 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................4.14-26
4.14.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ..................................................4.14-26
4.14.11 References......................................................................................4.14-27
4.15 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES....................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting............................................................................. 4.15-3
4.15.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................. 4.15-8
4.15.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies.............................................................. 4.15-8
4.15.5 Methodology.................................................................................... 4.15-8
4.15.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................4.15-11
4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................4.15-12
4.15.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation................................................4.15-12 175
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 vii Table of Contents
4.15.9 Mitigation Measures................................................................................ 4.15-13
4.15.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................... 4.15-14
4.15.11 References............................................................................................... 4.15-14
4.16 UTILITIES ................................................................................................................ 4.16-1
4.16.1 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 4.16-1
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.16-6
4.16.3 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................ 4.16-16
4.16.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies................................................................... 4.16-16
4.16.5 Methodology ........................................................................................... 4.16-18
4.16.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................ 4.16-18
4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.16-27
4.16.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation..................................................... 4.16-28
4.16.9 Mitigation Measures................................................................................ 4.16-29
4.16.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation ....................................................... 4.16-29
4.16.11 References............................................................................................... 4.16-29
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project ...................................... 5-1
5.2 Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts ....................................................... 5-2
5.3 Water Quality.............................................................................................................. 5-3
5.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................... 5-3
5.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts............................................................................................ 5-5
5.6 Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth.................................................................. 5-8
6.0 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process.... 6-2
6.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis.................................................................... 6-3
6.4 No Project/No Build Alternative .................................................................................. 6-3
6.5 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative ............................................................... 6-8
6.6 Reduced-Intensity Alternative ................................................................................... 6-14
6.7 Environmentally-Superior Alternative........................................................................ 6-19
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7-1
8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 EIR Consultation.......................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 List of Preparers .......................................................................................................... 8-2 176
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 viii Table of Contents
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Maximum Project Buildout.........................................................................................1-5 Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures............................... 1-11 Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary..............................................................................2-2 Table 3-1: Maximum Specific Plan Build-Out Summary ..................................................................3-7 Table 3-2: Conceptual Site Plan..................................................................................................3-7 Table 3-3: Development Standards........................................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-4: Off-Street Parking and Loading Design Standards......................................................... 3-18 Table 3-5: Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces......................................................... 3-19 Table 3-6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required............................................................... 3-27 Table 4 1: Related Approved and Pending Projects.......................................................................4-4 Table 4.1-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion........................................... 4.1-2 Table 4.1-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) ....................... 4.1-3 Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.......................................... 4.2-3 Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants................................................ 4.2-4 Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................... 4.2-7 Table 4.2-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin........................... 4.2-9 Table 4.2-5: SCAQMD Emission Thresholds............................................................................. 4.2-12 Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations...................................... 4.2-13 Table 4.2-7: SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds................................. 4.2-13 Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions........................................................................... 4.2-19 Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions...................................................................... 4.2-20 Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions........................................................................ 4.2-22 Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates...................................................................... 4.2-26 Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions.................................................. 4.2-26 Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions.................................................... 4.2-27 Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity .......................... 4.3-3 Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity....................... 4.3-5 Table 4.5-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage......................................................................... 4.5-10 Table 4.5-2: Electricity Consumption...................................................................................... 4.5-12 Table 4.5-3: Natural Gas Consumption................................................................................... 4.5-13 Table 4.5-4: Operation-Related Fuel Usage............................................................................. 4.5-13 Table 4.5-5: Consistency with the TOP ................................................................................... 4.5-14 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases .......................................................................... 4.7-2 Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................... 4.7-19 Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................... 4.7-20 Table 4.7-4: Community CAP Consistency............................................................................... 4.7-22 Table 4.7-5: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development...................... 4.7-27 Table 4.7-6: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency.......................................................................... 4.7-30 Table 4.7-7: Project Consistency with Applicable CARB Scoping Plan Measures............................ 4.7-31 177
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.9-1: Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Hydrology and Water Quality............ 4.9-9 Table 4.9-2: Construction BMPs....................................................................................................... 4.9-12 Table 4.9-3 Proposed Peak Drainage Flow Rates from a 25-Year and 100-Year Storm ...................... 4.9-16 Table 4.10-1: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications ..................... 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2: TOP 2050 Update General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Classifications...... 4.10-3 Table 4.10-3: Existing TOP Land Use Designations............................................................................ 4.10-5 Table 4.10-4: TOP 2050 Update Land Use Designations ................................................................... 4.10-5 Table 4.10-5: Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals.................................................... 4.10-8 Table 4.10-6: Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) ............................................ 4.10-9 Table 4.11-1: Typical Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 4.11-4 Table 4.11-2: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels............................................................... 4.11-5 Table 4.11-3: Existing Traffic Noise Levels........................................................................................ 4.11-6 Table 4.11-4: Existing Noise Measurements..................................................................................... 4.11-7 Table 4.11-5: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines................................... 4.11-10 Table 4.11-6: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario................................................................ 4.11-11 Table 4.11-7: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Chino................................................................... 4.11-12 Table 4.11-8: Groundborne Vibration Criteria: Architectural Damage ............................................ 4.11-14 Table 4.11-9: Typical Construction Noise Levels............................................................................. 4.11-16 Table 4.11-10: Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor....................................................... 4.11-17 Table 4.11-11: Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels........................... 4.11-20 Table 4.11-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................... 4.11-21 Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels.......................... 4.11-24 Table 4.12-1: Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County ......................... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-2: SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County .................................. 4.12-2 Table 4.12-3: Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County ....................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-4: Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2019)........................................... 4.12-3 Table 4.12-5: Jobs-Housing Balance................................................................................................. 4.12-4 Table 4.12-6: Project Generated Employment ................................................................................. 4.12-9 Table 4.12-7: Projected Jobs-Housing Balance ............................................................................... 4.12-10 Table 4.13-1: Project Area Fire Services........................................................................................... 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2: OFD Response Times.................................................................................................. 4.13-2 Table 4.14-1: SED Estimates........................................................................................................... 4.14-20 Table 4.14-2: Project VMT per SP................................................................................................... 4.14-21 Table 4.14-3: Project VMT Impact Determination .......................................................................... 4.14-21 Table 4.16-1: Water Supplies Summary ........................................................................................... 4.16-3 Table 4.16-2: Landfills Serving Ontario............................................................................................. 4.16-5 Table 4.16-3: Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Wastewater Utilities................... 4.16-15 Table 4.16-4: Water Demand Estimate for the Project................................................................... 4.16-23 Table 4.16-5: Water Demand Estimate for the Project Site Based on Projected Future Land Use in 2020 UWMP ........................................................................................................ 4.16-24 178
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 x Table of Contents
Table 4.16-7: Water Demand Summary.................................................................................4.16-24 Table 4.16-8: Estimated Solid Waste Generation....................................................................4.16-26 List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Regional Location................................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map.................................................................................................. 3-29 Figure 3-3: Aerial Photograph.................................................................................................. 3-30 Figure 3-4: Proposed Project Land Uses..................................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................... 3-32 Figure 3-6: Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................................... 3-33 Figure 3-7: Airport Influence Areas........................................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-10: Street Plan .......................................................................................................... 3-37 Figure 3-11: City of Ontario’s Roadway Classification System........................................................ 3-38 Figure 3-12a: Street Cross Sections........................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3-12b: Street Cross Sections........................................................................................... 3-40 Figure 3-13: Truck Routes........................................................................................................ 3-41 Figure 3-14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.................................................................................... 3-42 Figure 3-15: City of Ontario Trail and Bikeways Plan.................................................................... 3-43 Figure 3-16: City of Ontario Ultimate Water Plan........................................................................ 3-44 Figure 3-17a: Potable Water Plan............................................................................................. 3-45 Figure 3-17b: Potable Water Plan............................................................................................. 3-46 Figure 3-18: Recycled Water Plan............................................................................................. 3-47 Figure 3-19: City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System.......................................................... 3-48 Figure 3-20: Sewer Plan.......................................................................................................... 3-49 Figure 3-21: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System.................................................................... 3-50 Figure 3-22: Conceptual Grading Plan ....................................................................................... 3-51 Figure 3-23: Fiber Optic Plan.................................................................................................... 3-52 Figure 3-24: City of Ontario Fiber Optic Master Plan.................................................................... 3-53 Figure 3-25: Storm Drain Plan.................................................................................................. 3-54 Figure 3-26: City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities............................................................... 3-55 Figure 3-27: Conceptual Phasing Plan ....................................................................................... 3-56 Figure 4-1: Related Projects......................................................................................................4-9 Figure 4.8-1: Chino Airport Safety Zones................................................................................... 4.8-7 Figure 4.8-2: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility .............................................. 4.8-8 Figure 4.8-3: Allowable Building Heights................................................................................. 4.8-26 Figure 4.11-1: Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations......................................... 4.11-8 179
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 xi Table of Contents
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A | Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting Materials Appendix B | Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reports • Appendix B1 | Air Quality Emissions Model Data
• Appendix B2 | Health Risk Assessment Data
• Appendix B3 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data
• Appendix B4 | Energy Calculations
Appendix C |Biological Resources Reports
• Appendix C1 | General Habitat Assessment
• Appendix C2 | Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Appendix D | Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix E | Geotechnical Feasibility Study
Appendix F | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G | Hydrology Reports
• Appendix G1 | Preliminary Hydrology Calculations
• Appendix G2 | Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix H | Noise Data
Appendix I | Transportation Reports
• Appendix I1 | Traffic Analysis
• Appendix I2 | Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix J | Water Supply Assessment
180
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the environmental effects associated with the implementation of the proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project), within the City of Ontario (City). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that local government agencies consider the environmental consequences before taking action on projects over which they have discretionary approval authority. An EIR analyzes potential environmental consequences in order to inform the public and support informed decisions by local and state governmental agency decision makers. This document focuses on impacts determined to be potentially significant for this Project.
This Draft EIR has been prepared as a “Program EIR” pursuant to the requirements §15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and the City’s CEQA procedures, as this EIR addresses the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (the “Project”) and is intended to cover anticipated future discretionary approvals. This EIR is being prepared as a Subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162, in that this EIR follows the City’s approval of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan and its associated EIR. The City, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports.
Data for this Draft EIR was derived from on-site field observations, discussions with affected agencies, analysis of adopted plans and policies, review of available studies, reports, data and similar literature, and specialized environmental assessments including air quality emissions model data, health risk assessment data, biological reports, cultural resources reports, geotechnical feasibility study, greenhouse gas emissions model data, energy calculations, environmental site assessment (Phase I), hydrology report, preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP), noise modeling data, traffic analysis, and water supply assessment (WSA).
1.2 Environmental Procedures
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.
CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:
1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.
2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.
3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.
181
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.
5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.
6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.
An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis, and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a Project with the potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.
An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a Project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.
1.2.1 EIR Format
Section 1.0. Executive Summary. Summarizes the background and description of the proposed Project, the format of this EIR, Project alternatives, any critical issues remaining to be resolved, and the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Project.
Section 2.0. Introduction. Describes the purpose of this EIR, background on the Project, the notice of preparation, the use of incorporation by reference, and Final EIR certification.
Section 3.0. Project Description. A detailed description of the Project, including its objectives, its area and location, approvals anticipated to be required as part of the Project, necessary environmental clearances, and the intended uses of this EIR.
Chapter 4.0. Environmental Analysis. Each environmental topic is then analyzed in a separate subsection that discusses: the thresholds used to determine if a significant impact would occur; the methodology to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of the Project; the existing environmental setting; the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the Project; the level of impact significance before mitigation; the mitigationmeasuresfor the proposed Project; the level of significance after mitigation is incorporated; and the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and other existing, approved, and proposed development in the area.
Section 5.0. Other CEQA Considerations. Describes the significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed Project as well as the potentially significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the Project. This chapter also describes the ways in which the proposed Project would cause increases in employment or population that could result in new physical or environmental impacts.
Section 6.0. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Describes the alternatives and compares their impacts to the impacts of the proposed Project. Alternatives include the No Project/No Build Alternative, 182
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary
No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative, and also include a discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 7.0. Effects Found Not to Be Significant. Describes the potential impacts of the Project that were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in this EIR.
Section 8.0. EIR Consultation and Preparation. Lists the people and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this EIR.
Appendices: The appendices for this document (in PDF format) comprise these supporting documents:
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Scoping Meeting Materials Appendix B: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reports B1: Air Quality Emissions Model Data
B2: Health Risk Assessment Data
B3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data
B4: Energy Calculations
Appendix C: Biological Resources Reports
C1: General Habitat Assessment
C2: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
Appendix D: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix E: Geotechnical Feasibility Study
Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Hydrology Reports
G1: Preliminary Hydrology Calculations
G2: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix H: Noise Data
Appendix I: Transportation Reports
I1: Traffic Analysis
I2: Vehicle Miles Traveled Assessment
Appendix J: Water Supply Assessment
1.3 Project Location
The Project is made up of eight parcels totaling 71.69 acres in the City. The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles north from the Orange County line.
183
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route 83 (SR 83; Euclid Avenue), which connects to State Route 60 (SR 60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north, Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 5.5 miles to the east, and State Route 71 (SR 71) approximately three miles to the southwest. SR 71 connects the project to Interstate 91 (I-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.
The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately north of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County (County). The Project site is located east of the unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, and west of Campus Avenue. The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for this Project are 1054 041-01, -02; 1054-031-01, -02; 1054-261-01, -02; and 1054-291-01-, -02.
1.4 Project Summary
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) was approved in October of 2020 and consisted of a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Development Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Maps, and a Development Agreement to allow for development of an industrial and business park on 11 parcels covering 85 acres in the City. The Approved SP included eight warehouse buildings ranging from 46,900 square feet (sf) to 618,353 sf, totaling a maximum development of 1,905,027 sf of warehouse and office uses. The Project discussed in this EIR would incorporate the abutting 71.69 acres to the east of the Approved SP site into the overall Approved SP area.
The Project discussed in this EIR consists of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA). The Project will enable future development approvals, including a Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map(s), a Development Agreement, and related infrastructure plan approvals. The Project would allow for the development of six warehouses on eight parcels, ranging from 61,300 sf to 530,460 sf in building size, to allow development totaling 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park land uses. The Project would add two new planning areas (PAs) to the Approved SP area (PAs 3 and 4). The abutting Project site is depicted in Figure 3-4, Proposed Project Land Uses.
This EIR evaluates the total maximum allowable development in the Project site, which is approximately 1,604,690 sf of industrial and business park land uses and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements. The Project’s proposed uses would be compatible with applicable land use regulations including local Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (ALUCPs). The Project implements the vision of The Ontario Plan (TOP) by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, and research and development at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. The Land Use Plan identifies the location of the land use designations for the Project site. The Project’s proposed zoning mirrors TOP Zoning Districts (Ontario Municipal Code Section 5.01) and is identified along with the two additional PAs.1
The Project consists of two PAs: PA 3 and PA 4, accommodating a variety of industrial-serving commercial, low-intensity office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses that are 1 The City is planning to adopt the TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed SPA. As the ORBP II SPA Subsequent EIR is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations following TOP 2050 Update. 184
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary
compatible with the Project site’s location. The Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, and research and development at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. A list of allowable uses by PA is presented in Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, of the Project’s Specific Plan Amendment. The two PAs are described below:
• Planning Area 3 - Business Park (BP): BP accommodates industrial-serving commercial, low intensity office uses, and certain light industrial uses. Development within this district is typically multi-tenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded. • Planning Area 4 - Industrial (IG): IG accommodates storage and warehousing uses located in larger buildings on larger sites. Uses may include e-commerce, high cube warehouses, or distribution. A wide range of manufacturing and assembly uses are also permitted in this district.
The land use types proposed by the Project are summarized below in Table 1-1, Maximum Project Buildout. This table provides the maximum allowable square footage that can be built, for each PA at its associated floor area ratio (FAR). Development standards, such as setback requirements, parking, landscaping, infrastructure, and site design, may reduce the maximum gross square footage.
Table 1-1: Maximum Project Buildout
Planning Area Maximum FAR Site Acreage Maximum Building Square Footage
Planning Area 3: Business Park 0.45 11.63 227,951 sf
Planning Area 4: General Industrial 0.54 60.06 1,412,739 sf TOTAL 71.69 1,640,690sf
Note:
1. The Project EIR as proposed is reviewing square footages below the maximum TOP thresholds. The FAR may be increased to the TOP max levels of 0.60 and 0.55 for BP and IG respectively with a Specific Plan Amendment and appropriate CEQA analysis.
2. PA 3 is rounded from 11.629 and PA 4 is rounded from 60.0593; resulting in an exact square footage of 227,951.658 and 1,412,738.88
1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a] statesthat an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the Project. The following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 6.0, Alternatives, of this Draft EIR.
• No Project/No Build Alternative
• No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
• Reduced-Intensity Alternative
185
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the Project. Impacts involving agricultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Section 6.7 identifies the environmentally superior alternative.
1.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur, however, the existing conditions would remain in operation.
The Project site contains an operational dairy farm, single-family residential structures, dairy barns, a storage structure, feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. The dairy, structures, and singlefamily residential uses would remain. Accordingly, the No Project/No Build Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project.
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture, air quality, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. This alternative would also reduce impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology, and soils in relation to paleontological resources, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utility and service systems. Impacts related to geologic hazards, hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development would not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses (Objective 2); provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3); facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized 186
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary
to adequately serve the Project area (Objective 4); expand the City’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 5); nor would it create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Project vision (Objective 6).
1.5.2 No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the current General Plan land uses, and zoning would remain in effect. Development in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning would occur. The City’s current TOP designates the Project site for development of Business Park (0.6 FAR), and Low-Medium Density Residential at 5.1-11 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
The existing land use designations would allow approximately 473,061 sf of business park, and 479 dwelling units at 8.5 du/ac. This alternative would generate approximately 1,660 employees and 1,914 residents.2 However, as part of the forthcoming proposed TOP 2050 Update that will precede this Project, the underlying land use designations for the Project site will include 11.63 acres of Business Park (at a maximum FAR of 0.6) and 60.06 acres of Industrial (at a maximum FAR of 0.55). The maximum allowable FARs in the TOP 2050 Update are greater than those proposed for this Project; as such, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would generate approximately 227,951 sf of business park development, 1,412,739 sf of industrial development, 1,631 employees, and zero residents.
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in reduced impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, and transportation and traffic under the current TOP land use districts when compared to the impacts under the Project. This alternative will have greater impacts compared to the proposed Project related to hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
However, as part of the forthcoming proposed TOP 2050 Update that will precede this Project, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in increased impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, and transportation and traffic under the proposed TOP 2050 Update, when compared to the impacts under the Project. Under the TOP 2050 Update, this alternative will have similarimpacts compared to the proposed Project related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards 2 Buildout was based on 18.10 acres of Business Park and 56.34 acres of Low-Medium Density Residential retrieved from:
https://sbcounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a. Floor Area Ratio assumed from the City’s TOP Future Buildout Table (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/12/LU03-Table.pdf. Land Use Modeling Methodology. (2009). Employee and Resident generating. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf. 187
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-8 1.0 | Executive Summary
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would not meet four of the six Project objectives. For example, this alternative would not create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/ logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses (Objective 2); expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 5); nor would it create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision (Objective 6). This alternative would provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3) and facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area (Objective 4).
However, as part of the forthcoming proposed TOP 2050 Update that will precede this Project, the underlying land use designations for the Project site will include Business Park and Industrial. Therefore, under the TOP 2050 Update, the No Project/ Existing General Plan Alternative would meet all six Project objectives as it would create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses (Objective 2); expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 5); and it would create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision (Objective 6). This alternative would provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3) and facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area (Objective 4).
1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative proposes a 25 percent reduction in building area of the proposed industrial warehousing and business park uses. Under this alternative, a total of 1,640,690 sf of industrial and warehouse uses will have a reduction of 410,173 sf and would be developed with 982,838 sf of highcube fulfillment center warehousing and 158,843 sf of office uses. This alternative would generate approximately 1,223 employees. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a reduction in the number of parking spaces. Given the infrastructure costs, including off-site improvements, a 25 percent reduction was considered aggressive and further reduction is likely not financially feasible.
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and 188
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-9 1.0 | Executive Summary
service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would achieve the Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods (Objective 1); provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3); facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area (Objective 4); expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 5); and create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision (Objective 6). However, the reduction of 353,184 sf would attract fewer or smaller businesses and less employment opportunities to area residents. In addition, the smaller development would provide less flexibility to meet the needs of an ever-changing business market. This alternative would not fully meet Objective 2 to provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses.
1.6 Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:
1. Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project.
2. Whether the benefits of the project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.
4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.
5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR.
6. Whether there are any alternatives to the project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project and achieve most of the basic project objectives.
1.7 Areas of Controversy
Prior to the preparation of the Draft EIR, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP)from July 1, 2021 to August 6, 2021 (see Appendix A, NOP/Public Scoping). In addition, a public scoping meeting was held 189
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-10 1.0 | Executive Summary
during the 30-day public review period, on July21, 2021 at 5:30 PM via Zoom. Pursuant to measures taken by the State of California, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements, and the City of Ontario public safety policies, to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there were no members of the public in attendance of the scoping meeting. Members of the public, Project applicants and consultants, and staff were able to participate in the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was recorded, and the meeting presentation is contained in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials. A summary of comments received on the NOP are provided in Table 2-1, NOP Written Comments Summary. The table provides references to the sections of the Draft EIR in which these issues are evaluated. No other areas of controversy are known to the lead agency.
1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Levels of Significance After Mitigation
Table 1-2, Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measuressummarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after implementation of the mitigation measures is also presented. Impacts not represented in this table are found in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant in this Draft EIR. 190
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-11 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-2: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.1,Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.1-1
Would the Project convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? [Threshold AG-1]
Significant MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all
property owners in the Ontario Ranch Business Park
Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. The content and text of the
disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing
agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying.
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 4.1-2
Would the project conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
[Threshold AG-2]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation measures are required. Less Than Significant Impact 4.1-5
Would the project involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use? [Threshold AG-5]
Significant Refer to MM AG-1 Significant and Unavoidable Section 4.2, Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
[Threshold AQ-1]
Significant MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory
VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all
architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints
shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Plans shall specify that Significant and Unavoidable
191
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-12 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
all architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling
equipment, etc.) shall be utilized on-site for daily
warehouse and business operations. The Project
developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electricpowered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.
Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/ business entity, the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a
signed document (verification document) noting that the Project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only
electric-powered equipment for daily operations. This
verification document shall be signed by authorized agents for the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/
business entities. In addition, if applicable, the tenant/ business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning
Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electric-powered or produce zero emissions.
If emergency generators are proposed, the Project
applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible, the Project applicant shall provide written justification for the use of diesel-powered emergency generators to be approved by
the City’s Building Department. Feasibility of non-diesel generators would be explored on the basis of fire and life safety purposes, relative cost and availability of non-diesel generators, as well as whether or not the non-diesel
generator has the capacity to supply the required level of power for the required uses.
192
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-13 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies
that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool, and transit. The TDM shall
include, but is not limited to the following:
▪ Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers,
employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation
options;
▪ Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle
repair area, etc. around the Project site;
▪ Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a
different type than they use day-to-day;
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use
through parking incentives and administrative support,
such as ride-matching service; and
▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel
modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or
convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/
vanpool users.
MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply
power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be
installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer
parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site
determined by the Project Applicant during
construction document plan check, for the purpose of
193
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-14 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
accommodating the future installation of EV truck
charging stations at such time this technology becomes
commercially available and the buildings are being
served by trucks with electric-powered engines.
▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the
future to supply power to trailers with transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by
the Project Applicant during construction document
plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.
MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements
include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plugin capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary
equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.
MM AQ-6 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
▪ Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use
▪ Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five
minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations,
Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the
transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the
parking brake is engaged.
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.
▪ Truck travel is restricted to identified truck routes only. 194
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-15 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriated designated truck routes.
Impact 4.2-2
Would the proposed project, result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
[Threshold AQ-2]
Significant Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 4.2-3
Would the proposed project, expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
[Threshold AQ-3]
Significant Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6.
MM AQ-7 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Ontario that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered
construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road
emissions standards. Requirements for Tier 4 Final
equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation
(certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
Less Than Significant
Section 4.3, Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1
Would the Project have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [Threshold B-1]
Significant MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate
compliance with the MBTA to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario that either of the following has been accomplished:
▪ Conduct grading activities and vegetation removal
outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds, including raptors.
▪ If vegetation removal will occur during the bird nesting season, between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, Less Than Significant
195
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-16 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are found, they shall be flagged and the
biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nest (generally a minimum of 200 feet up to 500 feet for
raptors and a minimum of 50 feet up to 300 feet for
passerine species, with specific buffer widths to be
determined by a qualified biologist). The buffer areas
shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from
the nests.
MM BIO-2 The Project Applicant shall conduct surveys for tricolored blackbird across all suitable breeding and foraging habitat with the Project site. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, the Project Proponent shall avoid all occupied habitat onsite. If on-site avoidance is infeasible, the Project Proponent shall apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and shall mitigate for the loss of all habitat through the
acquisition, conservation, and management of in-kind
habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio, or as approved by the final ITP. Habitat shall be conserved in perpetuity via
conveyance of a conservation easement to a CDFWapproved conservation entity and a management fund (endowment) shall be established by the Project Proponent consisting of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and
protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, fencing and signage replacement and repair, law enforcement
measures, long-term management reporting, and other
actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity. A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be
conducted to determine the management needs and costs
described above, which then will be used to calculate the 196
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-17 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
capital needed for the management of the fund. Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except
maintenance of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials.
MM BIO-3 Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large
ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal to
determine whether the project footprint and a 300-foot
buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species.
This survey work will occur between late-spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through
late October).
If the results of the bat survey finds a total of a single roosting individual of a special-status bat species or 25 or more individuals of non-special-status bat species with potential to be present in the study area (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, pallid bat, western red bat, and western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devices/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will
need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to
disturbance of the roost(s).
MM BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit for any ground disturbing activity, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for BUOW across all suitable breeding,
wintering, and foraging habitat with the Project site, within 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. If burrowing owls are identified, the Project Proponent shall 197
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-18 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
either avoid all impacts on-site or conserve non-impacted occupied habitat on-site and/or conserve occupied
burrowing owl habitat off-site at a minimum total 2:1 ratio of conserved to impacted habitat. Coordination with the CDFW shall occur to mitigate for the loss of habitat through the acquisition, conservation, and management of in-kind habitat. Lands conserved shall include 1) sufficiently large acreage with fossorial mammals present; 2) permanent
protection through a conservation easement for the
purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and
prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use; 3) development and implementation of a mitigation land
management plan to address long-term ecological
sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls; and 4) funding for the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.
Impact 4.3-2
Would the Project have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? [Threshold B-2]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.3-3
Would the Project have a substantial adverse
effect on State or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
[Threshold B-3]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.3-4
Would the Project interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
[Threshold B-4]
Significant Refer to MM BIO-1. Less Than Significant
198
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-19 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.4, Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? [Threshold C-1]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.4-2
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [Threshold C-2]
Significant MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project site, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be
provided to all construction managers and construction
personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance
work at the Project sites. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. The training may be
discontinued when ground disturbance is completed.
Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the
signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the
City Planning Department for their review and approval.
Less Than Significant
Section 4.5, Energy
Impact 4.5-1
Would the Project result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during Project construction or operation?
[Threshold E-1]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.5-2
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State
or Local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? [Threshold E-2]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-1
Would the project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
[Threshold G-1ii and iii]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
199
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-20 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Impact 4.6-2
Would the project be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. [Threshold
G-3]
Significant MM GEO-1 A shrinkage study will be performed involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are
determined using in-situ testing methods instead of
laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples.
Special care will be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture
content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. Additional expansion index testing will be performed at the time of the design-level geotechnical investigation.
Protection (protective coating, metal plating, corrosive inhibitors, etc.) for embedded metal improvements will be installed and additional chloride content testing will be performed on soils.
MM GEO-2 All manure and any organic topsoil will be removed during initial site stripping and that additional organic testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical
investigation. Prior to grading, grubbing, and segregating of the manure in the cattle pens and the highly organic soils in the planted areas will be done. These soils will be removed from the site or reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as landscape planters. Any additional organic materials
encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading and reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as
landscape planters. Any additional organic materials
encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading.
MM GEO-3 Additional soluble sulfate testing would be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble
sulfate concentrations of the soils.
MM GEO-4 The remedial grading would be performed to remove the existing undocumented fill soils as well as a portion of the near-surface native alluvium and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The over excavation would
extend to a sufficient depth so that the native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of over
Less Than Significant
200
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-21 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
excavation will not be subject to significant load increases from the foundations of the new structures.
Impact 4.6-3
Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [Threshold G-6]
Significant MM GEO-5 Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of 10 feet below the
surface to determine if older, paleontologically sensitive sediments are present. If present, full-time monitoring would be implemented. Prior to the start of construction, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. The Project’s PRMP would
implement the following procedures:
• A trained and qualified paleontological monitor would perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any
excavations on the Project that have the potential to
impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native
sediments below 10 feet in depth. The monitor will
have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological
resources.
• The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the
necessity for paleontological monitoring after
examination of the affected sediments during
excavation, with approval from Lead Agency and Client
representatives.
• Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best
management practices and Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology professional standards.
• Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be
deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific
institution for the benefit of current and future
generations.
• A report documenting the results of the monitoring,
including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the
appropriate personnel.
Less Than Significant
201
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-22 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas
Impact 4.7-1
Would the Project generate GHG emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that could have a
significant impact on the environment?
[Threshold GHG-1]
Significant Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in the Air Quality Assessment.
The following additional mitigation is also required.
MM GHG-1 The Project shall install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on-site, or otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, that would provide 100 percent of the expected building load. The buildings shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The
electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage.
MM GHG-2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide
documentation to the City of Ontario demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.
MM GHG-3 All project development proposals shall implement Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.
Significant and Unavoidable
Impact 4.7-2
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions? [Threshold
GHG-2]
Significant Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG 1 through MM GHG-3.
Significant and Unavoidable
Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Significant MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with DTSC
methane assessment guidelines. The Project applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading Less Than Significant
202
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-23 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? [Thresholds H-1 and H-2]
activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This survey and recommendation
shall include a post-construction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where postgrading methane levels exceed 5,000 ppmv, should any such levels occur.
MM HAZ-2 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the project Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project
applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface
assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for
chemical risks to human health and the environment. If
contamination from dairy and animal-related wastes is
encountered at a level above Environmental Screening
Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/
sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency with
evidence provided to the City, such that there are no
residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment
exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial
activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.
MM HAZ-3 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified
environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management
Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site
management of soils containing potentially hazardous
materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading
activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, 203
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-24 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
monitored, and managed on-site, and include the
following:
• A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all
potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are
removed, and that Environmental Screening Levels
(ESLs) for non-residential uses are not exceeded.
Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by
the State to accept hazardous materials.
• Any subsurface materials exposed during construction
activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require
immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils
suspected of contamination shall be tested for
potential contamination. If contamination is found to
be present per the Department of Toxic Substances
Control Screening Levels for industrial/ commercial
land use (DTSCSLi) and the U.S. EPA Regional Screening
Levels for industrial/ commercial land use (EPARSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state
regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
• The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
that addresses potential safety and health hazards and
includes the requirements and procedures for
employee protection; each contractor will be required
to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general project safety requirements.
The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling
procedures and health and safety requirements to
minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous
materials during construction.
• The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance
with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall
require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing
204
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-25 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
parameters and sampling frequency. Anticipated
testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule
1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor
suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of
inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent
contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under
Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported
from the project site by a licensed transporter and
disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or
otherwise released into the environment.
• All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to
issuance of grading permits.
MM HAZ-4 Construction period testing: Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction
workers, the general public, and the environment from
subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown
contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The CRMP
shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data
collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination, if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations. The CRMP shall:
• Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during
Project excavation and dewatering activities,
respectively.
• Require the preparation of a Project-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and
training for all workers potentially exposed to
hazardous materials in accordance with State and
205
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-26 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the
personnel responsible for Health and Safety Plan
implementation.
• Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously unknown hazardous
materials be encountered during construction
activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or groundwater
samples in the newly discovered affected area by a
qualified environmental professional prior to further
work, as appropriate. The analytical results of the
sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified
environmental professional and submitted to the
appropriate regulatory agency. The environmental
professional shall provide recommendations, as
applicable, regarding soil/ waste management, worker
health and safety training, and regulatory agency
notifications, in accordance with local, state, and
federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the
area(s) affected until these recommendations have
been implemented under the oversight of the County
or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
• Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County
for review and approval prior to the issuance of
construction and demolition permits.
MM HAZ-5 Prior to the commencement of any construction-related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) Hazardous Materials Division
regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated January 10, 2020, soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory
licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are 206
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-27 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. USTs shall be removed through reviewing available files at the SBCFD and ensuring the proper removal of the UST and a
subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had
impacted the subsurface.
HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project applicant shall conduct a comprehensive ACM survey to identify the
locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground
structures. The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and
structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.
Impact 4.8-2
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? [Threshold H-4]
Significant Refer to MM HAZ-2. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.8-3
For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area? [Threshold H-5]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-1
Would the Project violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality? [Threshold HYD-1]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
207
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-28 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Impact 4.9-2
Would the Project substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would: [Threshold
HYD-3 (ii), (iii), and (iv)]
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.9-3
Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation? [Threshold HYD-4]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.9-4
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
[Threshold HYD-5]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.10-1
Would the Project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? [Threshold LU-2]
Significant No mitigation measures are feasible. City’s adoption of the proposed TOP 2050 Update this August would remedy this impact, should Project approval follow TOP 2050 Update approval.
Significant and Unavoidable
Section 4.11, Noise
Impact 4.11-1
Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
Significant MM NOI-1 Heavy construction equipment will not remain stationary for more than 15 minutes while operating within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor.
Less Than Significant
208
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-29 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [Threshold N-1]
MM NOI-2 Stationary construction equipment will not be placed within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor and will be oriented away from receptors.
Impact 4.11-2
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? [Threshold N-2]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.11-3
For a Project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels? [Threshold N-3]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.12, Population and Housing
Impact 4.12-1
Would the Project induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
[Threshold P-1]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.13, Public Services
Impact 4.13-1
Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of
the public services? [Threshold FP-1]:
i) Fire Protection
ii) Police Protection
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
209
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-30 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic
Impact 4.14-1
Would the Project conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.14-2
Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
[Threshold T-2]
Significant Refer to MM GHG-1. Significant and Unavoidable Impact 4.14-3
Would the Project substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
[Threshold T-3]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.15-1
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is: [Threshold TCR-1 (i)(ii)]
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or
in a local register of historical resources as
defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
Significant MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno
Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that
consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the
executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing
activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve grounddisturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will
provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Less Than Significant
210
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-31 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe
Monitor have indicated that all upcoming grounddisturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources,
construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources
unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for
educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial
goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is
determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate
mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan
established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological
resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the
resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non211 City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 1-32 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to
accept the material. If no institution accepts the
archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.
Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.16-1
Would the Project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [Threshold U-1]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.16-2
Would the Project have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal,
dry, and multiple dry years? [Threshold U-2]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.16-3
Would the Project result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments? [Threshold U-3]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
Impact 4.16-4
Would the Project generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals? [Threshold U-4]
Less Than
Significant
No mitigation is required. Less Than Significant
212
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-1 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq.). The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
The Lead Agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (PRC §21067). The City of Ontario (City) has the principal responsibility for approval of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project or proposed Project). For this reason, the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for this Project.
This EIR is being prepared as a “Subsequent” EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162, following certification of the original Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) on September 15, 2020. The Subsequent EIR is necessary to address the expanded Specific Plan boundary as discussed further in Section 3.0, Project Description.
CEQA requires each EIR to reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency, including but not limited to the thresholds of significance used to analyze project impacts, analyses and conclusions regarding the level of significance of impacts both before and after mitigation, the identification and application of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce project-related impacts, and the consideration of alternatives to the proposed Project. In preparing this EIR, the City has employed CEQA and environmental technical specialists; but, the City, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Therefore, the analyses and conclusions set forth in this EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City as Lead Agency.
The intent of the Draft Subsequent EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project.
The Draft Subsequent EIR is also intended to inform responsible agencies, decision-makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the Project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.0, Project Description. 213
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-2 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
2.2 Notice of Preparation
The City determined that an EIR would be required for this Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials). Comments received during the public review period, from July 1, 2021, to August 6, 2021, are in Appendix A. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on July 21, 2021, via Zoom. Pursuant to measures taken by the State of California, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health requirements, and City of Ontario public safety policies, to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-19 virus, there were no members of the public in attendance of the scoping meeting. Members of the public, the Project applicant and its consultants, and staff were able to participate in the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was recorded, and the meeting presentation is contained in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials.
A total of four letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials.
Table 2-1 compiles the comment letters received from commenting agencies/persons during the NOP process and identifies the section(s) of the Draft Subsequent EIR where the issues are addressed. All NOP comments received during the public review period are in Appendix A.
Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary
Commenting
Agency/ Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:
California
Department of Fish
and Wildlife
July 21, 2021
• A Biological assessment should be conducted.
• A Burrowing Owl Survey should be conducted.
• Draft Subsequent EIR should include analysis
of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to
Biological Resources.
• Draft Subsequent EIR should describe and
analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to
the Project that are potentially feasible, would
“feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the Project,” and would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the Project’s significant effects.
• The DEIR should identify mitigation measures
and alternatives that are appropriate and
adequate to avoid or minimize potential
impacts, to the extent feasible.
• Incorporation of water-wise concepts in
project landscape design plans.
Section 4.3, Biological
Resources
Appendix C
Section 4.9, Hydrology
and Water Quality
Appendix G
City of Chino/
Warren Morelion
August 2, 2021
• The City requests participation in the scoping
and review of the transportation studies.
Section 4.14,
Transportation and
Traffic
Appendix I
214
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-3 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Commenting
Agency/ Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
(SCAQMD)/Lijin Sun
August 3, 2021
• Provides direction for submittal of Draft
Subsequent EIR and technical documents
related to air quality, health risk, and
greenhouse gas analyses.
• Recommends methodology and compliance
with SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
• Requests localized analysis using the LST
screening tables or performing dispersion
modeling.
• Identify any potential adverse air quality
impacts that could occur from all phases of the
Project and all air pollutant sources related to
the Project.
• Prepare health risk assessment.
• Concerned about potential public health
impacts of sitting warehouses within close
proximity to sensitive uses.
• Recommends sources for mitigation.
Section 4.2, Air Quality
Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Appendix B
California Air
Resources Board
(CARB)/ Richard
Boyd
August 6, 2021
• The EIR should quantify and discuss the
potential cancer risks from project operation
and construction.
• CARB urges the City to model air pollutant
emissions from on-site TRUs in the Draft
Subsequent EIR, as well as include potential
cancer risks from on-site TRUs in the Project’s
Health Risk Assessment (HRA).
• Address cold storage and transport
refrigeration units.
• The HRA prepared in support of the Project
should be based on the latest Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s
(OEHHA) guidance (2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots
Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments), CARB’s Hot Spots
Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP2
model), and SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook.
• Incorporate all existing and emerging zeroemission technologies.
Section 4.2, Air Quality
Section 4.7, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Appendix B
The NOP process helps determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR. Based on this process for the Project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in detail in this Draft Subsequent EIR, and effects found not to be significant (Aesthetics, 215
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-4 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Mineral Resources, Recreation, and Wildfire) are addressed in Section 7.0, Effects Found not to be Significant.
Native American Consultation
Native American consultation concurrent with the NOP scoping process was initiated, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. Letters were sent to the applicable tribes on July 2, 2021, and are contained in Appendix D, Cultural Resources Documentation.
2.3 Scope of this Draft Subsequent EIR
The scope of the Draft Subsequent EIR was determined based on comments received in response to the NOP. A scoping meeting was also conducted by the City. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4, the Draft Subsequent EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance. This EIR focuses on the expanded area covered within the Project, and incorporates by reference the previously-certified Approved SP Final EIR as noted below in Section 2.4, Incorporation by Reference.
The information in Section 3.0, Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, projectrelated environmental impacts.
2.3.1 Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
During preparation of the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City determined that four environmental impact categories were not significantly affected by or did not affect the proposed Project.
These categories are not discussed in detail in this Draft Subsequent EIR. Refer to Section 7.0, Effects Found not to be Significant.
• Aesthetics
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
• Wildfire
2.3.2 Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The City determined that 16 environmental factors would have potentially significant impacts should the proposed Project be implemented. These are discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. • Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
216
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-5 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
2.3.3 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts
This Draft Subsequent EIR identifies five significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Unavoidable adverse impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis or where a project represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to a significant cumulative impact. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15093, for any project having unavoidable significant impacts, the City must prepare a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” before it can approve the Project, attesting that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable. The impacts found in the EIR to be significant and unavoidable are addressed in these sections:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Land Use and Planning
• Transportation and Traffic
2.4 Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15150, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are made available for public review on their respective websites.
City of Ontario General Plan and The Ontario Plan: The City’s General Plan was comprehensively updated and adopted as a component of The Ontario Plan (TOP) on January 27, 2010. TOP is the City’s comprehensive business plan and serves as the major blueprint for directing growth in Ontario for the next 20 years or more. The General Plan analyzes existing conditions in the City, including physical, social, cultural, and environmental resources and opportunities. The General Plan also looks at trends, issues, and concerns that affect the region, includes City goals and objectives, and provides policies to guide development and change. The General Plan consists of a six-part Component Framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan, 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The General Plan and TOP can be found here: https://www.ontarioplan.org/. Note that TOP is currently in the process of being updated, referred to as TOP 2050 Update, scheduled for approval by the City in August 2022. However, this Project is analyzed in accordance with the currently adopted The Ontario Plan. Note that the proposed Project is planned for City consideration after the City’s planned adoption of TOP 2050 Update in August 2022 (the Project’s proposed land use designations are consistent with those shown in the proposed TOP Update 2050).
The Ontario Plan EIR: The Ontario Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH]Number 2008101140) was adopted in January 2010 and addresses the short and long-term effects of build out of the City’s General Plan, which includes development of the Project area. Mitigation measures were imposed for impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified 217
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-6 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
for agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation and traffic. The General Plan policies that are related to the proposed Project are cited in various sections throughout this EIR.
The EIR can be found here: https://www.ontarioplan.org/environmental-impact-report/.
The recently released TOP Update 2050 EIR can be found at this link:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/
Ontario Development Code: This Development Code is enacted to assist in the implementation of Federal and State planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws, and The Ontario Plan, and guide the orderly development of the City in a manner that promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its inhabitants. The Development Code is referenced throughout this document as regulations governing development and land use activities within the City. Regulatory information from the Development Code are cited in various sections of this EIR.
The development code can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Applications.
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Final EIR. The Approved SP Final EIR (SCH Number 2019050018) was certified and the project approved on September 15, 2020, and the related Approved SP was approved in October 2020. The Approved SP Final EIR addresses the environmental effects and comments from public agencies and interested parties associated with the implementation of the Approved SP project, located approximately one-quarter mile to the west of the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan project area. The Approved SP Final EIR is specifically relevant to the Project, as it addresses the impacts of the Approved SP project for which this Project is amending and expanding the Specific Plan area. In addition, this Draft Subsequent EIR addresses the amended and expanded Specific Plan area, including the impacts of constructing regional infrastructure necessary to serve the developing southwestern industrial sector of the City of Ontario.
This document is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/ORBP%20FEIR%20%282020_08- 27%29_web.pdf.
San Bernardino County Countywide Plan: The San Bernardino County (County) adopted the Countywide Plan in 2020. The Countywide Plan is comprised of four sections: Policy Plan, Business Plan, Community Action Guides, and Environmental Documents. The County Policy Plan is an update and expansion of the County’s General Plan for the unincorporated areas. As an update of the County’s General Plan and Community Plans, the Policy Plan addresses physical, social, and economic issues facing the unincorporated portions of the County. It also addresses supportive services for adults and children, healthcare services, public safety, and other regional county services provided to both incorporated and unincorporated areas. As part of its Policy Plan, the County includes the following eight elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Infrastructure & Utilities; 3) Transportation & Mobility; 4) Natural Resources; 5) Hazards; 6) Personal & Property Protection; 7) Economic Development; and 8) Health & Wellness. The Policy Plan was used throughout this EIR since it contains information, policies, and regulations relevant to the proposed Project.
This document is available for review on the County’s website at: https://countywideplan.com/. 218
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-7 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal): The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and addresses the cumulative impact of future development and associated infrastructure improvements for SCAG regions. It is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within SCAG regions such as the County and the City.
Connect SoCal can be found here: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.
2.5 Final EIR Certification
This Draft Subsequent EIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final EIR will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the Draft Subsequent EIR that result from comments. The Final EIR will be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the Project. All persons who comment on the Draft Subsequent EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the Project hearings.
The Draft Subsequent EIR is available to the general public for review at various locations:
• City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • City of Ontario, City Clerk, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • Ontario Main Library 215 East “C” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • City’s website: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact
2.6 Mitigation Monitoring
PRC §21081.6 requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to PRC §21081(a)(1). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed Project will be approved as part of the Final EIR, prior to consideration of the Project by the Ontario City Council.
2.7 Lead Agency
2.7.1 City of Ontario
For this Project, the City is the lead agency under CEQA and the proponent of the Project. This Draft Subsequent EIR has been prepared in accordance with PRC §21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulationss [CCR]§15000 et seq.). CEQA requires lead agencies to consider potential 219
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 2-8 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
environmental effects that may occur with implementation of a project and to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects to the environment when feasible. When a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency with primary responsibility for carrying out or approving the project (the lead agency) is required to prepare an EIR.
220
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-1 3.0 | Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) made up of eight existing parcels totaling 71.69 acres in the City of Ontario (City). The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles north from the Orange County line. (See Figure 3-1, Regional Location).
Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route 83 (SR 83; Euclid Avenue), which connects to State Route 60 (SR 60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north, Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 5.5 miles to the east, and State Route 71 (SR 71) approximately three miles to the southwest. SR 71 connects the project to Interstate 91 (I-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.
The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately north of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The Project site is located east of the unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, and west of Campus Avenue (See Figure 3-2, Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph). The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for this Project are 1054-041-01, -02; 1054-031-01, -02; 1054-261-01, -02; 1054-291-01-, -02.1 The Project addresses consistency with The Ontario Plan (TOP); provides a development plan identifying land uses, circulation, infrastructure, streetscape, and landscape plans; establishes allowable uses and development standards for reviewing individual projects; presents design guidelines to create a visually attractive environment; summarizes the development review process; and specifies provisions for administration and implementation of the Project.
3.2 Project Background
The Project site is located within the City’s Ontario Ranch area (formerly known as New Model Colony), which comprises a portion of the former San Bernardino County Agricultural Preserve annexed by the City of Ontario in 1999. Ontario Ranch is among the last significant underdeveloped areas in the San Bernardino Valley. In 2010, the City adopted TOP, which serves as the City’s business plan and includes a long-term vision and a principle-based Policy Plan. TOP consists of six components: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan, 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The TOP Policy Plan serves as the City’s General Plan (herein, TOP or General Plan). The City’s TOP EIR was certified by the City along with the General Plan. The General Plan designates the Project site as Business Park (BP) at a maximum 0.60 floor area ratio (FAR), and Low-Medium Density Residential 1 Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer Map. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a. 221
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-2 3.0 | Project Description
(LMDR) at 5.1-11 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
2 The Project site is within the Ontario Airport and Chino Airport Influence Areas.3,4 Additionally, the Project site is zoned with an Agricultural Overlay. 5 The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) was approved in October 2020 and consisted of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan, Development Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Maps, and a Development Agreement to allow for development of an industrial and business park on 11 parcels covering 85 acres in the City. The Approved SP project included eight warehouse buildings ranging from 46,900 square feet (sf) to 618,353 sf, totaling a maximum development of 1,905,027 sf of warehouse and office uses. The Project discussed in this Draft Subsequent EIR would incorporate the abutting 71.69 acres to the east of the Approved SP site into the overall Approved SP area.
The Project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) and future associated discretionary approvals.
The Project would allow for the development of six warehouses on eight parcels, ranging from 61,300 sf to 530,460 sf in building size, to allow development of approximately 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park land uses. The Project would add two new planning areas (PAs) to the Approved SP area (PAs 3 and 4).
3.3 Purpose and Statement of Objectives
The Project provides zoning regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land uses, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, architectural character, and landscape within the community, ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. The Project establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site.
The purpose of the Project is to:
• Provide a planning framework that responds to the physical and market driven aspects of future development opportunities;
• Specify adequate and coordinated infrastructure, utilities, and public services for this area of the Ontario Ranch;
• Promote compatible uses and interfaces with adjacent properties; • Ensure the appropriate location and intensity of uses through new development parameters; and • Conform with State laws and local ordinances and policies for the preparation of the Project. 2 Refer to discussion below regarding the City’s proposed adoption of TOP 2050 Update, which would change the Project site’s land use designations to Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed Project. 3 City of Ontario. 2010. Map 2-1 Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf (accessed November2021). 4 The City of Ontario is currently preparing an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics and is expected to be adopted in 2022 (accessed November2021). 5 City of Ontario. Rev. 2018. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/zoning(c)36x48_10_3_1_03292019.pdf (accessed November2021). 222
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-3 3.0 | Project Description
Objectives for the Project are defined in the Approved SP to aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and its associated environmental impacts. The Project objectives have been refined throughout the planning and design process for the Project and are listed below:
• Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods.
• Provide the framework and facilitate entitlements for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses.
• Allow for employment opportunities for community residents. • Facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Project site. • Expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
• Create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, fund Project-related infrastructure improvements in the area and support Project development.
3.4 Project Site and Surrounding Land Use Considerations The Project site consists of 71.69 acres of land abutting the eastern portion of the Approved SP area. The Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm with two single-family residential structures, a dairy barn, a storage structure, approximately 10 feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals.
There are large existing retention ponds that collect surface waste accumulations from the dairy farming practices, including animal wastes. Several above-ground storage tanks are present which store housing fuel, water, fresh milk, and livestock feed along with various mechanical systems for dairy production practices. The remainder of the Project site is used as irrigated cropland with berms located along the site perimeter. The Project site is currently accessible via Eucalyptus Avenue and fenced with tubular metal fencing.
The Project site is currently served by a domestic potable water well located at the northeast corner of the site. There is no identified septic system on the Project site. North of the Project site is a mix of agricultural and service commercial uses, with scattered single-family homes. West of the Project site is the Approved SP. East of the Project site are dairy farms that are currently in the process of being entitled for industrial and business park development. South of the Project site is the Chino Airport.
3.4.1 Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations
Approved Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan
The Approved SP included a GPA which modified the land use designation of its 11 parcels on 85.6 acres from General Commercial (0.4 FAR), Office Commercial (0.75 FAR) and LMDR (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre) to a mixture of BP (0.45 FAR) and Industrial – General (IG) (0.54 FAR), as shown in Figure 3-4, Proposed Project Land Uses. The Project site will be an extension of this mixture of Business Park and Industrial uses.
223
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-4 3.0 | Project Description
Existing TOP Land Use Designations
TOP’s existing land use designations for the Project site are shown in Figure 3-5, Existing Land Use and Zoning. The 71.69-acre Project site has a LMDR and BP land use designation with an Agricultural–Specific Plan (SP-AG) Overlay. The City’s current TOP designates the Project site for development of BP (0.6 FAR), and LMDR at 5.1-11 du/ac. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, that will precede this Project, and change the underlying land use designations for the Project site to include
11.63 acres of BP(at a maximum FAR of 0.6) and 60.06 acres of IG(at a maximum FAR of 0.55).
TOP existing land use designations for the Project site by parcel number are as follows:
• LMDR (5.1 – 11 du/ac)
APNs: 1054-041-02, 1054-031-02, 1054-261-02, 1054-261-01, 1054-031-01, 1054-041-01 • BP (0.6 FAR)
APNs: 1054-291-01, 1054-291-02
TOP 2050 Update land use designations for the Project site by parcel number are as follows:
• Industrial (0.55 FAR)
APNs: 1054-041-02, 1054-031-02, 1054-261-02, 1054-261-01, 1054-031-01, 1054-041-01 • BP (0.6 FAR)
APNs: 1054-291-01, 1054-291-02
Existing Surrounding Land Uses
The existing uses in the vicinity include (refer to Figure 3-6, Surrounding Land Uses):
• North across Eucalyptus Avenue: plant nursery, dairy farm • South across Merrill Avenue (City of Chino): Chino Airport • East across Campus Avenue: dairy farms, row crops, and vacant land • West across Sultana Avenue: Approved SP area with BPand IG designations • West across Euclid Avenue (City of Chino): residential uses, vacant land, and the former Stark Youth Correctional Facility
3.4.2 Airport Influence Areas
Ontario International Airport Influence Area
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The intent of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The Project site is not within the safety, noise impact, or airspace protection zones of the ONT ALUCP; however, it is within the Airport Influence Area, as is the entire City (refer to Figure 3-7, Airport Influence Areas). While a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure policy is not required for non-residential land, developers or tenants may purchase a Natural Hazard Disclosure report that would indicate that the property is in an Airport Influence Area. 224
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-5 3.0 | Project Description
Chino Airport Overlay Zone
The Project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook), as shown in Figure 3-7, Airport Influence Areas. Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit people-intensive uses such as stadiums, large daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.
The following open land and occupancy limit requirements shall apply in Chino Airport Safety Zones, as established by the Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. • Zone 6: At least 10% of the zone shall remain as open land or an open area every ¼ mile to ½ mile is required; occupancy shall be limited to 300 people per acre on average and a maximum of 1,200 people in any one acre.
Open land is defined as areas at least 300 feet long by 75 feet wide (about 0.5 acre) that are relatively level and free of tall vertical objects such as structures, overhead lines/wires, and large trees and poles greater than 4 inches in diameter and taller than 4 feet above the ground. In the Project site, surrounding roads (Eucalyptus, Campus, and Merrill Avenues), drive aisles, flood control basins and truck yards can be considered as acceptable open lands in urbanized settings.6
3.4.3 Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The motivation for the Williamson Act is to promote voluntary land conservation, particularly farmland conservation. There are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site. 7 3.5 Project Characteristics
The Project consists of a SPA and associated future discretionary approvals.
3.5.1 Proposed Zoning Designations
The Project includes an application for an SPA to change the zoning designation of 71.69 acres of land, consisting of eight parcels, from SP-AG to Industrial General (APNs 1054-031-02, 1054-261-02, 1054-261- 01, 1054-031-01, 1054-291-01, and 1054-291-02) and BP(APNs 1054-041-02 and 1054-041-01).8 The SPA would create two new Pas (PA 3 and PA 4), which would accommodate a variety of industrial-serving commercial, low-intensity office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses. The proposed amendments are discussed below. The SPA is described further below. 6 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. (2011). Page 4-31. Retrieved from: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/aeronautics/documents/californiaairportlanduseplanninghandbook -a11y.pdf. 7 Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan. (2021). Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, page 2-6. 8 https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/CurrentPlanning
225
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-6 3.0 | Project Description
The SPA proposes new zoning designations for the Project site as follows:
• BP (0.45 FAR) land use and zoning designations – 11.6 acres • Industrial land use (0.54 FAR) and IG zoning designations – 60.06 acres
3.5.2 SB330 Compliance
The Housing Accountability Act, or Senate Bill 330 (SB330), requiresthat, when approving a Project, a City must ensure that there is “no net loss” of residential zoning capacity within the City. Although the Project site is currently zoned with SP-AG, this overlay zone requires preparation of a Specific Plan to implement the policies in the City’s TOP. With planned adoption of TOP 2050 Update this August, the Project site would have general plan land use designations of Business Park and Industrial, at which time the SP-AG overlay zone would carry no residential density, and therefore there would be no residential zoning capacity lost as part of Project approval.
The City’s TOP 2050 Update process is a comprehensive policy planning process with “a particular focus on conducting technical updates to the Policy Plan to comply with state housing mandates; conform with new state laws related to community health, environmental justice, climate adaption, and mobility; bring long-term growth and fiscal projections into alignment with current economic conditions; and advance the Tracking and Feedback system and Implementation Plan.”9
3.5.3 Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (PSPA21-002) The SPA would expand the existing 85.6-acre Approved SP area and add the 71.69-acre Project site. The SPA proposes a comprehensive land use plan, circulation plan, streetscape plan, infrastructure service plan, grading plan, maintenance plan, phasing plan, design guidelines, development regulations, and implementation measures to guide the development of the Project site into a master-planned industrial and business park. The SPA would also amend the existing SP-AG Overlay to two new PAs consisting of Business Park and Industrial General Specific Plan land use districts. The Approved SP includes two PAs, PA 1 and PA 2. The Project SPA adds two new PAs to the Approved SP (PA 3 and PA 4).
Proposed Planning Areas 3 and 4
The Project consists of two Pas(PA 3 and PA 4), which would accommodate a variety of industrial-serving commercial, low-intensity office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses that are compatible with the site’s location. The Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, and research and development at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions.
Figure 3-8, Proposed Planning Areas 3 and 4, identifies the location of the PAs. The two PAs are described below:
• Planning Area 3 – Business Park (BP): BP accommodates industrial-serving commercial, low intensity office uses, and certain light industrial uses. Development within this district is typically multi-tenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded. 9 https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/ (accessed May 11, 2022). 226
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-7 3.0 | Project Description
• Planning Area 4 – General Industrial (IG): IG accommodates storage and warehousing uses located in larger buildings on larger sites. Uses may include e-commerce, high cube warehouses, or distribution. A wide range of manufacturing and assembly uses are also permitted in this district.
The land use types proposed by the SPA are summarized below in Table 3-1, Maximum Specific Plan Build-Out Summary. Table 3-1 provides the maximum allowable square footage that can be built, for each PA at its associated FAR. Development standards, such as setback requirements, parking, landscaping, infrastructure, and site design, may reduce the maximum gross square footage.
Table 3-1: Maximum Specific Plan Build-Out Summary
Planning Area Maximum Floor Area Ratio Site Acreage Maximum Building Square Footage PA 3: Business Park 0.45 11.63 227,951 sf
PA 4: General Industrial 0.54 60.06 1,412,739 sf
TOTAL 71.69 1,640,690 sf
Note:
1. This EIR as proposed is reviewing square footages below the maximum TOP thresholds. The FAR may be increased to the TOP max levels of
0.60 and 0.55 for BP and IG respectively with a SPA and appropriate CEQA analysis.
2. PA 3 is rounded from 11.629 and PA 4 is rounded from 60.0593; resulting in an exact square footage of 227,951.658 and 1,412,738.88.
Conceptual Site Plan
The conceptual site plan for the Project is presented in Figure 3-9, Conceptual Site Plan. The conceptual site plan depictsthe Approved SP area and the Project site, and it reflects the current Development Plan concept. Under this conceptual plan, PA 3 is proposed to be developed with three buildings totaling 211,790 sf and PA 4 is proposed to be developed with three buildings totaling 1,310,450 sf (refer to Table 3-2, Conceptual Site Plan).
Table 3-2, Conceptual Site Plan, shows the intended amount of square footage upon Project buildout; however, this could increase to a maximum amount of up to 1,640,690 sf, as shown in Table 3-1, above.
The conceptual site plan reflects current market trends, site conditions, and planned infrastructure.
However, the conceptual site plan may be modified, provided it does not exceed the maximum building area presented in Table 3-2 and complies with this Project and applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code.
Table 3-2: Conceptual Site Plan
Planning Area SP Zoning District Site Acreage Proposed Conceptual Building Square Footage
PA 3: Business Park BP 11.63 211,790
PA 4: General Industrial IG 60.06 1,310,450
TOTAL 71.69 1,522,240 sf
Circulation Plan
The Circulation Plan (Figure 3-10, Street Plan) facilitates movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists within the Project site, consistent with the City’s Roadway Classification System, shown in Figure 3-11, City of Ontario Roadway Classification System.
227
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-8 3.0 | Project Description
Figure 3-12a and Figure 3-12b, Street Cross Sections, presents typical street cross sections for Campus, Eucalyptus, Sultana, and Merrill Avenues for the Project site as well as Euclid Avenue for the Approved SP.
Road surface, sidewalk, and trail improvements within the Project site must be approved by the City’s Engineering Department.
Euclid Avenue. Although Euclid Avenue is not within the Project site, the Project will be required to physically tie into it as it is a part of the Approved SP, and is an expressway under Caltrans’ jurisdiction that is designated as an eight-lane Principal Arterial in The Ontario Plan’s Functional Roadway Classification Plan. The centerline of this street forms the boundary between the City of Ontario to the east and the City of Chino to the west. Euclid Avenue is designed with a 200-foot-wide right-of-way, a 66-foot-wide center median, and 52-feet of pavement including curbs and gutter. The existing half-width street right-of-way is 100 feet; therefore, no dedication is required.
The Euclid Avenue streetscape design for the east side of the street,adjacent to the Approved SP,specifies a 15-foot-wide parkway including a five-foot wide sidewalk and an eight-foot-wide on-site multipurpose trail within a 35-foot-wide landscape buffer, creating a 50-foot-wide neighborhood edge as specified in the Ontario Ranch Colony Streetscape Master Plan.
Eucalyptus Avenue. Eucalyptus Avenue is located along the northern boundary of the Project site, providing east/west access to the site. Eucalyptus Avenue is designated by the Functional Roadway Classification Plan as a four-lane Collector Street. The Project specifies a 108-foot-wide right-of-way with 84 feet of pavement including curb/gutter.
The Eucalyptus Avenue streetscape design specifies a 12-foot-wide parkway including a seven-foot-wide curb-adjacent landscaped area and a five-foot wide sidewalk. The north side also provides an eight-footwide on-site multipurpose trail within a 23-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Together, the parkway and landscape buffer setback create a 35-foot-wide neighborhood edge, as described in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan. A 21-foot dedication will be required for Eucalyptus Avenue.
Sultana Avenue. Sultana Avenue is designated as a two-lane Local Industrial with a 66-foot-wide right-ofway and 48 feet of pavement including curb and gutter. The Sultana Avenue streetscape specifies a 9-footwide parkway including a 4-foot landscape and a five-foot wide sidewalk. The west side of the street adjacent to the Project site provides a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Sultana Avenue is not yet developed adjacent to the Project site. However, the right-of-way exists, and no dedication is required.
Merrill Avenue. Merrill Avenue is designated as a four-lane Collector Street in the Functional Roadway Classification Plan and provides east-west access to the project’s southern boundary. The centerline of this street forms the boundary between the City of Ontario to the north and the City of Chino to the south.
The Project specifies a 98-foot-wide right-of-way and 74 feet of pavement including curb and gutter for Merrill Avenue.
The Merrill Avenue streetscape design for the north side of the street adjacent to the Project site includes an eight-foot-wide Class II on-street bike lane at the edge of the street, a seven-foot-wide curb-adjacent landscaped area, and a five-foot wide sidewalk. An eight-foot-wide multipurpose trail is located within a 228
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-9 3.0 | Project Description
23-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Together, these improvements establish a 35-foot-wide neighborhood edge, as specified in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan. A 21-foot street dedication will be required for Merrill Avenue.
Campus Avenue. Campus Avenue is located along the eastern boundary of the Project site, providing north-south access to the site. Campus Avenue is designated as a Minor Arterial Street per the Functional Roadway Classification Plan. The Project specifies a 108-foot-wide right-of-way and will require a 29-foot half-width dedication and a 12-foot parkway including the sidewalk. An additional 23-foot dedication for the neighborhood edge is required.
Local Circulation
Final site planning and off-site design shall be subject to City approval. In addition to the typical street sections described and depicted above, additional geometric enhancements, including but not limited to those at intersections, may be required to adequately mitigate impacts as identified throughout this Draft Subsequent EIR and further discussed within the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix I, of the Draft Subsequent EIR) for this Project (refer to Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic). Local roadway circulation shall accommodate trucks with a double trailer combination wheelbase of 67 feet (known as the WB-67 design vehicle).
Driveways shall conform to access requirements of the City’s 2013 Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines, revised January 2020. Driveway locations, specifically those that are in proximity to masterplanned or future traffic signals, shall be located so as not to interfere with queues as projected in the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I, of the Draft Subsequent EIR) for the Project. The use of surrounding roads, drive aisles and truck/yards parking lots to address the open land requirement for the Chino Airport Overlay zone is discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2: Airport Influence Areas) of the Project’s SPA.
Fair share responsibilities for street improvements will be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City, at the discretion of the City.
Traffic Control Devices
All traffic signs regulating, warning, and/or guiding traffic on public roads will conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), latest edition. All traffic-control signs, whether on public or private property, shall conform to the California MUTCD.
Truck Routes
The City designates and maintains a network of truck routes that provide for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise-sensitive land uses (Figure 3-13, Truck Routes). Merrill Avenue, which runs along the southern boundary of the Project site, is a designated truck route from Euclid Avenue, adjacent to the Approved SP, to Archibald Avenue.
Pedestrian Circulation
Sidewalks will be provided along all streets abutting the Project site, in order to improve safety and the pedestrian experience, connect the various parts of the Project site, and expand access to nearby land 229
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-10 3.0 | Project Description
uses. Sidewalks will be five feet wide, constructed of concrete, and installed in conjunction with adjacent roadway improvements.
Trails and Bike Paths
Trails and bicycle paths will provide an additional mode of circulation in and around the Project site.
Multipurpose trails will be provided on the north and south side of Merrill Avenue, north side of Eucalyptus Avenue and east side of Campus Avenue (Figure 3-14, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and Figure 3-15, City of Ontario Trail and Bikeways Plan).
The Ontario Plan Mobility Element specifies a Class II bikeway on the north side of Merrill Avenue, south side of Eucalyptus and on the west side of Campus Avenue. Class II bikeways are defined as dedicated (striped) lanes along streets, with no parking allowed in the bike lane. This bike lane provides linkages to the City’s bike path system (refer to Figure 3-14 and 3-15).
The trail and bikeway improvements will be installed along the Project frontages in conjunction with street improvements. The City reserves the right to implement bike lanes on Eucalyptus Avenue at the discretion of the Traffic and Transportation Division.
Transit
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors. Refer to Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, for further discussion on circulation and mobility throughout the Project site.
Potable Water Plan
Water service to the Project site will be provided by the City. Potable water is provided by imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) and groundwater from the Chino Basin, extracted via the City’s wells. The WFA was formed in 1980 as a Joint Powers Authority by the Cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario and Upland, and the Monte Vista Water District. It was formed to construct and operate water treatment facilities that provide a supplemental supply of potable water to its member agencies.
Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone
The overall water infrastructure plan to serve the City is shown on Figure 3-16, City of Ontario Ultimate Water System. The ultimate domestic water system will consist of five pressure zones. Most of Ontario Ranch (including the Project site) is in the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ). The sizing and alignment of potable water lines will follow the most current approved City water system plan. Required Potable Water Infrastructure is subject to change based upon findings of approved hydraulic study and master plan updates; and Potable Water main locations are also subject to change based upon the developer conducted and City approved Conceptual Design Report.
The Project site lies within the 925 PZ (Figure 3-16). The Approved SP provided potable water services which the Project site will be required to physically extend to. The Approved SP potable water services 230
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-11 3.0 | Project Description
provided included: extending the Phase 2 West Backbone 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue from Carpenter Avenue to Grove Avenue; extending this potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue with a 16-inch potable water main from Grove Avenue to Euclid Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Euclid Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue from Euclid Avenue to Walker Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Walker Avenue from Merrill Avenue to the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue. This will provide the primary potable water loop for the Projectsite (Figure 3-17a and b, Potable Water Plan).
In addition to the Approved SP extending the 925 PZ Phase 2 West Backbone, the Approved SP also established a connection between the 925 PZ Phase 2 West Backbone and the 1010 PZ. This supplies a second source of potable water to the Project site. Other elements of the Phase 2 Water System are shown on Figures 3-17a and b, Potable Water Plan. The balance of Phase 2 Water System will be completed as required by future development of Ontario Ranch.
The Approved SP required the planning, design, and construction of the Adjacent Potable Water System, which includes the installation of a 12-inch potable water main in Sultana Avenue connecting to the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue. The Project will then install a 12-inch potable water main in Campus Avenue connecting to the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue.
Water mains required to serve the Approved SP will also be required for the Project site and will need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. Within the Project site, a private network of 2- to 4-inch water lines for domestic water service and 10-to 12-inch water lines for fire service water will be installed. The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue to serve PA 3 and to the main in Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue to serve PA 4.
Until the ultimate pipeline network for Ontario Ranch has been completed, there may be instances where construction of improvements to serve a project may not meet the required fire flow demands.
Therefore, projects within the Project sitemay be required to construct additional pipelines not indicated in the Master Plan or upsize master planned pipelines to meet Fire Department fire flow requirements and/or Water Master Plan criteria. The developer will submit a hydraulic analysis to the City for review and approval to demonstrate adequate fire flow and adherence to Potable Water Master Plan criteria.
Additionally, all offsite improvements have been analyzed in the Approved SP, and are consistent with surrounding projects.
Recycled Water Plan
The City of Ontario Ordinance 2689 requires all new development in Ontario Ranch to connect to and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation. Prior to use of recycled water, approval from the City and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is required.
Interim connection to potable water is not allowed.
231
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-12 3.0 | Project Description
There is an existing 30-inch Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue adjacent to the Project site. Recycled Water is provided to the City by the IEUA from its four wastewater reclamation plants. The Approved SP and Project site are within the City’s master planned 930 PZ. As with the Approved SP, Project recycled water infrastructure improvements require the planning, design, and construction of new 930 PZ Recycled Water Master Plan main lines (Figure 3-18, Recycled Water Plan). Required recycled water infrastructure for the Approved SP included installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Euclid Avenue connecting the existing IEUA 30-inch 930 Pressure Zone RecycledWatermaininEucalyptus Avenueto an8-inch recycledwatermaininMerrillAvenue. TheProject will extend the 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue from Euclid Avenue easterly to Campus Avenue. The Project will also construct an 8-inch recycled water main which will be installed in Campus Avenue that also connects the 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue to the existing 30-inch recycled watermain in Eucalyptus Avenue.
Sizing and alignment of the recycled water lines will be consistent with the City recycled water system plan and a City approved hydraulic analysis. Refer to Figure 3-19, City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System.
Sewer Plan
Regionalwastewatertreatmentservicesare providedtotheCityandits neighboring agencies by theIEUA.
Several regional trunk sewers collect sewage generated in the City and transport it to IEUA’s Regional Plant No.1 andRegionalPlant No.5 for treatment. TheCity’ssewerservice area is dividedintoeightsewer sheds, primarilybasedon theoutlet points where theCity’ssystemtiesintotheIEUAdownstreamfacility.
Ontario Ranchis locatedin Sewer Shed 8.
TheApproved SP included a networkof new public sewer mains(Figure 3-20, Sewer Plan), consistent with the City’s ultimate sewer system plan (Figure 3-21, City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System), which will connect to the Project site. The Approved SP connected a 36-inch sewer main to an existing IEUA interceptor trunk main sewerlocated in Kimball Avenue to the south, running north in Euclid Avenue to Merrill Avenue, then east to Campus Avenue, within the Project site boundaries. The Project site will construct a 16-inch public sewer main which will be located along Sultana Avenue and Campus Avenue.
Bothsewermains will connect tothe Approved SP 36-inch sewermainin MerrillAvenue, once the 36-inch main is constructed, and extend north, through the Eucalyptus Avenue intersection (Figure 3-20, Sewer Plan).
The ultimate sizing and alignment of the sewer shall be consistent with the City’s ultimate sewer system plan and/or a City conducted and approved hydraulic analysis.
A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and development within the Project site.
Conceptual Grading Plan
Site topography is moderately flat, sloping from the north to the south. There is an approximately 30-foot change in elevation across the Project site.
232
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-13 3.0 | Project Description
The grading activities for the Project site will generally consist of clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing structures, and moving surface soils to construct building pads, driveways, and streets.
The Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 3-22, Conceptual Grading Plan) provides a balance of cut and fill for the Project site. Grading and earthwork analysis indicate the Project can balance without the use of retaining walls. Earthwork will include approximately 242,079 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 242,079 CY of fill with 292,457 CY of over-excavation. Geotechnical and/or environmental conditions encountered during grading operations may impact final earthwork calculations. Grading plans within the Project site will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading plans and activities will conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.
All landscaped areas within the Project site shall be graded as shallow swales and designed to accept runoff water from impervious surfaces. Water quality retention basins, trenches, etc., (the exact location of which will be determined at the time of Water Quality Management Plan [WQMP] approval for individual implementing projects) will have a maximum side slope of 3:1.
Dry Utilities Plan
Utility services provided to the Project site will be installed underground in accordance with City guidelines.
Communication System
Developments in Ontario Ranch are required to install and provide fiber conduit to all improved lots.
Proposed on-site facilities will be placed underground within a duct and structure system that will be installed by the developer. Pursuant to the City of Ontario 2013 Fiber Optic Master Plan, the fiber optic network will be owned and operated by the City and as such, maintenance of the installed system will be the responsibility of the City and/or Special District fiber optic entity and not the developer (refer to Figure 3-24, Fiber Optic Plan). According to the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan, the proposed fiber optic infrastructure, including approximately 23 miles of backbone fiber south of Riverside Drive, is an investment into a long-term capital asset using newly constructed and existing conduit to provide high speed communication links to key locations throughout the City. The Project site will be connected to the City’s system as shown on Figure 3-24, City of Ontario Fiber Optic Master Plan.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) will provide natural gas to the Project site. Gas mains will be installed to the individual development projects by SoCalGas, as necessary.
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) will provide electricity to the Project site from existing facilities in the vicinity. All new lines within the Project site shall be installed according to City requirements. 233
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-14 3.0 | Project Description
Storm Drainage Plan
The Project site storm drain improvements (Figure 3-25, Storm Drain Plan) will be designed consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City of Ontario Storm Drain Master Plan (Figure 3-26, City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities).
Catch basins located throughout the Project site will collect runoff. Established by the Approved SP and as required for the Project site, on-site storm drain systems that will be built as part of this Project, will convey runoff southerly to a reinforced concrete box facility in Merrill Avenue. Landscaped areas from the Approved SP, located adjacent to Euclid Avenue, will continue to drain to the street. Established by the Approved SP and as required for the Project site, the Project will also construct storm drains in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue north of Merrill Avenue. The reinforced concrete box facility in Merrill Avenue will end just north of the existing earthen channel, located between the paved portions of Euclid Avenue and the existing easterly right-of-way. The storm water will then bubble up in the structure and spill out into the existing channel where it will continue to flow south to eventually discharge south of Pine Avenue in the City of Chino.
Though the Project site will construct several storm drains consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan, as established by the Approved SP, the ultimate discharge location downstream, between Pine Avenue and Merrill Avenue in the City of Chino, is not fully improved at this time. Until the ultimate discharge location downstreamimprovements occurs, the Project will utilize on-site storm water detention so that discharge from Project development remains less than peak flow rates prior to development.
Each storm drain constructed for the Project will be equipped with a hydrodynamic separator or equivalent alternative approved devices to satisfy the statewide trash mandate. Each device will be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
NPDES Compliance
The grading and drainage of the Project site will be designed to retain/infilter, harvest, and re-use or biotreat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County NPDES Stormwater Program's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for significant new development projects. The objective of the WQMP for this project is to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization on the beneficial uses of receiving waters, including effects caused by increased pollutants and changes in hydrology. These effects may be minimized through the implementation of site designs that reduce runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizing on-site infiltration, employing Source Control Best Management Practices (BMP’s), or using on-site structural Treatment Control BMP’s where the infeasibility of installing Low Impact Development BMP’s is demonstrated.
New development within the Project site will utilize a variety of Low Impact Development site drainage designs to manage stormwater, including but not limited to retention/infiltration basins, trenches and swales, and above ground bio-treatment systems. Development projects within the Project site will comply with the latest Low Impact Development guidelines and incorporate features including but not limited to:
234
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-15 3.0 | Project Description
• Landscape designs that promote water retention and incorporation of water conservation elements such as use of native plants and drip irrigation systems; • Permeable surface designs in areas with low traffic;
• Parking lots that drain to landscaped areas to provide retention and infiltration, or bio-treatment where infiltration is infeasible;
• Limit soil compaction during grading operations within landscaped storm water infiltration areas to no more than 80 percent compaction.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Erosion & Sediment Control Plan sheets, and a WQMP will be prepared and approved. The SWPPP and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Sheets will identify and detail all appropriate BMP’s to be implemented or installed during construction of the project, and the WQMP will describe all postconstructionBMP’s designed to address water quality and quantity of runoff for the life of the project.
All Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)Permit.
Public Services
This sub-section addresses public services within the Project site, including police, fire and solid waste disposal services.
Police
The City of Ontario Police Department will provide police services to the Project site. The closest police station is located approximately five miles north of the Project site at 2500 S. Archibald Avenue, just south of SR-60. This station is also the City of Ontario Police Department headquarters.
Fire
The City of Ontario Fire Department currently has 10 fire stations, which have a daily staffing level of 58, comprises nine four-person engine companies, three four-person truck companies, and an eight-person Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) station.
10. The closest operational fire station, Station 2, is located at 544 W. Francis Street, approximately four miles north-northwest of the Project site.
Solid Waste Disposal
The City will provide solid waste services to the Projectsite. The City offers a full array of commercial and industrial services designed to meet the business community’s needs. Solid waste facilities will follow the “Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.” The Manual establishes the City’s requirements for refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addresses the City’s 10 City of Ontario, Fire Department via email January 18, 2022. 235
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-16 3.0 | Project Description
recycling goals. The Mid-Valley Landfill is the nearest San Bernardino County landfill located at 2390 N.
Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto, approximately 20 miles northeast of the Project site.
Phasing Plan
Development phasing of the Project site will be determined by the landowner and/or developer based upon real estate market conditions. Phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure are provided.
Phasing sequencing is subject to change over time to respond to various market and local factors and as such, individual phases are planned to be developed concurrently. Infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support the development, will be installed by the developer. Figure 3-27, Conceptual Phasing Plan, describes three general phases of development for Ontario Ranch Business Park, which includes the Approved SP area and the Project site.
Project backbone infrastructure will be installed by the Project developer, in accordance with the applicable City-adopted infrastructure plan for the area, as well as the provisions of this Project and an approved Development Agreement. At the discretion of the City, fair share responsibilities for improvements will be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City. The timing for installation of infrastructure and utilities within the Project site will be determined as part of the City’s approval of a parcel map. Infrastructure will be constructed and made available in a timely manner as development progresses. All of the Project required infrastructure can be found in Chapter 3 of the Project’s Specific Plan, or refer to (Figures 3-10, Street Plan, and Figure 3-12a and Figure 3-12b, Street Cross Sections) for Streets, Figure 3-16a and b, Potable Water Plan, for Potable Water, Figure 3-18, Recycled Water Plan for Recycled Water, Figure 3-20, Sewer Plan for Sewer, Figure 3-23, Fiber Optic Plan, for Fiber Optics, and Figure 3-25, Storm Drain Plan, for Storm Drain. Phasing will be determined per a separate Development Agreement.
Final grading and infrastructure improvements will be completed in accordance with the approved Development Agreement and City Engineer approval.
Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Upon adoption of the SPA, the development standards and procedures established within the SPA will become the governing zoning standards for any new construction, addition, or remodel within the Project site. The SPA outlines the allowable uses and standards for building heights, setbacks, parking, coverage, landscape, signage and other development standards within the Project site. Design Guidelines of the SPA provide conceptual themes of site planning, architecture, and landscape design within the Project site.
The guidelines are intended to implement the goals and policies of TOP and the Ontario Development Code and meet the following objectives:
• Demonstrates high quality development that complements and integrates into the community and adds value to the City.
• Creates a functional and sustainable place that ensures Ontario Ranch Business Park is competitive regionally and appropriate in the Ontario Ranch community. • Illustrates the distinctive characteristics of the two-land use plan zoning districts: Business Park District (PA1 and 3) and Industrial - General District (PA 2 and 4). 236
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-17 3.0 | Project Description
• Establishes criteria for building design and materials, landscape design, and site design that provide guidance to developers, builders, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals preparing plans for construction.
• Provides guidance to City staff and the Planning Commission in the review and evaluation of future development projects in the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan area. • Incorporates construction and landscape design standards that promote energy and water conservation strategies.
• Implements the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan and the intent of the Ontario Development Code.
Table 3-3, Development Standards provides a summary of the development standards applicable to the land uses, structures, and related improvements located within the Project site. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for any standard not addressed in Table 3-3, Development Standards.
Table 3-3: Development Standards
Development Standard
Zoning District
BP IG
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf 20,000 sf
Minimum Lot Dimensions
1. Lot Width 100 ft 100 ft
2. Lot Depth 100 ft 100 ft
Maximum Floor Area Ratio1,2 0.45 0.54
Maximum Building Footprint3 125,000 sf N/A
Maximum Landscape Setback
1. Euclid Avenue 35 ft 35 ft
2. Eucalyptus Avenue 23 ft N/A
3. Merrill Avenue N/A 23 ft
4. Sultana Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
5. Campus Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
6. Interior Side N/A N/A
7. Interior Rear N/A N/A
Minimum Building Setback4
1. Euclid Avenue 35 ft 35 ft
2. Eucalyptus Avenue 23 ft N/A
3. Merrill Avenue N/A 23 ft
4. Sultana Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
5. Campus Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
6. Interior Side 10 ft 10 ft
7. Interior Rear 10 ft 10 ft
Minimum Parking Space and Drive Aisle Separations5,6,9
1. Parking Space or Drive Aisle to Street
Property Line
20 ft 10 ft
2. Parking Space or Drive Aisle to Interior
Property Line
5 ft 5 ft
237
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-18 3.0 | Project Description
Development Standard
Zoning District
BP IG
3. Parking Space to Buildings, Walls, and
Fences
Areas adjacent to public entries and office areas: 10 ft Areas adjacent to other building areas: 5 ft
Within screened loading and storage yard areas: 0 ft
4.Drive Aisles to Buildings, Walls, and Fences 5 ft 5 ft
5. Drive Aisles within Screened Loading and
Storage Yard Areas
0 ft 0 ft
Maximum Building Height7,8 45 ft 55 ft
Minimum Landscape Coverage9 15% 10%
Walls, Fences, and Hedges: Per Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences, and Obstructions) and Section 5.5 (Buffering and Screening) in the Design Guidelines.
Notes:
1. The max FAR for PA 3, Business Park, may exceed an FAR of 0.60, provided that the total average FAR for the entire PA 3 does not exceed a total combined building square footage does not exceed 227,951sf.
2. The max FAR for PA 4, Industrial General, may exceed up to an FAR of 0.55, provided that the total average FAR for the entire PA 4 does not exceed a total combined building square footage does not exceed 1,412,739sf.
3. The maximum building footprint limit is applicable only to buildings that front onto a public right-of-way. All setback areas shall be measured from the property line and shall be landscaped.
4. Within yard areas fully screened by a decorative wall, there shall be no minimum drive aisle or parking space setback required, unless adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
5. The minimum separation area between a building, wall, or fence, and a parking space or drive aisle shall be fully landscaped. The separation area may include pedestrian walkways, as necessary; however, a minimum 5-foot-wide planter area shall be maintained between a building wall and a pedestrian walkway. The minimum separation dimension does not include any area devoted to vehicle overhang.
6. Architectural projections, mechanical equipment, and focal elements may be allowed to exceed maximum height up to 25 percent above the prescribed height limit.
7. The maximum building height and floor area ratio may be restricted pursuant to the ONT ALUCP. Refer to the ALUCP for properties affected by airport safety zones for additional development criteria and policies that may affect allowable land uses.
8. The use of surrounding roads, drive aisles and truck parking lots to address the open land requirement for the Chino Airport Overlay zone is discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2: Airport Influence Areas) of the SPA.
9. The total landscape coverage for Building 1 may be less than the required ten percent, so long as the deficiency in landscaping square footage is distributed across Buildings 2 through 7, to be maintained in perpetuity.
Table 3-4, Off-Street Parking and Loading Design Standards establishes the design standards for off-street parking in the Project site. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for any standard not addressed below.
Table 3-4: Off-Street Parking and Loading Design Standards Development Standard Requirement
Parking Space Dimensions
1. Standard Parking 9 feet wide by 18 feet long
2. Tractor Trailer Parking 12 feet wide by 45 feet long
3. At grade loading space 12 feet wide by 18 feet long
Minimum aisle width for 90-degree parking angle 24 feet Maximum gradient at parking space 5 percent measured in any direction Dock-high loading facilities
1. Dock high loading door loading space 12 feet wide by 45 feet long with 14-foot minimum vertical clearance measured from finished surface of loading dock.
2. Truck maneuvering area Designed to accommodate the minimum practical turning radius of a 53-foot semi-trailer and tractor combination. 238
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-19 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-5, Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces specifies the number of parking spaces that must be provided according to land use. For a use not specified in the table, refer to the Ontario Development Code, Table 6.03-1: Off-Street Parking Requirements.
Table 3-5: Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces Land Use Number of Required Spaces
Multi-tenant business park 3 spaces per 1,000 sf plus required parking for “general business offices” when exceeding 10 percent of gross floor area; plus, one tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors
General office when exceeding 10 percent of
building gross floor area
4 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross floor area of office use Industrial speculative building Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area:
• Up to 50,000 sf: 1.85 spaces
• 50,001 – 100,000 sf: 1 space
• 100,001 sf and over: 0.5 space
• One tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors.
Plus,required parking for “general business offices” and other associated uses, when those uses exceed 10 percent of the building gross floor area.
Manufacturing 1.85 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross floor area, plus one tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors, plus required parking for “general business offices” and other associated uses, when those uses exceed 10 percent of the building gross floor area.
Restaurants (includes outdoor seating area up
to 25 percent of gross floor area)
• Under 2,000 sf: 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
• More than 2,000 sf: 10 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross floor area
Warehousing and distribution (including
associated office use if less than 10 percent of
building gross floor area)
1 space per 1,000 sf of gross floor area for first 20,000 sf; 0.5 space per 1,000 square feet of additional gross floor area, plus one tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors plus required parking for “general business offices” and other associated uses, when those uses exceed 10 percent of the building gross floor area.
Sufficient off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be provided on each development site, and adequate provisions and space shall be made for maneuvering freight vehicles and handling freight.
Loading activity, including turnaround and maneuvering, shall be handled on-site. Buildings, structures, and loading facilities shall be designed and placed on the site so that vehicles, whether rear loading or side loading, may be loaded or unloaded at any loading dock, door, or area without extending beyond the property line.
239
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-20 3.0 | Project Description
Site Design
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the SPA, site design within PA 3 (Business Park District) and PA 4 (Industrial - General District) shall incorporate the following design features.
Key provisions include:
1. Provide a well-organized site plan that emphasizes pedestrian connectivity and attractive landscape areas for the public through the location and arrangement of buildings, circulation, and parking areas.
2. Orient buildings towards street frontages to create an inviting public perimeter. Enhanced elevations shall be provided for buildings that front Euclid Avenue.
3. Provide visible pedestrian access to buildings from the street, parking areas, and perimeter sidewalks through signage, prominent architectural features, and landscape design.
4. Employ enhanced paving, accent trees, and other landscape features that highlight major building entries.
5. Design drive aisles to minimize impact to pedestrians, provide adequate stacking space, and prevent queuing of vehicles onto public streets.
6. Locate visitor and short-term parking areas at the front and sides of buildings near primary building entrances.
7. Organize landscaped areas, drive entrances, and/or buildings to create separate parking areas to prevent the parking lot from being the dominant visual element.
8. Locate loading and storage areas away from streets when feasible, ensure adequate space for vehicle backing and maneuvering on-site, and provide adequate parking for loading vehicles so normal traffic flow is not impeded.
9. Screen parking areas and loading docks facing the street using landscape buffers planted with screen trees and drought tolerant vegetation.
10. Orient and screen elements such as trash enclosures, loading bay doors, and service docks to minimize their visibility.
11. Locate service entrance to prevent conflict with front entry.
12. Place electrical rooms and transformers away from front entries and street views.
Architectural Design
The building design, materials, colors, and textures establish its theme and character. Architecture shall be compatible and complementary with other buildings within the Project site; however, design diversity is encouraged to provide visual interest. Although development may differ in building height and scale, similar design concepts apply as follows.
240
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-21 3.0 | Project Description
Key provisions include:
1. Ensure scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Project site.
2. Avoid blank walls by providing articulation on building elevations visible from a public right-ofway through elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors.
3. Provide the greatest level of articulation on the front facades that are visible from the public rights-of-way and at the main entrances.
4. Design entry features as a significant aspect of a building’s overall composition through massing, detailing, architectural treatments, and/or special materials and colors.
5. Employ recessed or covered building entrances to provide shade and visual relief.
6. Design office buildings, business parks, and office areas of industrial or warehouse buildings with an emphasis on the use of windows, architectural details, and building articulation.
7. Integrate the design of industrial/warehouse office areas into the overall building composition so they create powerful architectural statements and not visually disjointed “add-ons.”
8. Employ a minimum of four different colors, materials, and/or textures on each building.
9. Avoid terminating a change in material or color at a building edge; instead, select a logical termination point in relation to the architectural features or massing.
10. Paint exposed downspouts, service doors, and mechanical screens the same color as the adjacent wall. Exposed downspouts are not permitted on elevations that front onto a street.
Landscape Design
Conceptual landscape plans encourage durable landscape materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits. The following guidelines ensure that intersection sight lines and pedestrian safety are preserved. Landscaping plans within the Project site shall comply with City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines and the Standard Drawings and Traffic and Transportation Guidelines for sight-distance.
Key provisions include:
1. Landscape and irrigate all areas of the site not covered by buildings, structures, paving, or impervious surfaces.
2. Design and grade projects to direct storm runoff from building roofs and paved areas into swaled landscape areas for retention/infiltration. Landscape areas may be used for storm water basins and swales at no greater than 50% of the available landscape area and may not obstruct the mature root zone of required tree locations
3. Provide shade for expanses of paving, building walls, roofs, and windows with irrigated shade trees located in appropriate areas where space permits to reduce the impacts of heat gain. 241
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-22 3.0 | Project Description
4. Design parking lot landscaping to reduce associated heat buildup, improve aesthetics, and integrate with on-site landscape and adjacent streetscape.
5. Use landscaping to aid in the screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, trash collection areas, loading docks and outside storage areas from public view.
6. Show utilities on plan and keep utilities clear of required tree locations. Coordinate with the landscape plans. Utilities such as backflow devices and transformers shall be screened using landscaping that provides at least 75 percent coverage. Backflow devices and transformers shall be located at least five feet from hardscape to ensure space for landscape screening.
7. Prepare landscape plans that meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines and provide for the efficient use of water. Plants shall be selected and planted based upon their adaptability to the climate and topographical conditions of the project site.
8. Select drought-tolerant plants such as colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to Southern California or naturalized to the arid Southern California climate.
9. Incorporate water conservation features in landscape and irrigation plans.
10. Place a landscape planter island every ten parking spaces within parking lots. Planter islands shall be at least five feet in width exclusive of curbs and the length of the abutting parking space.
Planter islands shall include at least one tree, appropriate shrubs, and groundcover. Parking areas located behind screen walls shall not be subject to this provision.
11. Provide a minimum dimension of five feet exclusive of curbs for all landscape areas, except for vine pockets.
12. Space living plant materials less than or equal to the mature plant diameter. Non-living ornamental landscape materials may comprise a maximum of five percent of the landscape area requirements and shall be permeable.
Streetscapes
Streetscape design creates an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and integrates the development into the surrounding community. For further detail on streetscape design, refer to Chapter 5, Design Guidelines within the SPA.
Walls and Fences
Walls and fences are an important design feature intended to both complement building and landscape architecture and provide functional elements. Any proposed entry gates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Division prior to installation and will be permitted only if approved.
Key provisions include:
1. Provide attractive, durable, and complementary wall and fencing materials consistent with the building design.
242
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-23 3.0 | Project Description
2. Offset and architecturally treat long expanses of wall surfaces every 100 feet with material changes, pilasters and posts, staggered walls, or landscape treatments to prevent visual monotony.
3. Soften the appearance of fencing with plants that reach the height of the wall or fence at maturity.
4. Construct sliding gates visible from a public street with tubular steel, vertical steel pickets, or highdensity perforated metal screening painted to match or complement adjacent walls. Interior gates not visible to public view may be galvanized steel or chain link.
5. Prohibit chain link fencing visible to the public.
Buffering and Screening
To alleviate the unsightly appearance of parking, loading and service areas, buffering and screening design features should be used to enhance the overall development. Any proposed entry gates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Division prior to installation.
Lighting
Site lighting provides illumination for operations, safety, security, and ambiance in parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features.
Key provisions include:
1. Choose lighting fixtures that complement the building architecture and promote consistency throughout the PAs.
2. Install ground or low mounted fixtures to provide safety and convenience along pedestrian walkways, entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features.
3. Allow building-mounted accent lighting for general illumination provided there is no light spill or distraction onto roadways or adjacent property. Plain shoebox or unshielded wall packs are not permitted.
4. Direct exterior lighting fixtures downward to avoid unnecessary light spill and glare.
5. Limit pole-mounted, building-mounted, or tree-mounted lighting fixtures to no more than 30 feet in height to minimize light spill and glare.
6. Shield and direct pole-mounted lights away from public streets.
7. Ensure exterior lighting is consistent with the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
8. Design parking lot lighting to avoid placing fixtures in required tree locations Signage
Approval of a comprehensive sign program shall be required for development within the Project site. A sign program facilitates integration of signs with the overall site and building design to create a unified visual statement and provide for flexible application of sign regulations in the design and display of multiple signs.
243
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-24 3.0 | Project Description
Key provisions include:
1. Install an entry monument at the northeast corner of Euclid and Merrill Avenues to identify the Ontario Ranch area and/or the Ontario Ranch Business Park. Entry monuments shall be designed in accordance with City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Guidelines for monument placement.
2. Employ signage to identify a center and tenants within a center, direct vehicular traffic, and provide on-site wayfinding for pedestrians.
3. Employ signage within industrial sites to give direction to loading and receiving, visitor parking, and other special uses.
4. Provide a unifying sign theme in developments with multiple users.
5. Coordinate signage with the building design, materials, color, size, and placement.
6. Select signage with backlit or internally illuminated individual channel letters. Can-type box signs with translucent backlit panels are discouraged.
7. Avoid covering significant architectural elements with signage.
8. Position flush-mounted signs with respect to architectural features and align with signs on other buildings to maintain a pattern.
9. Place street address signs perpendicular to approaching vehicular traffic.
10. Ensure signage located within a landscaped planter is not blocked or damaged by plant materials.
11. Conserve energy by utilizing an automatic illumination shut-off mechanism when businesses are closed.
12. Construct signs from high quality materials and avoid exposed wiring, ballasts, conduits, fasteners, raceways, or similar hardware.
Sustainable Design Strategies
The Applicant is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies will be determined for each project within the Project site. Strategies include, but are not limited to:
Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
1. Design and construct energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
2. Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.
3. Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies.
In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity (cool roofs).
4. Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible. 244
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-25 3.0 | Project Description
5. Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand.
6. Use energy efficient LED (or similar) products.
7. Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the City Municipal Code requirements, including California Green Building Standards Code.
8. Use drought tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.
9. Employ high performance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts.
Water Quality
1. Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins or bio-treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.
2. Select native and drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand.
3. Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the Project site as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration and control runoff.
4. Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible.
5. Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydrazone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.
6. Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.
3.5.4 Specific Plan Phasing
Implementation of the Project is anticipated to occur in one phase, as shown in Phasing Plan (Figure 3-27 Conceptual Phasing Plan). Note that the Approved SP PA 1 and PA 2 are already approved, with PA 2 currently under construction. PA 3 will consist of the construction of BP uses and PA 4 will consist of the construction of the storage, warehousing, and/or industrial uses.
These phases may be developed as sub-phases and may occur either sequentially or concurrently with one another. The EIR has assumed concurrent construction as a conservative (worst-case) assumption.
All of the Project’srequired infrastructure for Potable Water, for Recycled Water, and for Sewer, phasing will be developed per this Project’s Development Agreement.
Phasing Objectives
Development phasing shall meet the following objectives:
1. The orderly build-out of the project based upon market and economic conditions; 245
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-26 3.0 | Project Description
2. The provision of adequate parking, infrastructure, and public facilities concurrent with the development of each phase; and
3. The protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
3.6 Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required
This Draft Subsequent EIR examines the environmental effects of the proposed Project's SPA. The City is serving as the Lead Agency under CEQA and will consider the EIR for certification and the Project for approval. It is the intent of this Draft Subsequent EIR to evaluate the environmental effects of the proposed Project, thereby enabling the City, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The anticipated approvals required for this Project are listed in Table 3-6, Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required, below (in addition to various permits and approvals from various public and private entities for construction, encroachment, and utility connections).
Following the initial approval of the SPA, the City of Ontario would then consider further site-specific development approvals for the Project. The applicant has submitted applications for these future approvals, although they are not specifically addressed or included in this EIR as the City has not yet completed staff-level review of the applications. It is the intention of this EIR to provide sufficient Project level detail to adequately address potential environmental impacts of these future approvals and include appropriate mitigation measures. These future City approvals include the following:
Development Plan (PDEV22-008) and Development Plan Review The Project proposed SPA will enable development entitlements such as the Development Plan application, which proposes the construction of six industrial/warehouse buildings of up to 1,640,690 sf of IGand BP land uses, for the 71.69-acre area constituting PAs 3 and 4.
Development proposed within the Project site will be subject to Development Plan Review pursuant to Section 4.02.025 of the Ontario Development Code. This review is intended to ensure compliance with applicable provisions of the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards and applicable Project Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval, in order to protect the integrity and character of the physical composition of the City and encourage high quality development.
Tentative Parcel Map (PMTT22-005)
Concurrent with submitting the Development Plan (PDEV22-008) for PAs 3 and 4, the Applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map No. 20517 (TPM) for the Project.
Development Agreement
Approval of a statutory development agreement authorized pursuant to California Government Code §65864 et seq. shall be required. The Development Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, methods for financing, acquisition, and construction of necessary infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to recordation of the Final Map. 246
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 3-27 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required
Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council
• Certification of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment EIR (SCH# 2019050018)
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
• Approval of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (PSPA21-002)
Future Agreements, Permits and Approvals
City of Ontario City Council • Approval of a Development Agreement City of Ontario Planning Commission
• Approval of the Development Plan(s)
• Approval of the Tentative Parcel Map(s)
City of Ontario
• Water Quality Management Plan
• Approval of grading, construction and building plans
• Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Review
Responsible Agencies Action
San Bernardino County • Well removal permit from County Health Department (if required)
City of Chino • Street and drainage improvements
Inland Empire Utilities Agency • Recycled water and connection to trunk sewer line Federal Aviation Administration • Obstruction evaluation State Water Resources Control Board • SWPPP
South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Demolition Notification
• Stationary Equipment Operation Permit(s)
247
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-1: Regional Location
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 1.1: Regional Location 248
FIGURE 3-
2: Local Vicinity Map
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: ESRI World Imagery \\rivfp01\CA_RIV1\RIV_GIS\19524200 2 - Ontario Ranch Business Park\NOP 01 Vicinity.mxd
0 Feet
500 1,000
Eucalyptus Ave
Merrill Ave
Sultana Ave
Campus Ave
Chino Airport
Chino
Ontario
PROJECT SITE
Source: ESRI World Imagery
EXHIBIT 1: Vicinity Map
249
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-3: Aerial Photograph
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: ESRI World Imagery
Approved ORBP
Specific Plan Chino Airport Chino Airport
Specific Plan Boundary Project Site Project Site Project Site Eucalyptus Avenue Eucalyptus Avenue Campus Avenue Campus Avenue Euclid Avenue Euclid Avenue Merrill Avenue Merrill Avenue Chino Airport Sultana Avenue Sultana Avenue 250
FIGURE 3-4: Proposed1 Project Land Uses
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
\\rivfp01\CA_RIV1\RIV_GIS\195242002 - Ontario Ranch Business Park\NOP 02 Proposed General Plan Land Uses.mxd Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project Description 0 250 500
Feet
1Pursuant to the City's proposed TOP 2050 Update
251
Not to scale
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning FIGURE3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning
1 Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment 1These are the current TOP land use designations, which are proposed to be changed to Industrial and Business Park as part of the TOP 2050 Update, as reflected in Figure 3-4.
252
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-6: Surrounding Land Use Map
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 2.1 Surrounding Land Uses
PROJECT
SITE
Project Site
253
Not to scale FIGURE 3-7:Airport Influence Areas
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project Site Project Site SULTANA AV SULTANA AV 254
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-8: Proposed Planning Areas 3 and 4
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.1 Land Use Plan Project Site
255
FIGURE 3-9: Conceptual Site Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
0 Feet
250 500
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project Description \\rivfp01\CA_RIV1\RIV_GIS\195242002 - Ontario Ranch Business Park\NOP 03 Conceptual Site Plan.mxd Project Site Approved Specific Plan SULTANA AVE
256
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-10: Street Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.3 Street Plan
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
257
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-11: City of Ontario Road Classification System Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.4 City of Ontario Road Classification System 258
FIGURE 3-12a: Street Cross Sections
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.5 Street Cross Sections
SULTANA AVENUE
COLLECTOR
66' ROW
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
COLLECTOR
108' ROW
CAMPUS AVENUE
MINOR ARTERIAL
108' ROW
FIGURE 3.5 - STREET SECTIONS
6 7' 133'
TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY PRO.ECT VfLY
R/W
85'
CITY OF CHINO CITY OF ONTARIO
200'
85'
E'LY
R/W Pl
. l ESMT. 52' 33' 33' 52' 15 LANDSCAPE-i 1--=-,,.,,.,.-----�-------��--...----�-------��-----h,.-,-AR =
K
=
w
=AY
,
-- BU
FFE
R
t---�25' ---1-------, 66'
NDSCAPEMED1·--------< 10' •
r:
10· 1 • 8' MULTI :
I
V
f
LY
LANDSCAPE R/W
12'
:PARKWAY1
35' NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE
PROPOSED 8
° RW
S'I! p��? I ,., � w; ?'l
ip--��fR�L=-----7---
-
=P!IOPOS£D== ff'
�
RW�����;:�PA�',OIEN�l�:t4
-
.,.....,..,-:u..,-:,
[ J ft t t I 7 •1
82'
EUCLID AVENUE
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
200'ROW
5'
PL
PRO-ECT
BOUNDARY
N'LY
PROP R/W
PROJECT SITT
LANDSCAPE BUFFE
R
PARKWAY
12'
-(EX GAS) � \_(EX GAS)
PRCFOSOl21• SS
33.5' r 8'
86'
TO BE CONSTRUClED BY PROJECT
I NEICHB001000 EDGE
�1oe•so
12'
--/'CITY OF ONTARIOT CITY OF CHINO
98' R/W,
S'LY
�TURE R/W
21' EX R/W
54'
33'
42'
33' EX R/W
32'
ARKWAY
5· r 8
•
35'
NEJGHBORHOOO ElDGE
□
PROPOSED SO (SIZE VARIES)
"'
+i
18'
26'
14' WIDE\ 7
, ! 7
,
PROPOSED AC
STRIPED MEDIAN � PAVEMENT
2%
PROPOSED 16" W
17.5'
PROPOSED 36" SS
25'
6'
5'
SW I
(EX 16" W)
FRa.t EUCLID TO GROVE MERRILL AVENUE
COLLECTOR
_J
7. 98' ROW (SOUTH SIDE CITY OF CHINO)
80' 28'
TO BE CONSTRUCTED I TO BE CONSTRUCTED I
BY OTHERS
C/L EX EX
R/W 108' R/W R/W
I: 84''
25' 25' I 42' 42'
r
2.01. 2.01.
<{)
-H C)
�1 �
-H I
PROPOSED 16" SS I PROPOSED
54" SD
30' 4' 14' 20'
CAMPUS AVENUE
MINOR ARTERIAL
108' ROW
E'LY
R/W ANDSCAP
BU
F
FER
8'
SW MUL
URPOSE
TRAIL
F
,:CJ:.'
35' NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE
PROPOSED 12" W
259
FIGURE 3-12b: Street Cross Sections
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.5 Street Cross Sections
SULTANA AVENUE
COLLECTOR
66' ROW
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
COLLECTOR
108' ROW
SULTANA AVENUE
FIGURE 3.5 - STREET SECTIONS
COLLECTOR
66' ROW
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
COLLECTOR
108' ROW
ESMT.
I
PRC>.ECT
BOUNDARY
• � l,__,- I T
-0-BECO_N
_STR_U
_CTED__, ____________________
S
,
'LY PROJECT SITE C/L TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY PROJECT N'L Y BY OTHERS , PROP R/W PROP R/W 108' R/W LANDSCAPE __________________________ ___, LANDSCAPE
BUFFER 21' EX R/W 33' 33' EX R/W 21' BUFFER
35'
NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE
FUTURE 12• SE'Am
IF REQUIRED
ESMT.
LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
PROPOSED
STORM DRAIN
� SIZE VARIES
+t
20'
b
+i
24' 12'
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
WLY
R/W
g•
I PKWY 24' I 5•
COLLECTOR
108' ROW
C/L
I
66' R/W
48'
24'
PROPOSED a• SS
SULTANA AVENUE
COLLECTOR
66' ROW
35'
NEIGHBORHOOD EDGE
{EX 30• RECLAIMED WATER)
FROM EUCLID TO BON VIEW
E'LY
R/W ESMT.
g• I LANDSCAPE
PKWY I BUFFER
ESMT.
260
Not to scale
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.6 Truck Routes FIGURE 3-13: Truck Routes Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Project Site
261
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-14: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE
262
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-15: City of Ontario Trail and Bikeways Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.8 City of Ontario Trail and Bikeways Plan
SULTANA SULTANA
263
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-16: City of Ontario Ultimate Water System
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.10, City of Ontario Ultimate Water System 264
Not to scale
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.9 Potable Water Plan FIGURE 3-17a: Potable Water Plan Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
PROJECT SITE
265
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-17b: Potable Water Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.9 Water Plan Continued 266
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-18: Recycled Water Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.11, Recycled Water Plan
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
267
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-19: City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.12, City of Ontario Future Recyled Water System 268
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-20: Sewer Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.13, Sewer Plan 36" SS
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
MERRILL AVENUE
PROJECT
36" SS 21" SS 16" SS EUCLID AVENUE
30" SS SULTANA AVENUE CAMPUS AVENUE 16" SS
KIMBALL AVE
(54" SS) 36" SS
(60" SS)
LEGEND:
SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN (PER MASTER PLAN)
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
FIGURE 3.13 - SEWER PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED SEWER MAIN (PROJECT SPECIFIC)
EXISTING IEUA SEWER
PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE
269
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-21: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.14, City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System 270
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-22: Conceptual Grading Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Merrill Avenue
Campus Avenue
Euclid Avenue
Eucalyptus Avenue
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.15, Conceptual Grading Plan Project Site
271
Not to scale
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.16 Fiber Optic Plan FIGURE 3-23: Fiber Optic Plan Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
PROJECT SITE
272
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-24: City of Ontario Fiber Optic Master Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment 273 Not to scale
FIGURE 3-25: Storm Drain Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.17 Storm Drain Plan
PROJECT SITE
PROJECT SITE
274
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-26: City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.18 City of Ontario Planned Drainage Facilities 275
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-27: Conceptual Phasing Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (2021), Figure 3.19 Conceptual Phasing Plan
SULTANA AVE
Approved Specific Plan Project Site
276
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, examines the environmental setting of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project), analyzes the Project’s effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigations measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This section contains separate sections for each environmental issue area that was determined to need further study in this Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This scope was determined through the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was published July 1, 2021 (see Appendix A), and through public and agency comments received during the NOP comment period from July 1, 2021 to August 6, 2021 (see Appendix A). Additionally, a scoping meeting was held on July 21, 2021. Environmental issues and their corresponding sections are:
• Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality • Section 4.2, Air Quality • Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning • Section 4.3, Biological Resources • Section 4.11, Noise • Section 4.4, Cultural Resources • Section 4.12, Population and Housing • Section 4.5, Energy • Section 4.13, Public Services
• Section 4.6, Geology and Soils • Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic • Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources • Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems Sections 4.1 through Section 4.16 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, effects associated with the Project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed.
During preliminary environmental analysis it was also determined that certain issues under an environmental topic would not be significantly affected by implementation of the Project. These issues are discussed in Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant.
Organization of Environmental Analysis
Each potentially significant environmental issue area is addressed in a separate EIR Section (Section 4.1 through 4.16) and is organized into the following subsections:
1. Environmental Setting
2. Regulatory Setting
3. Thresholds of Significance
4. Plans, Programs, and Policies
5. Project Impacts and Mitigation
6. Cumulative Impacts
7. Level of Significance Before Mitigation
8. Mitigation Measures
9. Level of Significance After Mitigation
10. References
277
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
In addition, Section 1.0, Executive Summary, has Table 1-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, that summarizes all impacts by environmental resource.
Terminology Used in this Draft Subsequent EIR
The threshold of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft Subsequent EIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
• No Impact. The project would not change the environment. • Less than significant impact. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The EIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
• Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
4.0.1 Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.
The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:
A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.
B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.
The cumulative impact analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR uses a hybrid approach of both Method A and Method B. Method A uses a quantitative analysis approach, using background growth assumption and references to adopted regional growth plans. Method B uses the City’s The Ontario Plan (TOP), its comprehensive General Plan and Land Use Element, which was adopted by the Ontario City Council on January 27, 2010. Cumulative impact analyses will use the projections in the TOP and other long-range planning documents–such as Ontario’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for water supply and the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2020–2045 Regional Transportation 278
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-3 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for land use and planning. A list of cumulative projects surrounding the Project area and their land use summary can be found in the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I). These projects are further described below in Table 4-1, Related Projects.
Cumulative impact analyses for several topical sections are also based on the most appropriate geographic boundary for the respective impact. For example, cumulative hydrological impacts are based on the area’s watershed (Santa Ana River Watershed), and wastewater impacts are based on the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service boundary, which includes other jurisdictions besides the City of Ontario. The approach is further discussed below and in each respective topical section. Several potential cumulative impacts that encompass regional boundaries (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gases [GHG], traffic) have been addressed in the context of various regional plans and their significance thresholds. The following is a summary of the approach and extent of cumulative impacts, which is further detailed in each topical environmental section.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Agriculture and forestry resources impacts are assessed relative to federal, State, and local agricultural and forestry resource regulations. • Air Quality. Air quality impacts are based on the regional boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin. • Biological Resources. Regional evaluation considering regional habitat loss, protected species, and wildlife corridors, based primarily upon the San Bernardino Valley area. • Cultural Resources. Cultural resources impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. The cumulative analysis of historical and archaeological resources includes the Project site and immediately surrounding area. • Geology and Soils. Geologic and soils impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts.
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Potential GHG impacts are not bounded by geography but affect global climate change. The assessment of cumulative GHG impacts, therefore, is based on consistency with regional plans and per-capita GHG reduction thresholds to achieve targeted reductions.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Cumulative analysis highlights the regulatory requirements related to both airport hazards and wildfire hazards. Project impacts, however, are site specific, and generally would not combine with impacts of other projects to result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
• Hydrology and Water Quality. Cumulative hydrological impacts are based on the Santa Ana River Watershed, and water quality impacts are based on potential cumulative impacts on the Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin).
• Land Use and Planning. Cumulative analysis is based on applicable jurisdictional boundaries and related plans, including the TOP, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and regional land use planning based on SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. • Noise. Cumulative stationary noise andtraffic noise is assessed relative to applicable City General Plan noise-level standards. The study area is aligned with the traffic study area. 279
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-4 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
• Population and Housing. Cumulative impacts are assessed relative to Citywide jobs-housing balances, applicable city general plan (including housing element), regional plans (RTP/SCS), and population/housing projections.
• Public Services. Cumulative impacts are based on potential related development within the applicable service provider boundaries (Ontario Fire Department and Police Department) and assessed relative to applicable plans and projections.
• Transportation. The Traffic Analysis considers both Project-specific impacts and the Project’s cumulative contribution to traffic in the Project vicinity. To assess cumulative traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with Project trips, regional ambient growth, and trips generated by the related projects specified in Table 4-4, Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, of the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I of this Draft Subsequent EIR). Future traffic forecasts also include the effects of related projects expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the Project site prior to the buildout date of the Project. A total of 63 related projects were identified in the study area and are listed in Table 4-1, Related Approved and Pending Projects and shown on Figure 4-1, Related Projects, below.
• Tribal Cultural Resources. Considers Native American territory that includes the Project site, as provided by the Native American Heritage Commission.
• Utilities and Service Systems.Water supply and distribution system impacts would be contiguous with IEUA service area. Wastewater conveyance and treatment would be contiguous with the IEUA service area. Cumulative impacts related to stormwater drainage would be contiguous with Upper Santa Ana River basin hydrologic units and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board service area. Solid waste collection and disposal services would be contiguous with the City and natural gas and electricity services would be contiguous with the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison service areas, respectively.
4.0.2 Related Projects
The list of related projects was prepared based on data received from the City of Ontario, City of Chino, City of Chino Hills, City of Eastvale, and City of Jurupa Valley. A total of 63 cumulative projects were identified in the study area for the traffic study, shown on Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 below. These related projects are expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the Project site prior to the buildout date of the Project.
Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects
No. Project/Location Land Use1 Quantity Units2
City of Ontario
O1 Parkside
SFDR 437 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 1,510 DU
Shopping Center 115.000 TSF
O2 Subarea 29 & Amendment (40% complete) SFDR 2,149 DU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O3 Colony Commerce West
High‐Cube Warehouse 2213.360 TSF
Manufacturing 737.786 TSF
280
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-5 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use1 Quantity Units2
O4 West Ontario Commerce Center SP
High‐Cube Warehouse 1976.535 TSF
Manufacturing 658.845 TSF
Business Park 115.760 TSF
05 Colony Commerce East
High‐Cube Warehouse 998.680 TSF
Manufacturing 233.129 TSF
Warehousing 699.387 TSF
O6 Merrill Commerce Center
High‐Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 7014.000 TSF
Business Park 1441.000 TSF
O7 Parente Home Ranch SP
SFDR 270 DU
Condo/Townhouse 1,872 DU
General Office 462.281 TSF
Shopping Center 194.278 TSF
O8 Countryside SFDR 819 DU
Armstrong Ranch SFDR 994 DU
O9 The Avenue
SFDR 2,020 DU
Multi‐Family Attached (Apartments) 586 DU
Shopping Center 250.000 TSF
O10 Grand Park
SFDR 484 DU
Multi‐Family Attached (Apartments) 843 DU
O11 West Haven
SFDR 753 DU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O12 Haven Gateway General Light Industrial 42.160 TSF
High‐Cube Warehouse 168.640 TSF
O13 Rich Haven
SFDR 2,732 DU
Multi‐Family Attached (Condo) 1,524 DU
Shopping Center 317.400 TSF
O14 Esperanza
SFDR 914 DU
Multi‐Family Attached (Apartments) 496 DU
O15 Edenglen
SFDR 310 DU
Multi‐Family Attached (Condo) 274 DU
Shopping Center 217.520 TSF
Business Park 550.000 TSF
O16 PDEV10‐008 ‐ Dry Food Storage Mini‐Warehouse 17.000 TSF O17 Tuscana Village SFDR 176 DU
Shopping Center 26.000 TSF
O18 Ontario Ranch Commerce Center High‐Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1,447.123 TSF Business Park 457.904 TSF
O19 South Ontario Logistics Center
Business Park 1,075.235 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 2,819.282 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 563.857 TSF
Warehouse 954,218 TSF
City of Chino
C1 Bickmore Street Residential (TM 18858)
(30%complete) SFDR 185 DU
C2 TM17574 (80% complete) Condo/Townhouse 108 DU
C3 Pines Community SFDR 552 DU
Public Park 3.0 AC
281
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-6 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use1 Quantity Units2
Self-Storage & RV Storage 120.000 TSF
Sports Park 41.8 AC
C4
Tract 19980 (Homecoming Phase 4) Apartments 454 DU
TTM No. 20166 & 20167 SFDR 148 DU
Brio & TTM No. 21065 & 20168 (Orchards) SFDR 239 DU
C5 Farmer Boys
Fast‐food w/ Drive‐Thru 3.218 TSF
Shopping Center 2.300 TSF
C6 Euclid & Bickmore Warehouse
Warehousing 205.820 TSF
General Light Industrial 51.030 TSF
Business Park 110.620 TSF
C7 Kimball Business Park Business Park 146.550 TSF
C8 Chaffey College Expansion Junior/ Community College 93.50 AC College Park Commercial Shopping Center 7.50 AC
C9 Chino Parcel Delivery Parcel Delivery Facility 765.274 TSF C10 Altitude Business Centre
Warehousing 715.000 TSF
Light Industrial 255.000 TSF
Business Park 233.000 TSF
Self-Storage 110.000 TSF
C11 Majestic Gateway
Specialty Retail 25.000 TSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive‐Thru 13.000 TSF
Fast‐Food with Drive‐Thru 8.600 TSF
C12 Bouma Residential SFDR 106 DU
Condo/Townhouse 94 DU
C13 Fairfield Inn & Suites (PL 17-0060 & PL 17-0061) Hotel 111 RM C14 Watson Industrial Park (40% complete) High‐Cube Warehouse 3,889.900 TSF C15 Chino Business Park
General Light Industrial 165.500 TSF
Business Park 21.500 TSF
C16 Flores Site
Shopping Center 4.000 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store 16 VFP
Express Car Wash 5.000 TSF
C17 Brewart Residential (Stonebrook ‐ TM 18923) SFDR 127 DU C18 Archibald's (PL 17‐0037) Fast‐Food with Drive‐Thru 3.147 TSF C19 TM 18972 (80% complete) SFDR 147 DU
C20 Rancho Miramonte
SFDR 691 DU
Condo/Townhouse 132 DU
Neighborhood Retail 21.780 TSF
Church 400 SEAT
C21 Majestic Chino Heritage
High‐Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1982.700 TSF
High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 100.000 TSF
C22 Church
Church 47.979 TSF
Daycare 190 STU
C23 Appesetche Residential SFDR 60 DU
Condo/Townhouse 160 DU
C24 Tract 19951, 19952, 19953, 19935 & 18479 SFDR 151 DU Condo/Townhouse 150 DU
C25 Ag. Buffer, Bungalow, Lic. Product, Liberty
Deluxe, Lyon 2 & 3
SFDR 474 DU
282
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-7 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use1 Quantity Units2
C26 The Preserve Town Center (Blocks 6 and 7)
Multifamily Housing 549 DU
Office 16.300 TSF
Shopping Center 36.800 TSF
Pharmacy with Drive‐Thru 12.900 TSF
Supermarket 45.000 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 6.500 TSF
Fast Casual Restaurant 13.750 TSF
Quality Restaurant 13.750 TSF
C27 The Preserve Civic Center
Elementary School 1,200 STU
Library 10.00 AC
Community Center 10.00 AC
Park 8.00 AC
C28 Falloncrest at the Preserve
Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 698 DU
Multifamily Housing (Mid‐Rise) 440 DU
Public Parks 21.60 AC
General Office 77.597 TSF
Commercial Retail 77.597 TSF
City of Eastvale
E1 The Merge
Warehousing 336.501 TSF
Shopping Center 4.750 TSF
Supermarket 30.000 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store 16 VFP
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive‐Thru 14.600 TSF
Fast‐Food with Drive‐Thru 6.000 TSF
Automated Car Wash 4.000 TSF
Fast‐Food Without Drive‐Thru 7.750 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop With Drive‐Thru 2.500 TSF
E2 TR29997 SFDR 122 DU
E3 13‐0632 ‐ Sumner Residential (Stratham Homes) SFDR 129 DU E4 TR35751 Condo/Townhouse 243 DU
E5 PP23219 (PM35865) (50% complete) General Light Industrial 738.430 TSF E6 Eastvale Shopping Center
Free‐Standing Discount Superstore 192.000 TSF
Specialty Retail 9.200 TSF
Fast‐Food Without Drive‐Thru 7.200 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 2.000 TSF
Fast‐Food with Drive‐Thru 3.500 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store and
car wash
16 VFP
E7 Van Leeuwen SFDR 224 DU
E8 SP00358 ‐ The Ranch at Eastvale
Shopping Center 267.200 TSF
General Light Industrial 801.500 TSF
Business Park 1,121.100 TSF
E9 SC Limonite, LLC SFDR 330 TSF
E10 Leal Master Plan
Lifestyle Center (Commercial) 1,300.000 TSF
General Commercial 225.000 TSF
Office 920.000 TSF
Hotel 450 RM
283
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4-8 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use1 Quantity Units2
High Density Residential 500‐660 DU
E11 Eastvale Commerce Center Shopping Center 650.000 TSF E12 S. Milliken Warehouse High‐Cube Warehouse 280.000 TSF E13 15‐1508 ‐ Industrial Warehouse Warehousing 155.000 TSF City of Chino Hills
CH1 Vila Borba Specific Plan (TR 16414) SFDR 172 DU
CH2 Country Club Villas Condo/Townhouse 46 DU
CH3 The Goddard School Daycare 10.587 TSF
CH4 Heritage Professional Center
Hospital 55.000 TSF
Medical Office Building 86.952 TSF
Hotel 120 RM
Shopping Center 38.848 TSF
Restaurant 7.200 TSF
1. SFDR = Single Family Detached Residential
2. TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position ; AC = Acres; RM = Rooms Please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.16 of this Draft Subsequent EIR for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region for each environmental resource. 284
FIGURE 4-1: Related Projects
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Traffic Analysis (2021), Exhibit 4-6 Cumulative Development Location Map 285
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-1 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
4.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project’s(Project) potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources in the City of Ontario (City). This section will describe the environmental setting of the Project along with any applicable federal, State, regional and local regulations. Direct environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources will be assessed for the significance as well as any potentially cumulative impacts associated with the Project development. The existing environment was based on the conditions present at the time that the Notice of Preparation was created and distributed on July 1, 2021. This was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. As necessary and to the extent feasible, mitigation measures will be provided to minimize any potentially significant environmental impact to less than significant levels.
Data used in preparation of this section were taken from various sources including the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, The Ontario Plan (TOP) Final EIR, the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP), other environmental analyses prepared by the City and the City of Chino, and information in the Project Specific Plan Amendment.
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regional
Southern California comprised 38 percent of the Statewide urban and other development increase (17,125 acres). Five of the top ten urbanizing counties were in Southern California with San Bernardino County (County) having 3,502 acres.
1 The Southern California region was second in terms of irrigated land to urban land shifts, with 2,695 acres of conversion from irrigated land to urban land.
2 The County experienced a net loss of 850 acres of Important Farmland and an increase in 3,921 acres of new Urban and Built-Up land. In general, agricultural land has declined in the County region due to the profitability of dairy businesses in the Central Valley and because urban development has pushed agricultural development from the County.3 Land uses surrounding the City mostly support industrial and residential uses with some agricultural land parcels dispersed between, especially to the south in the City of Chino.
The California Department of Conservation regularly reviews and reports on the status of Farmland by county jurisdiction. Table 4.1-1, San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion presents information from the 2014-2016, California Farmland Conversion Report summarizing farmland conversion within the County.
1 California Department of Conservation. 2014-2016 Farmland Conversion Report.(2019). Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx. 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
286
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-2 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
Table 4.1-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion Land Use Category
Total Acreage Inventoried 2014 – 2016 Acreage Changes
2014 2016 Acres Lost Acres Gained Total Acreage
Charged
Net Acreage
Charged
Prime Farmland 11,715 11,323 850 458 1,308 -392
Farmland of Statewide
Importance 5,702 5,770 184 252 436 68
Unique Farmland 2,675 2,738 92 155 247 63
Farmland of Local
Importance 605 562 118 75 193 -43
Important Farmland
Subtotal 20,697 20,393 1,244 940 2,184 -304
Grazing Land 900,735 898,633 3,629 1,527 5,156 -2,102
Agricultural Land
Subtotal 921,432 919,026 4,873 2,467 7,340 -2,406
Urban and Built-up
Land 282,905 286,407 419 3,921 4,340 3,502
Other Land 244,700 243,604 2,540 1,444 3,984 -1,096
Water Area 510 510 0 0 0 0
Total Area
Inventoried 1,449,547 1,449,547 7,832 7,832 15,664 0
Source: California Farmland Conversion Report 2014-2016 (California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resources Protection).
Table A-28.
Additionally, the San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture (SBCDA) 2020 Crop Report provides an overview of agricultural production in the County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2272 and Section 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code.4 This report provides the estimated production, acreage, and gross value of the agricultural industry in the County for the year 2020. Table 4.1-2, San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) presents information from the SBCDA 2020 Crop Report summarizing primary sources of County agricultural production by dollar value.
In 2020, the total value of agricultural commodities in the County was $420,251,000. This was determined by information obtained from growers within the County.
This total represents an increase in value from 2019 of $36,028,000. Crop value varies from year to year based on production, market fluctuations and weather. The increase in crop value in 2020 is primarily due to an increase in price for navel oranges, milk, turf and strawberries and an increase in egg production due to the recovery of the Exotic Newcastle Disease, a deadly bird disease. Agriculture remains a critical component of the economy in San Bernardino County. The strength of agriculture contributed to the diversity of agricultural crops produced in the County. 4 County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures 2020 Crop Report. Retrieved from:
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/13/AWM%20CROP%20REPORT%202020%20080521.pdf?ver=2021-08-05-160649-640. Accessed October 2021.
287
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-3 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
The City lies in the SBCDA “Central,” “West End North,” and in portions of the “West End South,” in the County. These areas of the County are responsible for most of the percentage (by dollar value) of the County’s total agricultural production.
5 Table 4.1-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) 2020 Rank Product Value Value % of Total 2019 Rank
1 Milk & Milk Products $112,451,000 26.76% 1
2 Cattle, Calves & Dairy Cull $64,937,000 15.45% 2
3 Eggs $50,526,000 12.02% 3
4 Replacement Heifers $25,266,000 6.01% 4
5 Citrus Fruit $19,130,000 4.55% 8
6 Indoor Decoratives $18,127,000 4.31% 6
7 Trees & Shrubs (Incl. Roses) $17,161,000 4.08% 5
8 Alfalfa (All Types) $15,612,000 3.71% 10
9 Turf $12,427,000 2.96% 7
10 Groundcover & Bedding Plants $8,198,000 1.95% 9
Total Top Ten: $343,835,000
Source: San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures 2020 Crop Report. Retrieved from:
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/13/AWM%20CROP%20REPORT%202020%20080521.pdf?ver=2021-08-05-160649-640.
Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation Preserves The San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserves within the City were managed by the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation (SoCALF) until 2006, when the County took over management of these parcels. Hence, these areas are still referred to as SoCALF Preserves in the City. The SoCALF Preserves were established and maintained with funds from the 1988 Park Bond Act regulations. Much of the original 15,000-acre area of SoCALF Preserves is being developed by both the City and Chino. An amount of $20 million was paid to the County from the State of California to establish and fund these lands if they remained in agricultural use within the San Bernardino County Agriculture Land Preserve (California Public Resources Code §§5905–5907). When the SoCALF Preserves are no longer being used for agricultural purposes, these funds must be returned to the state or used to purchase property of equal size and similar use within the San Bernardino County Agriculture Land Preserve. Approximately 200 acres are designated as SoCALF Preserves in the New Model Colony (NMC).
The City recognizes the importance of existing agricultural activities, and TOP includes goals and policies implemented to ensure protection of these agricultural resources. However, the City of Ontario does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses. While existing agricultural uses would be allowed to persist per the TOP, the City’s land use plan does not designate these areas for agricultural land uses. Although the intent of the SoCALF Preserves was to preserve Important Farmland in perpetuity in this area of the county, the preserves do not guarantee that Important Farmland would not be converted to nonagricultural uses within the City.
When the NMC was annexed in 1999, the City zoned the area as Specific Plan, which requires the area to be developed with specific plans. Once a specific plan is implemented in an area, the provisions of that 5 Ibid.
288
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-4 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
specific plan will determine the land use, which will be consistent with the TOP. The land use plan for the City designates these areas for nonagricultural land uses provided that equivalent Important Farmland is preserved elsewhere, or funds associated with the 1988 Park Bond Act are returned. Important farmland outside of these preserves may be converted to nonagricultural uses without requiring the county to repay the funding to the state or relocating the farmland elsewhere in the San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserve. Consequently, buildout of TOP would replace the existing agricultural land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population. Thus, the City’s future development emphasizes mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable.
Local
Ontario Ranch (New Model Colony)
The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the former 14,000-acre San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was historically used for dairy or cattle farming. The Agricultural Preserve was divided and incorporated into the Cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in 1999, where the City named its portion the “New Model Colony.” According to the TOP Final EIR, the majority of the agricultural land in the NMC revised the prior agricultural land use designations to public land, open space, industrial, residential, or commercial uses.
City of Ontario Policy Plan
The TOP Final EIR, certified January 27th, 2010, analyzed the proposed land uses of TOP compared to the existing conditions in the City during the time of report preparation for their impacts to agricultural land uses.6 TOP projected that with full buildout of the proposed land use plan, that there would be no agricultural land use designations in the City except for the 200 acres of SoCALF Preserves.
The TOP EIR proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts to agricultural lands which included the following: retention of on-site agricultural uses; replacement of agricultural resources off-site; relocation of prime farmland topsoil; establishment of conservation easement or preserves; and payment in lieu of transfer or development rights. It was determined that the mitigation proposed and considered would not prevent significant impacts from occurring and were rejected, and City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2018, for impacts to agricultural uses as a result of TOP implementation.
Project Site
The Project site has historically been occupied by agricultural uses, including a dairy farm, row crops, and vacant land since the 1930’s or earlier. As shown on Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph, the Project site is currently occupied by various agricultural and dairy farming uses. The agricultural uses of the site use a water well near the northern portion of the site. According to the California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF), the Project site contains Prime Farmland and Other Land.7 As stated previously, the Project site is not within a SoCALF Preserve. The southern portion of the site is identified as “Prime Farmland” and the 6 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2008101140/4 (accessed August 19, 2021). 7 California Dept. of Conservation. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/ (accessed August 2021).
289
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-5 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
remainder of the site is identified as “Other Land” under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). FMMP Farmland categories are described below. There are no existing Williamson Contracts on site.8 There is no Forest Land located on the Project site.
Zoning Designation
According to the City’s Zoning Map, the Project site’s zoning designation is Agricultural-Specific Plan (SP-AG) Overlay.9 Project buildout would include zoning regulations for development on the Project site which includes General Industrial, and Business Park uses. The SP-AG Overlay Zone (Right to Farm Ordinance) requires that each project address the appropriate transition of the area from agricultural uses to urban uses and include provisions for buffering between the proposed uses to protect agricultural and urban uses. Furthermore, Section 9-1.2700, SP-AG Overlay Zoning District of the Ontario Municipal Code, allows for the continuation of agricultural uses on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with the TOP occurs.
Surrounding Uses
Land uses surrounding the Project site boundary include agricultural uses to the north, the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) to the west, public uses for the Chino Airport to the south, and residential and agricultural uses to the east, within the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 of the Project site would be located along Eucalyptus Avenue and would be designated for “Business Park” land uses. Planning Area 4 would be designated for “Industrial” land uses and is located south of Planning Area 3, north of Merrill Avenue, along the frontage of Sultana Avenue (west) and Campus Avenue (east).
As discussed in Section 3.0 Project Description, the existing uses in the vicinity of the Project site include (refer to Figure 3-6, Surrounding Land Uses):
• North across Eucalyptus Avenue: plant nursery, dairy farm • South across Merrill Avenue (City of Chino): Chino Airport • East across Campus Avenue: dairy farms, row crops, and vacant land • West: Approved SP area with Business Park and Industrial General designations • West across Euclid Avenue (City of Chino): residential uses, vacant land, and the former Stark Youth Correctional Facility
8 City of Ontario, Status of Williamson Act Contracts. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/williamson_act_status_map_november_2018.pdf. 9 City of Ontario, Zoning Map. (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf. 290
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-6 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Farmland Protection and Policy Act
The Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA), United States Code Title 7 Section 4201, was enacted in 1981 to minimize the loss of prime and unique farmlands because of federal actions by converting these lands to nonagricultural uses. It ensures that federal programs are consistent with state, local, and private programs, and policies to protect farmland.
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65570, the California Department of Conservation FMMP compiles important farmland maps for the state. These maps combine soil survey and current land use information to provide an inventory of agricultural resources in each county, based on data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service. The maps show urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural designations. County, state, and federal agencies have established several classifications of important agricultural land based on factors such as soil characteristics, climate, and water supply.
Prime Farmland. This has the best combination of physical and chemical features and can sustain longterm agricultural production. The land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields and it must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance. Similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland. Lesser-quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops.
This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards. Land must also have been cultivated at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its board of supervisors. This refers to all farmable lands in the county that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture, and grazing land.
Grazing Land. This has existing vegetation that is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.
291
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-7 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
Urban and Built-Up Land. This land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad, and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.
Other Land. This land is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples of this type of land include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines or borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Note that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis focuses on impacts to three categories of mapped farmland—Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. In this section, the term “mapped important farmland” refers to these three categories of farmland combined.
California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act, or Williamson Act, was adopted in 1965 (California Government Code §51200 et. seq.). The act was established to encourage the preservation of agricultural lands in view of the increasing trend toward their “premature and unnecessary” urbanization. The act enables counties and cities to designate agricultural preserves (Williamson Act lands) and offer preferential taxation to agricultural landowners based on the land’s income-producing value. In return for the preferential tax rate, the landowner is required to sign a contract (Williamson contract) with the county or city agreeing not to develop the land for a minimum of 10 years. The contract is renewed automatically on its anniversary date unless a notice of nonrenewal or petition for cancellation is filed. There are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site.10
Local
City of Ontario Policy Plan
The City of Ontario Policy Plan Environmental Resources Element contains policies which pertain to existing farms and improving the transition of farms to urban uses:
Goal ER5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
Policy ER5-3 Right to Farm. We support the right of existing farms to continue their operations within the NMC.
Policy ER5-4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses.
10 Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan. (2021). Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, page 2-6. 292
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-8 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations pertaining to agricultural resources in the City, including:
• Ontario Development Code, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, Division 6.01, District Standards and Guidelines, Division 6.01, §6.01.035, Overlay Zoning Districts. The purpose of the SP-AG Overlay District is to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses within the City, on an interim basis, and to allow for the establishment of general agricultural uses, such as dairies, within certain areas of concentrated agricultural use. This section regulates development in the NMC to create compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. It recognizes that specific plans will guide the development of the NMC. The overall goal of the ordinance is to prevent unnecessary urban development in the area unless the development has been planned. New construction, except for agricultural uses or agriculturalrelated activities, and single-family homes and building ancillary thereto, shall first require the adoption of a Specific Plan, which prescribes the allowed land uses, development regulations and guidelines, and sign regulations applicable to the Project.
4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
AG-1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.
AG-2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
AG-3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g)).
AG-4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
AG-5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold AG-3
• Threshold AG-4
Therefore, these impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis. 293
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-9 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
4.1.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Refer to above discussion regarding existing Regulatory Framework.
4.1.5 Methodology
Agricultural resources were assessed based on the California Department of Conservation’s FMMP, which is a biennial report and mapping resource on the conversion of farmland and grazing land. The FMMP identified 60 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site. Williamson Act contract lands were identified by the Department of Conservation and the City; according to records from the City, there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site.
Development of the Project site was analyzed for conversion of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use and changes in the existing environment that would remove farmland from agricultural production. The evaluation of impacts to agricultural resources is based on the amount of agricultural land on-site and in the surrounding area, and the effect the proposed Project would have on the existing resources.
4.1.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? [Threshold AG-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant impact Construction and Operations
The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment. The Project will enable future development approvals, including a Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map(s), and a Development Agreement. The Specific Plan Amendment includes Development Standards and Design Guidelines, where all subsequent development within the Specific Plan Amendment would be required to conform with these Standards and Guidelines.
In accordance with the Specific Plan Amendment’s Allowable Uses, commercial crop production and farming would be conditionally allowed within the Business Park (BP) Zoning District and would be permitted by-right in the Industrial-General (IG) Zoning District. Additionally, community gardens, urban farms, and related uses would be administratively allowed within the BP and IG Districts, and kennels and catteries would not be allowed within BP but permitted in the IG District.
The proposed improvements would also include buffering from parking lots, loading and service areas in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan Amendment. These requirements support the City’s planned orderly transition of existing agricultural uses to urban uses and include the following:
• Site Design: Screen parking areas and loading docks facing the street using landscape buffers planted with screen trees and drought-tolerant vegetation. 294
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-10 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
• Landscape Design: use landscaping to aid in the screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, trash collection areas, loading docks and outside storage from public view. • Buffering and Screening: to alleviate the unsightly appearance of parking lots, loading, and service areas, buffering and screening design features will be used to enhance overall development.
The California Department of Conservation’s FMMP is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. The classification system is contiguous with U.S. Department of Agriculture soil surveys and current land use. These maps are updated every two years, with the most recent data being from 2016. For CEQA purposes, the following categories are qualified as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land (Public Resource Code §21060.1; California Department of Conservation 2019).
The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes, primarily dairy operations, and field crops. Over 40 acres in the southwestern portion of the site are identified as Prime Farmland, and the remainder of the site (approximately 30 acres) is identified as Other Land. 11 The Project would convert the over 40 acres of Prime Farmland from agriculture to urban use, which would be a significant impact as addressed within the TOP EIR.
As identified in the TOP EIR, build out of the Ontario Policy Plan would result in conversion of all agricultural-designated land to urban uses; remaining agricultural uses would be retained within 200 acres of the SoCALF preserves.12 It was determined that the mitigation proposed and considered would not prevent significant impacts from occurring, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2018 for significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural lands with full buildout of the Policy Plan, which allows the decision-making body of the City to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the TOP Final EIR. Therefore, consistent with Findings made at the time of certification of the City’s TOP EIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable
Impact 4.1-2 Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [Threshold AG-2]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Construction and Operations
According to records from the City, there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site.
As stated above, the City’s Zoning Map identifies the Project site’s zoning designation as SP-AG Overlay.
Project buildout would include zoning regulations for development on the Project site which includes General Industrial, and Business Park uses. The SP-AG Overlay Zone (Right to Farm Ordinance) requires that each project address the appropriate transition of the area from agricultural uses to urban uses and include provisions for buffering between the proposed uses to protect agricultural and urban uses. 11 California Important Farmland Finder. (2016). Retrieved from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. 12 The Planning Center (TPC). 2009. Agricultural Resources. In TOP Draft EIR. http://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31680.pdf. 295
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-11 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
Furthermore, Section 9-1.2700, SP-AG Overlay Zoning District of the Ontario Municipal Code, allows for the continuation of agricultural uses on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with the TOP occurs. The purpose of the SP-AG zone is to enable the planning and development of coordinated, comprehensive projects and to provide for the systematic implementation of TOP goals and policies through Specific Plans. Therefore, impacts regarding conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use would be less than significant.
Impact 4.1-3 Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? [Threshold AG-5] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact Construction and Operations
According to the City’s Zoning Map, the site is within the SP-AG Overlay zone.13 While sites within the SP-AG Overlay zone currently operate with agricultural production, these lands are designated for future urban development in the City’s Policy Plan with land use designations of mixed use to the north and Business Park and Industrial to the east.14 Property to the southis located within the City of Chino and has an industrial zoning district identified as Airport Development. 15 Property to the immediate west is within
the Approved SP area, and contains Business Park and Industrial General land use designations. The area due west of the Approved SP across Euclid Avenue is in the City of Chino are near the City Policy Plandesignated Euclid Avenue Corridor, which is planned to feature a transition to mixed-use development with a focus on retail uses and some higher-intensity residential development.16 Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of the agricultural use on the Project site, and the surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west is proposed to be developed with uses other than for agricultural purposes.
Because of the provisions in the SP-AG Overlay zone for lands within the Project area, existing nearby agricultural uses would be able to continue via notice in the form of a deed disclosure to future business, or property owners that agricultural nuisances such as noise and odor (see Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.11, Noise), are present and can legally exist so long as the land is not developed otherwise. The deed disclosure ensures that property owners and users within the Project area are aware of nuisances and operations of the nearby agricultural properties to reduce conflicts between existing and proposed uses. Nonetheless, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 13 City of Ontario, Zoning Map. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20210212.pdf. 14 TOP. Land Use Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6._20210212.pdf. 15 City of Chino. 2019. Zoning Map. Retrieved from:
http://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/Image/City%20Hall/Departments/Community%20Development/Chino %20Zoning%20Map%20-%20Revised%20February%2020,%202019.pdf. 16 City of Chino. Envision Chino. (2010). City of Chino Policy Plan 2025 – Land Use Element. http://cityofchino.hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Plans/General/NEW%204%20Land%20Use%20 GP%20Update%202013.pdf.
296
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-12 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative study area for agriculture includes the County of San Bernardino. Throughout the County, numerous related projects exist that would result in the additional conversion of agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. Important Farmland in the County has continually declined and all of the prime agricultural land in the southern area of the City of Ontario is planned for development by the City’s TOP. Continued conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City and the region. According to the TOP EIR, agricultural land within the Ontario Ranch area has the potential to be converted to nonagricultural uses, upon buildout of TOP and the Specific Plan overlay. This was identified as a significant cumulative impact in TOP EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the region and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources.
Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region, the Ontario Ranch area, and the Project site, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural resources. The City’s TOP EIR and the TOP CEQA Findings determined that implementation of the TOP would result in individual and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts to various resources including, agricultural resources. Significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture resources have been identified; refer to Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-3.
4.1.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, impacts 4.1-1 and
4.1-3 would be potentially significant. This significant impact is consistent with findings of the City’s TOP EIR, which implemented the interim SP-AG Overlay District in anticipation of future development for the Project site.
4.1.9 Mitigation Measures
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying.
In accordance with the findings of the TOP EIR mitigation measures implemented, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts regarding agricultural conversion to levels that would be less than significant. According to the TOP EIR findings, while the City maintains a Right-to-Farm ordinance, use of farm equipment and odors associated with dairy farming in the Ontario Ranch area is not compatible with densities proposed in the City’s Land Use Plan. Furthermore, several mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of TOP on agriculture were considered; however, the 297
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-13 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
agriculture development within the City burdened the San Bernardino County region with air quality issues resulting from methane, water quality pollution, and hazardous emissions. None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The measures considered are discussed further below. Furthermore, conversion of agricultural lands and loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the Project have already been considered and addressed in the TOP EIR.
The Project build-out area is designated for urban development pursuant to the City’s Policy Plan. Existing agricultural uses are in various stages of converting to urban uses that are consistent with the Policy Plan.
As the agricultural uses diminish, so too are the needed support uses such as feed stores, agricultural equipment sales and rentals, and manure services. In addition, as described previously, dairy farming has become less and less viable in the City region. The dairy industry in San Bernardino County has consistently and sharply declined since 2000, and incentives to convert to urban uses increase. Existing agricultural uses within the City are becoming economically unsustainable and represent land uses that are increasingly incongruous with continuing urbanization of the City. Transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the TOP. The TOP EIR considered various mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to agricultural resources but concluded that there are no feasible measures that would reduce the loss of agriculture to levels that would be less than significant. TOP EIR Mitigation Measures that were considered and rejected are described below.
TOPEIR Mitigation Measure: Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses. Retention of agricultural uses within the City of Ontario would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Moreover, TOP does not envision long-term use of City properties for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced in the adopted Land Use Plan, which does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City.
Preservation of agricultural land uses would therefore conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. The “Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.
Additionally, economic viability of agricultural uses in the City has declined as a result of losing many of the necessary support services. Increasing urbanization, rising land values, and relatively high operational costs have also put City agricultural and dairy farming uses at a competitive disadvantage in regional markets. Ultimately, the long-term viability of agriculture within the City is limited due to the increasing land values, increased water costs, higher labor costs, higher property taxes, competition from other parts of the state, and the growing urbanization of the area. Based on the preceding, retention of on-site agricultural uses is considered infeasible.
TOPEIR Mitigation Measure: Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site. Replacement of agricultural resources at an off-site location would require the applicant to purchase off-site replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status. Creation of additional Farmland in the City is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action. The potential to provide off298 City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-14 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
site mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural uses was considered but rejected as infeasible in the TOP EIR. Using another area within Ontario Ranch for mitigation of impacts related to the Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of on-site mitigation.
Therefore, similar to the reasons why on-site mitigation is not feasible, off-site mitigation within Ontario Ranch is also infeasible. In addition, off-site mitigation within the region is also considered infeasible due to the decreasing economic vitality of agriculture in Ontario Ranch and Southern California and increased urbanization pressures on existing agricultural lands.
Further, creation of new Farmland-status properties outside the City is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.
Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site” mitigation strategy would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts.
Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at off-site locations is considered infeasible.
TOPEIR Mitigation Measure: Relocation of Farmland Topsoil. Relocation of Farmland topsoil would entail removal of the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from Farmland properties and the placement of this soil at sites that have lesser quality soil. This would promote creation of new or additional Farmland status properties in the City, rather than provide for their transition to urban uses. This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.
Further, creation of new Farmland-status by means of imported Farmland topsoil is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.
Additionally, excavation and relocation of topsoil would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts affecting biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. Based on the preceding, relocation of Farmland topsoil is considered infeasible.
TOP EIR Mitigation Measure: Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves. Establishment of conservation easements or preserves is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision providing for transition of agricultural uses to urban uses. This mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment to the Policy Plan. The City has not indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired 299
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-15 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
and has initiated no such action. At the Project site, establishment of agricultural conservation easements or preserves would negate the Project, resulting in a No-Build condition. Based on the preceding, the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.
TOP EIR Mitigation Measure: Transfer of Development Rights. SCAG provides the following summary of description and application of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs:
TDR “is a device by which the development potential of a site is severed from its title and made available for transfer to another location. The owner of a site within a transfer area retains property ownership, but not approval to develop. The owner of a site within a receiving area may purchase transferable development rights, allowing a receptor site to be developed at a greater density.” TDR is most commonly used to preserve agricultural lands, but it can also be used for preserving natural, open space. TDR programs can vary depending on the need of the local jurisdiction but in general there are a few common factors that contribute to the success of a TDR program. These include having a donor site with development constraints, appropriate zoning regulations, and infrastructure requirements.” The Project Site is not currently entitled for development absent an adopted Specific Plan, and it is unclear what if any development rights would be transferred under a TDR program. Further, there is no designated or contemplated receiving area to accept these development rights. Moreover, a TDR program would preserve agricultural uses at the Project Site rather than further planned transition of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses as envisioned under the Policy Plan. This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously.
The City of Ontario has not implemented a TDR Program. Implementation of a TDR program would require amending the City Development Code and comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendments are warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such actions. Based on the preceding, implementation of a “Transfer of Development Rights Program” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.
The City has considered but rejected the collection of fees for off-site mitigation of agricultural impacts.
Neither the City nor the adjoining counties have adopted fee programs. Absent viable programs in the region, the imposition of fees would not serve to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, an offsite fee mitigation program would not avoid the loss of farmland; would not minimize the effect of the Project; would not repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland; and, absent a viable fee program, would not replace affected farmland with substitute farmland. Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate or substantially lessen the significant impact of the Project (CRR State CEQA Guidelines §15370; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). The same factors that make on-site mitigation infeasible would apply off-site in the region as well.
The challenges to continued agricultural production in the Chino Basin area, also challenge agriculture throughout Southern California (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine [2004] 119 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1270-72).
Off-site mitigation would require the City to purchase replacement acreage for Important Farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland. However, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City or the County. In addition, experience indicates a program 300
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-16 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
consisting of the required purchase of agricultural easements on other land or through fee programs for the acquisition of agricultural easements would be of limited utility or benefit. Such a program is inherently dependent upon voluntary agreements by farm owners to sell such easements on their property for an agreed price, which, within the City, is largely driven by the City’s TOP land use designations, population growth, urbanization of the surrounding area, and the limited supply of suitable farmland. In remote areas not planned for development in the near-term, owner’s may be more willing to sell such an easement at a reasonable price but within the region much of the land is already subject to development pressure.
As a result, the most likely result would be a “patchwork” of easements, with some owners more willing than others to sell them, potentially creating a more dispersed development pattern and loss of viability of farmland over time, which would not serve as a feasible measure to mitigate the loss of farmland by the Project. Neither the City nor the County have adopted programs for the acquisition of off-site agricultural easements. Consequently, for the reasons previously outlined, it is determined that off-site mitigation of agricultural resources is neither feasible nor effective in mitigating such impacts.
Overall, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland and conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. This finding is consistent with the finding in TOP EIR; that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts on Important Farmland or the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, and thus impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
4.1.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impact 4.1-1
In accordance with the findings of the TOP EIR, conversion of agricultural-designated land to urban land uses is a significant and unavoidable impact. As summarized above, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts to agricultural resources to levels that would be less than significant. Further, conversion of agricultural lands and loss of farmland resulting from the Project have already been considered and addressed in the TOP EIR. Although implementation of MM AG-1would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses, with full buildout of the City in accordance with TOP, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. The Project would not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources or loss of farmland not already considered and addressed in those documents. According to the TOP EIR Findings, while the City maintains a Right-to-Farm ordinance, use of farm equipment and odors associated with dairy farming in the Ontario Ranch area is not compatible with densities proposed in the City’s Land Use Plan.17 Several mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of TOP on agriculture were considered, however the agriculture development within the City burdened the San Bernardino County region with air quality issues resulting from methane, water quality pollution, and hazardous emissions.18 None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to 17 TOP, EIR. (2010). Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry. Subsection 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures, page 5.2-12. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31680.pdf. 18 Ibid.
301
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-17 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.1-3
Implementation of MM AG-1would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses. Nevertheless, with full buildout of the City in accordance with the Policy Plan, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
4.1.11 References
California Department of Conservation. (2019). Williamson Act Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa.
California Department of Conservation. (2016). California Important Farmland Finder. Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
California Department of Conservation. 2019. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx.
Chino, City of. 2010, July. Envision Chino. City of Chino Policy Plan 2025 – Land Use Element. http://cityofchino.hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_10382578/File/City%20Hall/Pl ans/General/NEW%204%20Land%20Use%20GP%20Update%202013.pdf.
San Bernardino County. (2014). San Bernardino County 2007 Policy Plan. Santa Ana, CA: URS Corporation.
San Bernardino County. (2012). San Bernardino County 2012 Policy Plan Annual Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeneralPlan/2012GeneralPlanAnnual.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2010, January 27. Exhibit Table LU-01 Land Use Plan. http://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/09/LU-01-TOPLUP_Map-Rev-Dec-2018.pdf.
San Bernardino County. 20198. Annual Crop Report.
https://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/13/46255%20AWM%20CROP%20REPORT%202019_WEB.pdf? ver=2020-11-20-115927-480.
State of California. (1965). Public Resources Code Division 4, Part 2, Chapter 8, Article 2, §4526.
Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=4526.&lawCod e=PRC.
State of California. (2007). Public Resources Code Division 10.5, Chapter 1, Article 3, §1220. Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=12220.&lawCo de=PRC.
302
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.1-18 4.1 | Agriculture and Forestry
The Planning Center (TPC). 2009. Agricultural Resources. In The Ontario Plan Draft EIR. http://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31680.pdf.
TOP EIR. (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-County of San Bernardino. (2018).
Countywide Plan Fact Sheet. San Bernardino, CA: San Bernardino County.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2020). Farmland Protection Policy Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/landuse/fppa/. 303
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-1 4.2 | Air Quality
4.2 AIR QUALITY
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment’s (Project) potential impacts in relation to the potential air quality impacts that would be generated by construction and operation of the Project, within the City of Ontario (City). The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, and local air pollutant regulations and pollutant concentrations. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the proposed Project is included in Appendix B1, Air Quality Emissions Model Data, of this Draft EIR. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling outputs and calculations for the proposed Project is included in Appendix B2, Health Risk Assessment Data. Transportation-sector impacts are based on trip generation and average vehicle trip distance for passenger vehicle and trucks as provided by Urban Crossroads in Appendix I, Transportation Reports, of this Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB).
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
South Coast Air Basin
The Project site is in the SoCAB, which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SoCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region is in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds.
Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature varies little throughout the SoCAB, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest the site is in Pomona (ID No. 041779). The average low is reported at 38.6°F in January and the average high is 90.4°F in July. All areas in the SoCAB have recorded temperatures above 100°F in recent years. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the SoCAB, with minimum temperatures in the 30s. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable.
Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 16.95 inches per year in the Project area, as measured in Pomona.
Humidity
Although the SoCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SoCAB by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the 304
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-2 4.2 | Air Quality
coastline, are frequent; low stratus clouds, often called high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature.
Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SoCAB.
Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SoCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SoCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.
Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the Project area.
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.
Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.
ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-1, Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns. 305
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-3 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular
and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.
An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.
Ozone (O3) Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield.
Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle
exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline storage
and transport, solvents, paints and landfills.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes
to global warming and nutrient overloading
which deteriorates water quality. Causes
brown discoloration of the atmosphere.
A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and industrial
sources. Sources include motor vehicles,
electric utilities, and other sources that burn
fuel.
Particulate Matter (PM10
& PM2.5)
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or
difficulty breathing; asthma; chronic
bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal
heart attacks; and premature death in people
with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility.
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. In the presence of moisture
and oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to
sulfuric acid which can damage marble, iron
and steel. Damages crops and natural
vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to
acid rain.
A colorless gas formed when fuel containing
sulfur is burned and when gasoline is extracted
from oil. Examples are petroleum refineries,
cement manufacturing, metal processing
facilities, locomotives, and ships.
Lead (Pb) Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the
blood, bones, and soft tissues and can
adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous
system, and other organs. Excessive
exposure to lead may cause neurological
impairments such as seizures, mental
retardation, and behavioral disorders. Even
at low doses, lead exposure is associated
with damage to the nervous systems of
fetuses and young children, resulting in
learning deficits and lowered IQ.
Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead emissions
have historically been motor vehicles (such as
cars and trucks) and industrial sources. Due to
the phase out of leaded gasoline, metals
processing is the major source of lead
emissions to the air today. The highest levels of
lead in air are generally found near lead
smelters. Other stationary sources are waste
incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery
manufacturers.
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Health Effects, http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/, Accessed January 19, 2021.
Notes:
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplet e combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common 306
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-4 4.2 | Air Quality
sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB)identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.
Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD, the air pollution regulatory agency in the SoCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.
Pollutants of concern in the SoCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Upland Monitoring Station (located approximately eight miles to the north). Local air quality data from 2017 to 2019 are provided in Table 4.2-2, Ambient Air Quality Data Standards for Criteria Pollutants, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality standards for each year.
Table 4.2-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Criteria Pollutant 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (O3)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 hour
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.150 0.133 0.131
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.127 0.111 0.107
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 66 25 31
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 87 52 52
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.87 1.73 1.45
307
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-5 4.2 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant 2017 2018 2019
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.0641 0.0587 0.0579 Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 00
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 106.5 156.6 125.9 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — — — Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 1 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) — — —
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 53.2 47.9 91.1
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) — — —
Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database ( https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php).
Notes: NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = insufficient data available.
Measurements taken at the Upland Monitoring Station at 1350 San Bernardino Road, Upland CA, 91786 (CARB# 36175) Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population.
Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxic pollutants are of particular concern.
Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located across the street from the Project site, along Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, approximately 82 feet (25 meters) from the Project site boundary.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The proposed Project is in the SoCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD as well as the California AAQS (CAAQS) adopted by CARB and National AAQS (NAAQS) adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed Project are summarized in this section. 308
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-6 4.2 | Air Quality
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the U.S. EPA developed the primary and secondary NAAQS for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead(Pb). Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.
The U.S. EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the U.S. EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The U.S. EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. 309
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-7 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Standard2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7
1 hour 0.09 ppm NA
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.030 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 24 hours NA 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA
*
1.5 µg/m3
0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 NA
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm NA
Vinyl Chloride 10 24 hour 0.01 ppm NA
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2016; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards , May 6, 2016.
Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon mon oxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1 -hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. Measurements are excluded th at CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one -half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1 -hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent threeyear period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8 -hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24 -hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainme nt areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying base d on the O3 level in the area. 5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24 -hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In December 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the U.S. EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011 310
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-8 4.2 | Air Quality
State of California
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The CAAQS were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4.2-3, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SoCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.
The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.
SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.
The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SoCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the SCAG Regional 311
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-9 4.2 | Air Quality
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.
The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website.
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.
The State and federal attainment status designations for the SoCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-4, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. The SoCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8- hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SoCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and federal standards.
Table 4.2-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Partial)
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan, 2016.
The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to 312
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-10 4.2 | Air Quality
odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. • Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule)- SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305 in May 2021 to reduce emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in SCAQMD.
Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses’ WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation.
WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation are required to pay a mitigation fee. This Project will comply with the adopted Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule).
313
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-11 4.2 | Air Quality
Local
City of Ontario – The Ontario Plan (TOP)
The Environmental Resources Element of The Ontario Plan (TOP) establishes goals for environmental infrastructure and policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, and energy independence. The Air Quality section contains the following goals and policies relevant to the Project:
Goal ER4 Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
Policy ER 4-1 Land Use. We will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance.
Policy ER 4-4 Indoor Air Quality. We will comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality.
Policy ER 4-6 Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.
4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
AQ-2 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
AQ-3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant:
• Threshold AQ-4
Therefore, these impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The significance criteria established by the SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use 314
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-12 4.2 | Air Quality
development projects, as shown in Table 4.2-5: SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds. SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cumulative impacts is the same for project-specific impacts.
Table 4.2-5: SCAQMD Emission Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Source: SCAQMD, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.
Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the AAQS. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site are above state and federal CO standards (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SoCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.
Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has also developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent NAAQS or CAAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The proposed Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day, so the LST applies.
The Project site is located within SCAQMD SRA 33, Southwest San Bernardino Valley Area. Table 4.2-6, Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations, shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre project in SRA 33. The SCAQMD’s LST guidance notes that the 25-meter threshold applies to receptors 25 meters away or less. Because the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 82 feet (25 meters) from the Project boundary, the thresholds for 25 meters (82 feet) or less are identified in Table 4.2-6. Table 4.2-6 demonstrates that as the Project size increases, the thresholds for construction and operations emissions also increase.
315
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-13 4.2 | Air Quality
Table 4.2-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Threshold (lbs/day)1
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
1 Acre 118/118 863/863 5/2 4/1
2 Acres 170/170 1,232/1,232 6/2 5/2
5 Acres 270/270 2,193/2,193 16/4 9/2
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
Health Risk
Whenever a project would use chemical compounds identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401, on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, or on the U.S. EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, an HRA is required by the SCAQMD. Table 4.2-7, SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds, lists the SCAQMD’s TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. Projects that do not generate emissions that exceed the values in Table 4.2-7 would not substantially contribute to cumulative air quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard.
Table 4.2-7: SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Contaminants Risk Threshold
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) > 0.5 excess cancer cases Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Public Notification Procedures for Facilities Under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) and Rule 1402, Updated October 2020.
Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478), where a project will exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Projects that do not generate emissions that exceed the values in Table 4.2-7would not substantially contribute to cumulative air quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard. Residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses (such as the hospital land uses) do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards. Thus, these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial and warehouse projects.
4.2.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). The 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were effective starting on January 1, 2017, and the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became Effective January 1, 2020. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated triannually with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings by 2020 and nonresidential buildings by 2030.
PPP AIR-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, 316
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-14 4.2 | Air Quality
or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Section 5.106.4.1, 14.106.4.1, and Section 5.106.4.1.2).
PPP AIR-3 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.
PPP AIR-4 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following:
▪ Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance. ▪ Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
▪ Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.
PPP AIR-5 Heavy duty tractors and trailers (i.e., trucks that are 53-foot or longer) must use U.S. EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies in accordance with CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation. Owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires.
Trailers must have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.
PPP AIR-6 The medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicle engines are required to comply with the U.S. EPA’s GHG and fuel efficiency standards. The federal and California Phase 1 standards took effect with model year 2014 tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavyduty pick-up trucks and vans and the engines powering such vehicles (the Phase 1 standards excludes trailers). The federal Phase 2 standards cover model years 2018-2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021-2027 for semi-trucks and large pick-up trucks, vans and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. California is aligned with the federal Phase 2 standards in structure, timing, and stringency, but with some minor California differences. The California Phase 2 regulations became effective April 1, 2019.
PPP AIR-7 All existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in SCAQMD are required to track annual VMT associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses’ WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures.
WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse 317
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-15 4.2 | Air Quality
operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation are required to pay a mitigation fee.
Project Design Features
PDF AQ-1 Indoor material handling equipment used throughout the Project area shall be electric and will not be propane or diesel-powered.
PDF AQ-2 The tilt-up concrete warehouse buildings shall have rooftops that can support tenant improvements for solar panels (i.e., solar ready).
PDF AQ-3 The Project shall include installation of electric vehicle charging stations to service 71 parking stalls for electric vehicles and 101 clean air/vanpool parking stalls at the project site.
4.2.5 Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (see Appendix B1). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.
Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Although Project construction would be dependent on market conditions, daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date. It is assumed that construction would occur from mid-2022 to early-2024. This approach is conservative given that emissions factors decrease in future years due to regulatory and technological improvements.
As previously stated in Section 3.0, Project Description, Project operations assume an opening year of 2024. The development would include six buildings totaling a maximum buildout of up to 1,640,690 square feet (sf) of business park and industrial development. Air quality modeling was conservatively done based on this maximum buildout.
The Project would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage and offsite electricity generation), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project-generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The Project vehicle trip generation was obtained from the Project’s Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I1), which includes 2,908 total daily passenger car vehicle trips and 748 daily truck trips.
Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data.
The Project includes both refrigerated and unrefrigerated storage. Based on the Traffic Analysis Study, the Project includes 152 trucks that will be accessing the cold storage portion of the Project daily (see Appendix I1). Each of the trucks is assumed to include transport refrigeration units (TRU). TRU 318
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-16 4.2 | Air Quality
emissions are based on rates from CARB’s OFFROAD2017 model. TRU operational time per truck is based on total operational hours per year divided by total population (1.1 hours per day per truck) from CARB’s OFFROAD2017 model for the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County.
As discussed under Section 4.2.3, Thresholds of Significance, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.
The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.
To determine the potential effects on sensitive receptors from TACs, an air dispersion model was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources (not a factor in this case). An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) model run for San BernardinoCounty; refer to Appendix B1. The emissions rate was calculated using 2024 emissions factors consistent with the Project’s opening year (2024). This approach is conservative as it assumes no cleaner technology in future years.
The emission sources in the model are line volume sources (comprised of smaller adjacent volume sources) for the loading dock idling areas, on‐site truck circulation, and off‐site truck routes. Heavy duty vehicle emissions were assigned a vehicle height of 12 feet (3.66 meters), a plume height of 20.4 feet (6.29 meters), and a release height of 10.3 feet (3.15 meters). The release height and the plume height are based on U.S. EPA guidance for vehicle volume sources.
AERMOD was run to obtain the peak 1‐hour and annual average concentration in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of PM10 at the nearby sensitive receptors. According to the SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for AB 2588, air dispersion modeling is required to estimate annual average concentrations to calculate the Maximum Individual Cancer Risk (MICR), the maximum chronic hazard index (HI), the zones of impact, and excess cancer burden, as well as peak hourly concentrations to calculate the health impact from substances with acute non‐cancer health effects. To achieve these goals, a receptor grid was placed over the nearest sensitive receptors to cover the zone of impact. According to the SCAQMD, in order “to identify the maximum impacted receptors (i.e., peak cancer risk and peak hazard indices) a grid spacing of 100 meters or less must be used” (see page 16 of SCAQMD’s Supplemental Guidelines). Due to the size of the Project site, receptors were modeled with a maximum of 50‐meter grid spacing. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was 319
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-17 4.2 | Air Quality
imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis was prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.1
4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 4.2-1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [Threshold AQ-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the CAAQS and NAAQS. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.
The Project is located within the SoCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S. EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.
According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, 1 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/meteorologicaldata/modeling-guidance, accessed August 19, 2021 320
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-18 4.2 | Air Quality
and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS. Consistency with both Criterion No. 1 and Criterion No. 2 would result in a less than significant impact.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to CAAQS and NAAQS emission standards. If the Project does not exceed emission standards it would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to AQMP emission assumptions based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. If the Project proposes land uses consistent with SCAG’s growth forecast or land uses that would generate less emissions than those identified in SCAG’s growth forecast, then the Project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions.
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table 4.2-8, Construction-Related Emissions, the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with MM AQ-1. However, Project emissions would exceed the operational standard for NOX despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation, as shown in Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions.
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 are included to reduce operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible.
However, even with mitigation, operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold.
Therefore, the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.
Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project site is presently designated as Business Park and Low-Medium Density Residential by the General Plan. The Project would result in a change of land use designations from Business Park and Low-Medium Density Residential to Industrial General and Business Park. Therefore, the Project is conservatively assumed to generate emissions not reflected within the current 2016 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the second criterion.
As noted above (and discussed further in Threshold 4.2-2, below), Project implementation would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. Although mitigation would reduce emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.
In addition, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (refer to SCAQMD under Section 3.4 Regulatory Setting) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 may reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.
Impact 4.2-2 Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? [Threshold AQ-2] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact 321
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-19 4.2 | Air Quality
Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.
The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.
Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.
Construction activities associated with the Project are estimated to be completed within approximately 18 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B1, for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8, Construction-Related Emissions.
Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 20222 12.51 83.38 114.73 0.35 24.95 9.07
Year 2023 154.59 50.02 106.77 0.33 22.91 7.22
Year 2024 152.29 38.49 86.93 0.30 22.14 6.61
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions3
Year 2022 8.27 35.90 114.73 0.35 22.652 6.952
Year 2023 26.84 29.06 106.77 0.33 21.71 6.10
Year 2024 25.41 27.51 86.93 0.30 5.75 6.02
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.
2. Includes particulate matter from crushing debris, EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2 Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.
3. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-7. MM AQ-1 requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. MM AQ-7 requires off-road equipment 50 horsepower or greater to meet CARB Tier 4 Final standards. Although MM AQ-7 is not required to reduce construction related criteria pollutants, MM AQ-7 is required to reduce the Cancer Hazard Risk and the emission reductions have been included in Table 4.2-8 for informational purposes.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs. 322
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-20 4.2 | Air Quality
Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and identified in Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 below.
Table 4.2-8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the ozone precursor ROG (VOC). The majority of ROG emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.
Implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce construction impacts to below the SCAQMD’s thresholds.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions.
Table 4.2-9 shows that Project emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. Therefore, regional operations emissions would result in a potentially significant long-term regional air quality impact.
Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 37.40 <0.01 0.33 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Emissions 0.37 3.33 2.80 0.02 0.25 0.25
Mobile Emissions 6.52 133.94 116.81 0.98 64.86 18.65
TRU Emissions 2.21 20.39 22.17 <0.01 0.59 0.54
Off-Road Emissions1 7.69 64.14 76.47 0.16 3.27 3.01
Total Emissions 54.18 221.81 196.41 1.16 68.97 22.45
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
1. Although the PDFs require all indoor powered off-road equipment to be electric, “unmitigated” emissions from diesel equipment are conservatively shown for informational purposes.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.
Operational emissions from the Project would be associated with area sources, energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), transport refrigeration units, and off-road emissions cargo handling equipment. Emissions from these categories are discussed below. • Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site.
323
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-21 4.2 | Air Quality
• Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. • Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.
Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Analysis Study and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Trip Generation and VMT analyses, the Project would generate 3,656 daily trips, which includes 2,908 passenger cars and 748 trucks. For modeling purposes, all truck trips were assumed to be 40 miles, one way.
• Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU) Emissions. TRUs are refrigeration systems powered by diesel internal combustion engines designed to refrigerate or heat perishable products that are transported in various containers, including semi-trailers and vans. TRU emissions are based on rates from CARB’s OFFROAD2017 model.
• Off-Road Emissions.Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road equipment used during operational activities. For this Project it was assumed that the Project would employ 50 forklifts based on surveys conducted for the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper. This paper found that on average, warehouses would employ 0.12 pallet jacks and forklifts per thousand square feet of warehouse area. However, because this number includes unpowered pallet jacks which do not generate emissions, the number of forklifts was estimated to be 0.03 forklifts per thousand square feet of warehouse area. In addition, it is conservatively assumed that each building would employ one yard truck/hostler per building (six in total).
Mitigated Operation Emissions
As noted above, Table 4.2-9 shows that unmitigated Project operational emission would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX, and mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. CARB is addressing emissions from heavy duty vehicles through various regulatory programs including lower emission standards, restrictions on idling, the use of post‐combustion filter and catalyst equipment, and retrofits for diesel truck fleets. These programs are expected to result in significant reductions in ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions as they are fully implemented by 2023. Federal and State agencies regulate and enforce vehicle emission standards. It is not feasible for the City of Ontario to effectively enforce a prohibition on trucks from entering the property that are otherwise permitted to operate in California and access other properties in the City, region, and State. Even if the City were to apply such a restriction, it would cause warehouse operators using older truck fleets to travel to other facilities in the SoCAB where the restriction does not apply, thereby resulting in no improvement to regional air quality. Based on data from CARB, most heavy‐ 324
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-22 4.2 | Air Quality
duty trucks entering the Project site would meet or exceed 2010 model year emission standards when the Project becomes fully operational in 2024 as all trucks are required to meet or exceed such standards by 2023. Specifically, according to CARB EMFAC inventories, approximately 50 percent of all instate heavy‐ duty trucks met the 2010 engine standard in 2019, 59 percent in 2020, and 62 percent in 2021.
Additionally, 65 percent and 90 percent of trucks are projected to meet the 2010 engine standard in 2022 and 2023 respectively.2
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric.
MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ-6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ-11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, operational emissions of NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Table 4.2-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions
Source
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Area Source Emissions 33.65 <0.01 0.33 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Energy Emissions 0.37 3.33 2.80 0.02 0.25 0.25
Mobile Emissions1 6.47 133.78 112.88 0.97 62.91 18.13
TRU 2.21 20.39 22.17 <0.01 0.59 0.54
Off-Road Emissions2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Emissions 42.70 157.51 138.18 0.98 64.72 13.92
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No No No
1. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ-3.
2. Incorporates MM AQ-2, all off-road cargo handling equipment will be electrically powered.
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.
In addition, SCAQMD Rule 2305 requires the Project operator to directly reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee would be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.
Warehouse owners and operators are required to earn WAIRE points each year. WAIRE points are a menubased system earned by emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can 2 California Air Resources Board, EMFAC2017, An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory, November 9, 2017. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017_workshop_11_09_2017_final.pdf, accessed April 29, 2021. 325
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-23 4.2 | Air Quality
be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, NZE and/or ZE on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options. Therefore, the Project operator would be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions.
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project-specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SoCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 4.2-8 above, Project construction-related emissions by themselves would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants with the implementation of MM AQ-1. Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.
The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be utilized during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the SoCAB, which would include related projects. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further reduce the Project construction-related impacts. Therefore, Project-related construction emissions, combined with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate local air quality. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.
The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of AAQS. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SoCAB’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD operational thresholds would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.
As shown in Table 4.2-10, the Project operational emissions (primarily mobile source emissions) would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for NOX despite the implementation of mitigation. As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to 326
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-24 4.2 | Air Quality
significant cumulative air quality impacts. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. PDFs, SCs, and implementation of operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 would reduce emissions by requiring electric cargo handling equipment, reducing the number of employee vehicles onsite, facilitating EV infrastructure, providing electric plugins for vehicles with TRUs, and reducing the amount of time trucks spend idling. No additional feasible mitigation measures beyond MMs AQ-2 through AQ-6 are available to further reduce emissions, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
As explained above, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) is required for all existing and proposed warehouses greater than 100,000 sf. Warehouse operators are required to implement additional emission reduction strategies or pay mitigation fee to reduce emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 would reduce Project emissions below what is currently analyzed and also reduce cumulative emissions. However, this analysis does not take credit for any potential reductions associated with implementation of SCAQMD Rule 2305.
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
SC AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
▪ Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
▪ All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
▪ All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
▪ Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
SC AQ-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.
SC AQ-3 Require construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.
SC AQ-4 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later 327
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-25 4.2 | Air Quality
installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
SC AQ-5 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Landscape Development Guidelines.
SC AQ-6 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-7 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-8 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-9 Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-10 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with Section 5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
SC AQ-11 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.
Impact 4.2-3 Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [Threshold AQ-3]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact Localized Construction Significance Analysis
The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential building located approximately 82 feet to the north of the Project site. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-11, EquipmentSpecific Grading Ratesis used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.
The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley (SRA 33) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD 328
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-26 4.2 | Air Quality
produced look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to five acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 4.0-acre threshold were interpolated and utilized for this analysis.
Table 4.2-11: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating
Hours per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential building located approximately 82 feet (25 meters) to the north of the Project site. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were utilized in this analysis. Table 4.2-12, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. In addition, building construction, paving, and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2-12 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.
Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition1 28.94 24.93 1.61 1.36
Site Preparation 33.10 19.70 9.28 5.42
Combined Demolition and Site Preparation2 62.04 44.63 10.89 6.78 Grading 38.84 29.04 5.22 2.93
Building Construction 15.62 16.36 0.81 0.76
Paving 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47
Architectural Coating 1.30 1.81 0.07 0.07
Combined Grading, Building Construction,
Paving, and Architectural Coating3
65.95 61.79 6.61 4.23
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25 meters) 237 1,873 13 8
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. Includes particulate matter from crushing debris, EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2. Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.
2. Based on the provided construction schedule, demolition and site preparation activities are planned to overlap and have been conservatively combined to show worst-case daily emissions
3. Based on the provided construction schedule, grading, construction, paving, and architectural coating activities are planned to overlap and have been conservatively combined to show worst-case daily emissions Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs. 329
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-27 4.2 | Air Quality
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes warehouses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions. LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters in SRA 33 were utilized in this analysis because the closest receptors are located82 feet to the north. Although the Project site is approximately 72 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-13, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions conservatively include all on-site Projectrelated stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and yard trucks) and five percent of the Project-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site.
Table 4.2-13 shows that the unmitigated localized daily operations would result in significant concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, operational mitigation measures are required to reduce localized operational impacts. With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, operational LST impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4.2-13: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 70.8 82.65 6.51 3.94 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 270 2,193 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No Yes Yes
Mitigated Emissions
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1,2 6.69 12.88 3.15 0.91 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters) 270 2,193 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. Includes all on-site and five percent of mobile source emissions.
2. Includes MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5 th 502). The SCAQMD
has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areas such as the SoCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 330
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-28 4.2 | Air Quality
for new or modified sources. The NSR Program3 was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.
NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.
Breathing ground-level O3 can result in healtheffects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.
According to the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SoCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although VMT in the SoCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.
The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels than VOCs and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOXemitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares), and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner ZE alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment.
Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies. 3 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e. PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
331
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-29 4.2 | Air Quality
The 2016 AQMP also emphasizes that beginning in 2012, continued implementation of previously adopted regulations will lead to NOX emission reductions of 68 percent by 2023 and 80 percent by 2031. With the addition of 2016 AQMP proposed regulatory measures, a 30 percent reduction of NOX from stationary sources is expected in the 15-year period between 2008 and 2023. This is in addition to significant NOX reductions from stationary sources achieved in the decades prior to 2008.
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant with mitigation(refer to Table 4.2-12 and Table 4.2-13). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The AAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to O3 and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Setting section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.
Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level O3 concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.
It should also be noted that this analysis identifies health concerns related to particulate matter, CO, O3, and NO2. Table 4.2-1 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects.
Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The SoCAB was re-designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addressed CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most 332
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-30 4.2 | Air Quality
congested intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 3,656 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Construction of the Project would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required offroad diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.
The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.
Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., Title 13, CCR, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road dieselfueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes.
These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.
An HRA was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. 333
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-31 4.2 | Air Quality
PM10 construction emissions rates in grams per second were calculated from the total annual on-site exhaust emissions reported in CalEEMod during construction. Maximum (worst case) PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA‐approved dispersion model, to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the California OEHHA guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is 10-in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.
The construction phase HRA was conducted for the Project (see Appendix B2 for HRA modeling results).
Results of the assessment indicate that the unmitigated cancer risk would be 150-in-one-million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million. Therefore, MM AQ-7, requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required to reduce the cancer risk. With MM AQ-7 the cancer risk would be reduced to 7.0-in-one-million which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million. With the implementation of MM AQ-7 non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.002 and an acute hazard index of 0.02. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
An operational phase HRA was also conducted for this Project. Analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the warehouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors.
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using PM10 emission factors generated with CARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Model (EMFAC) 2021. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of VMT by speed, and number of starts per day.
For this Project, annual average tailpipe PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC for vehicles in the SCAQMD within the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County. EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Truck emissions were based on the first possible year of operations for a fleet mix of various aged vehicles, as opposed to average emissions over a 30-year window. Trucks were assumed to travel at a speed of 55 miles per hour (mph) along Archibald Avenue, 50 mph along Merrill Avenue and Limonite Avenue west of Hamner Avenue, 45 mph along Euclid Avenue and Limonite Avenue east of Hamner Avenue, and 15 mph for onsite truck travel.
Air dispersion modeling was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sourcessituated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, 334
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-32 4.2 | Air Quality
and mixing height. Uniform Cartesian receptors were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Chino Airport Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. 4 Idling emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along each loading dock and 15 minutes of idling5for each truck was assumed. Truck travel emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along local roads and inside the facility where the trucks are expected to travel.
Trucking routes were determined per the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I1) conducted for the proposed Project.
Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site at any one point in time. Actual one-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology.
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using CARB’s Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). Health risks were analyzed at the point of maximum impact and are a conservative estimate. The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index. SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten-in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.
The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM10 (used as a proxy for DPM). As DPM does not have short-term toxicity values, acute risks were conservatively evaluated using hourly PM10 concentrations and the reference exposure levels (REL) for acrolein. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest unmitigated annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations from diesel truck traffic near sensitive receptors would be 0.5483 µg/m3. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Project is 474 per million, which exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 are required to reduce impacts. Implementation of operational mitigation measures reduces the diesel exhaust PM10 concentrations to 0.0034 µg/m3. As 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance, accessed March 2021. 5 An idling time of 15 minutes per truck has been used per SCAQMD recommendations. Although the Project is required to comply with CARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, the SCAQMD recommends the on-site idling emissions should be estimated for 15 minutes of truck idling, which would take into account on-site idling that occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check -in and check-out, etc.
335
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-33 4.2 | Air Quality
such, the mitigated carcinogenic risk would be reduced to 2.94 in one million and impacts would be less than significant.
Acute and chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the REL. After incorporating operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, the highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index associated with both DPM and acrolein emissions from the Project would be
0.0007 and 0.0097, respectively. As a result, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projectsin the local area include new development and general growth in the Project area. The greatest source of emissions in the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SoCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.
Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under both the California and federal standards and nonattainment for PM10 and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the federal standards. O3 is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs; thus, NOX and VOCs are precursor to O3. Construction of cumulative projects will further degrade the regional and local air quality. The Project would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to PM2.5 or PM10, but air quality from VOCs would potentially be impacted during construction activities. However, as discussed under Impact4.2-2, implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce Project-related construction emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds on a Project and cumulative basis. Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of mitigation.
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. Operation of the Project, after incorporation of mitigation, would still result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for NOX.
Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant and unavoidable.
Localized
Under SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold of 10 in a million are considered to be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD 2003). Per the MATES IV study, the proposed 336
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-34 4.2 | Air Quality
Project is in an area that has an estimated cancer risk of about 898.83 in a million.6 Project-related construction activities would result in a cancer risk of 7.0 in a million to the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). Development and operation of the proposed Project would result in cancer risk of 2.94 in a million to the MEIR, which would be below 10 in a million. As a result, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to the overall elevated levels of DPM in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to health risk impacts in the SoCAB is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4.2.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Impact 4.2-4 would be less than significant.
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.2-1 Buildout of the Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
• Impact 4.2-2 Buildout of the Project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Impact 4.2-3 Buildout of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
4.2.9 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.2-1 and Impact 4.2-2
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.
Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Plans shall specify that all architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized onsite for daily warehouse and business operations. The Project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electric-powered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.
Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/business entity, the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a signed document (verification document) noting that the Project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only electric-powered equipment for daily operations. This verification document shall be signed by 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, MATES IV Estimated Risk, https://scaqmdonline.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=470c30bc6daf4ef6a43f0082973ff45f. 337
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-35 4.2 | Air Quality
authorized agents for the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entities. In addition, if applicable, the tenant/business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electric-powered.
If emergency generators are proposed, the Project applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible, the Project applicant shall provide written justification for the use of diesel-powered emergency generatorsto be approved by the City’s Building Department. Feasibility of non-diesel generators would be explored on the basis of fire and life safety purposes, relative cost and availability of non-diesel generators, as well as whether or not the non-diesel generator has the capacity to supply the required levelof power for the required uses.
MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
▪ Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
▪ Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the Project site; ▪ Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day;
▪ Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service; and ▪ Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging 338
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-36 4.2 | Air Quality
stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines. ▪ The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods.
Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.
MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.
MM AQ-6 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
▪ Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use
▪ Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
▪ Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
▪ Truck travel is restricted to identified truck routes only In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.
Impact 4.2-3
MM AQ-7 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Ontario that demonstrate that all off-road dieselpowered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards. Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
339
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-37 4.2 | Air Quality
4.2.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
MM AQ-1 would improve air quality by requiring the use of low VOC paints during the structural coating phase. Project related PM10, PM2.5, and DPM emissions from combustion engines will be reduce by MM AQ-2, which requires the use of electric cargo handling equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) rather than diesel or natural gas. MM AQ-3 would reduce vehicle emission by reducing single occupant vehicle trips through promoting carpool/vanpool/rideshare programs and providing pedestrian and bicycling amenities. MM AQ-4 would reduce vehicle emission by promoting alternative fuel vehicles such as electric cars and trucks. MM AQ-5would l reduce PM10, PM2.5, and DPM by providing trucks with electrical hookups to power onboard auxiliary equipment and refrigeration units, allowing trucks to be turned off rather than remain idling. MM AQ-6 would reduce truck emissions by requiring signs be posted that direct truck drivers to turn off their engines and provides a telephone number to report violations. In addition, MM AQ-6 requires signs to be posted at exits that provide directional information to truck routes, directing truck traffic away from sensitive receptors. To protect sensitive receptors from NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and DPM during the construction process, MM AQ-7 requires all construction to meet CARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards.
Even with implementation of regulatory requirements, standard conditions of approval and implementation of reasonable and feasible MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-6, the Project would result in unavoidable significant impacts with respect to air quality plan consistency (Impact 4.2-1) and operational emissions (Impact 4.2-2). However, implementation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-7 would ensure the Project’s impact on sensitive receptors from substantial pollutant concentrations would be reduced to less than significant (Impact 4.2-3).
4.2.11 References
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998, April 22. The Report on Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/de-fnds.htm.
2016, May 4. Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf.
2021, February 15 (accessed). Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (2017, 2018, and 2019). http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
2019. Hotspots Analysis and Report Program (HARP2), Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST), Version 19044.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf. 340
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.2-38 4.2 | Air Quality
Propper, Ralph, Patrick Wong, Son Bui, Jeff Austin, William Vance, Alvaro Alvarado, Bart Croes, and Dongmin Luo (Propper). 2015. “Ambient and Emission Trends of Toxic Air Contaminants in California.” Environmental Science & Technology 49, no. 19 (September): 11329–39.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide.
1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-airplans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp. 2005, May. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/documents-support-material/planningguidance/guidance-document. 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 2011. Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significancethresholds/caleemod-guidance.pdf ?sfvrsn=2. 2014, June. SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results.http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/high-cube-warehouse-triprate-study-for-air-quality-analysis/business-survey-summary.pdf. 2015, October 3. Final Report Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES IV). https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic-studies/mates-iv/mates-ivfinal-draft-report-4-1-15.pdf?sfvrsn=7. 2017, March 4. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. 2019, April. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002, May. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality; EPA/600/8-90/057F 2019. Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants. Accessed July 11, 2019. https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants. 341
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-1 4.3 | Biological Resources
4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the existing biological resources and potential impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project). The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report(s):
• General Habitat Assessment for Ontario Ranch Business Park, Ecological Sciences, Inc., March2021; (Appendix C1)
• Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys, Ecological Sciences, Inc., December 27, 2020 (Appendix C2)
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site islocated east of the unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, and west of Campus Avenue, in the City of Ontario (City), San Bernardino County, California. This Project is an extension to the Ontario Business Ranch Park Specific Plan (Approved SP), comprising of approximately 72 acres, which would replace the existing agriculture and dairy fields on the east side of Sultana Avenue. The Project site consists of eight parcels, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1054-041-01, -02; 1054-03-01, -02; 1054-261-01, -02; and 1054-291-01, -02. 1 To the
north is a mixture of dairy/agricultural and service commercial properties, east is agricultural and vacant land, west is the Approved SP, and the Chino Airport is located to the south. The City lies within the broad alluvial fan originating from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County. The Santa Ana River flows to the south of the City and Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek traverse north to south through the City. The Project site is generally flat, with elevation averaging approximately 197 meters (m) (646 feet [ft]) above mean sea level (AMSL). The entire Project site has been disturbed by the development and over 80 years of use by dairy farms. Vegetation is characterized as primarily agricultural and commercial landscaping with no native vegetation observed.
The Project site occurs on the "Prado Dam" California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map, Township 2 South, Range 7 West. The Project site is characterized primarily as an active dairy operation. The Project site contains a single-family residence, multiple dairy-related structures (sheds, corrals, etc.), feeding preparation areas, waste ponds/basins, cultivated/disced areas, manure spreading areas, and debris dumping areas. The ruderal/disturbed areas support mostly invasive, nonnative annual species. Manure, associated with the ongoing dairy operation, is present throughout most of the Project site. Cattle feeding areas were barren ground covered in manure and mud. Surrounding land uses include agricultural areas similar to the Project site,and the Chino Airport is located to the south.
Projects proposed in the area that contain potentially suitable habitat to support sensitive biological resources must demonstrate to reviewing agencies [e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California 1 Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a. 342
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-2 4.3 | Biological Resources
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG-currently Department of Fish and Wildlife or CDFW), County, City] that potential project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources are adequately addressed and mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other environmental regulations as part of Project approval.
Plant Communities/ Habitat
Ruderal plants recorded on-site included various non-native grasses and weedy species such as foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis spp. rubens), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), filaree (Erodium sp.), Lamb's quarter's (Chenopodium album), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), black mustard (Brassica nigra), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), nettle (Urtica sp.), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and gum (Eucalyptus sp.).
Sensitive Biological Resources
Discussed below are plant and wildlife species potentially present in the Project site that have been afforded special recognition by federal or State agencies. This discussion is based on species that would potentially pose considerable constraints on the proposed Project because of their high sensitivity status (listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered) with State and/or federal resource agencies. In addition, plants included on Lists 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) inventory are also considered of special-status. Vegetation communities that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of particular value to wildlife and considered sensitive by State and/or federal resource agencies are also generally discussed. There is a low probability of occurrence due to the Project’s site-specific factors (e.g., disturbance level, land use, etc.).
In general, those species presented in Table 4.3-1, Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity, and Table 4.3-2, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity, that are “not expected” or that have a “low occurrence potential” generally correspond to “less than significant” under CEQA. The occurrence potential of special-status plant and wildlife species is primarily based on habitat types present, occurrence records of sensitive species from the site vicinity, and results of the on-site reconnaissance surveys. No focused wildlife or botanical surveys were conducted.
Special-Status Plant Species
No special-status plant species were detected on-site during the reconnaissance survey, and none are expected due to lack of suitable habitat. Special-status plant species known from the region that potentially occur within the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.3-1, Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity.
343
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-3 4.3 | Biological Resources
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CNPS
Paniculate tarplant
Deinandra paniculata
-- -- 4 Valley grassland Low Potential: marginally
suitable habitat present
Coulter’s saltbush
Atriplex coulteri
-- -- 1B Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland; sometimes associated with
alkaline low places and clay soil.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
South Coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
FSC -- 1B Coastal bluff scrub, playas, chenopod
scrub
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Long-spined spineflower
Chorizanthe polygonoides
var. longispina
FSC -- 1B Chaparral, sage scrub, grasslands,
often with clay soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
California spineflower
Mucronea californica
-- -- 4 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
grasslands with sandy soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Palmer’s grapplinghook
Harpagonella palmeri
FSC -- 2 Chaparral, grasslands, sage scrub with
clay soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Round-leaved filaree
Erodium macrophyllum
-- -- 2 Cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland with clay soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
California muhly
Muhlenbergia californica
-- -- 4 Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest; moist
conditions
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Plummer’s mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
FSC -- 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodlands,
coastal scrub, Lower coniferous
forests, and grasslands; associated
with granitic soils.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Intermediate mariposa lily
Calochortus weedii var.
intermedius
FSC -- 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, grasslands;
often associated with dry, rocky, open
slopes.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Parry’s spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi ssp.
parryi
FSC -- 3 Chaparral and coastal scrub;
associated with sandy or rocky
openings.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Many-stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
FSC -- 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, and
grasslands; often associated with clay
soils.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Santa Ana River woollystar
Eriastrum densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
FE CE 1B Coastal scrub, chaparral, and alluvial
scrub; associated with sandy soil in
river floodplains or terraced fluvial
deposits.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Smooth tarplant
Centromadia pungens
ssp. laevis
FSC -- 1B Chenopod scrub, meadows, playas,
riparian woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands; associated with
alkaline areas.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
San Diego ambrosia
Ambrosia pumila
FE -- 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, grasslands,
vernal pools with sandy loam or clay
soils (20-415M)
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Slender-horned
spineflower
Dodecahema leptoceras
FE CE 1B Chaparral, alluvial fan sage scrub;
terraces and washes
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Many-stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
-- -- 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland/ often clay soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
FSC -- 1B Playas, vernal pools Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Heart-leaved pitcher sage
Lepechinia cardiophylla
-- -- 1B Closed cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Payson's jewel-flower
Caulanthus simulans
-- -- 4 Chaparral, coastal sage; burned areas;
streambed; rocky slopes
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
344
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-4 4.3 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State CNPS
California saw-grass
Cladium californicum
-- -- 2 Freshwater and alkali marshes; seeps Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
puberula
-- -- 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub; sandy or gravelly
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
Navarretia prostrata
-- -- 1B Valley and foothill grassland, coastal
scrub, vernal pools
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Santiago Peak phacilia
Phacelia suaveolens ssp.
keckii
-- -- 1B Closed cone coniferous forests and
chaparral; sometimes along creeks
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
San Bernardino aster
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
-- -- 1B Meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps; coastal scrub, woodlands;
mesic grassland; ditches
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Robinson’s pepper-grass
Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii
-- -- 1B Chaparral and coastal scrub;
associated with dry soils; known to
occur on roadsides.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Chaparral sand verbena
Abronia villosa var. aurita
-- -- 1B Chaparral, coastal scrub with sandy
soils
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Salt spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
-- -- 2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, Mohavean
desert scrub, coastal brackish marsh,
and alkali playas, seeps, and marshes;
associated with moist, alkaline soils.
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Vernal barley
Hordeum intercedans
-- -- 3 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
grasslands (saline flats and
depressions)
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Southern California black
walnut
Juglans californica var.
californica
-- -- 4 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
Tecate cypress
Cupressus forbesii
-- -- 1B Closed-cone coniferous forest;
chaparral
Not Expected: suitable
habitat not present
1 Based primarily on review of 2020 CNDDB, 2020 CNPS online database, and 2021 USFWS IPaC; additional locality information derived from internal unpublished data, technical reports from the region, and other informal grey literature 1 Federal-USFWS
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened Species
FPE: Federally Proposed Endangered
FPT: Federally Proposed Threatened
FC: Federal Candidate Species (USFWS 1996)
State-CDFW
CE: State Endangered
CT: State Threatened
CR: State Rare
CNPS-California Native Plant Society
List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California.
List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere List 2: Plants rare and endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
List 3: Taxa about which more information is needed
List 4: Plants of limited distribution
Special-Status Wildlife Species
No special-status wildlife species were directly observed on the Project site. However, several species not observed during the survey may have a moderate or moderate-high occurrence potential (primarily as foragers). Most remaining potentially occurring sensitive wildlife species are not expected to occur onsite due to lack of suitable habitat. Sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring on the Project site are summarized below in Table 4.3-2, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity. 345
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-5 4.3 | Biological Resources
Table 4.3-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Invertebrates
Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly
Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
FE -- Open, sandy (Delhi) dune areas commonly
supporting buckwheat, croton, telegraph
weed, Camissonia and Oenothera
Not Expected: no suitable habitat
present
Riverside fairy shrimp
Streptocephalus wootoni
FE -- Swales, vernal pools, and basins within
grasslands and sage scrub habitats
Not Expected; suitable habitat not
present
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
FT -- Vernal pools or alkali vernal pools Not Expected; suitable habitat not present
California linderiella
Linderiella occidentalis
-- -- Vernal pools Not Expected; suitable habitat not
present
Fishes
Santa Ana sucker
Catostomus santaanae
FT CSC Small to medium-sized perennial streams Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Arroyo chub Gila orcutti FSC CSC Slow moving or backwater sections of streams with sandy or mud substrates
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Santa Ana speckled dace
Rhinichthys osculus spp. 3
-- CSC Headwaters of Santa Ana and San Gabriel
rivers with permanent flowing streams
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Reptiles and Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
FE CSC Rivers with sandy banks and loose gravelly
areas, open canopy
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Western spadefoot toad
Spea hammondii
-- CSC Relatively open grasslands, scrublands, and
woodlands with fine, loose soil
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Diego banded gecko
Coleonyx varigatus
abbotti
-- -- Coastal and cismontane southern
California; granite or rocky outcrops in
coastal scrub and chaparral
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Diego horned lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum
blainvillii
FSC CSC Relatively open grasslands, scrublands, and
woodlands with fine, loose soil.
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
-- CSC Lowlands along sandy washes; scattered
low shrubs; loose soil; abundant supply of
ants
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
FSC CSC Stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, pine,
oak, and riparian woodlands, and chaparral;
associated with sparse vegetation with
sandy or loose, loamy soils.
Not Expected: suitable habitat
present
Orange-throated whiptail
Aspidoscelis hyperythrus
-- -- Relatively open grasslands, scrublands, and
woodlands with fine, loose soil
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Coastal western whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris
multiscutatus
-- Sage scrub, chaparral, grassland Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Northern red diamond
rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber ruber
-- CSC Sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
pallida
-- CSC Permanent or nearly permanent bodies of
water with basking sites
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Diego mountain
kingsnake
Lampropeltis zonata
pulchra
FSC CSC Forests and shrublands Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
346
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-6 4.3 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
-- CSC Highly aquatic, near permanent fresh
water; streams with rocky beds, riparian
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Bernardino ringneck
snake
Diadophis punctatus
modestus
FSC -- Woodlands, grassland, chaparral, and scrub
habitats; often found in mesic areas under
rocks, logs, and debris.
Not Expected: no suitable habitat
present
Birds
White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
MNBMC CFP Open vegetation and uses dense woodlands
for cover.
Low Potential: possibly forages
over the site; no suitable nesting
habitat present
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
-- CSC Coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh,
grasslands, and agricultural fields.
Low-Moderate Potential: possibly
forages over the site; no suitable
nesting habitat present
Sharp-shinned hawk
Accipiter striatus
-- CSC Woodlands and forages over dense
chaparral and scrublands.
Low Potential: possibly forages
over the site as seasonal winter
migrant; no suitable nesting
Cooper’s hawk habitat present
Accipiter cooperi
-- CSC Dense stands of live oaks and riparian
woodlands.
Low-Moderate Potential: possibly
forages over the site; no suitable
nesting habitat present
Ferruginous hawk
Buteo regalis
FSC, MNBMC CSC Grasslands, agricultural fields, and open scrublands.
Low-Moderate Potential: possibly
forages over the site as seasonal
migrant; does not breed in area
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
-- CSC, CFP Mountains, deserts, and open country. Low Potential: species known from project vicinity and may
forage over the site; no suitable
Prairie falcon nesting habitat present
Falco mexicanus
-- CSC Grasslands, savannas, rangeland,
agricultural fields, and desert scrub;
requires sheltered cliff faces for shelter.
Low-Moderate Potential: may
forage over the site in winter; no
suitable nesting habitat present
Western burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
hypugea
FSC, MNBMC CSC Grasslands and open scrub. Moderate Potential: potentially suitable habitat present; not
recorded on-site during 2020
California horned lark protocol surveys
Eremophila alpestris actia
-- CSC Grasslands, disturbed areas, agriculture
fields, and beach areas.
Moderate-High Potential:
potentially suitable foraging
habitat present
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
FSC, MNBMC CSC Grasslands with scattered shrubs, trees, fences or other perches.
Moderate-High Potential:
suitable habitat present
California coastal
gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
FT CSC Coastal sage scrub in areas of flat or gently
sloping terrain
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
FE CE Willow dominated riparian habitat with
dense understory
Not expected; suitable habitat
not present
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
FE -- Riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or
other wetlands usually with standing water
Not expected; suitable habitat
not present
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
-- CE Riparian forest nester, lower flood-bottoms
of larger river systems
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Yellow warbler
Dendroica petechia
-- CSC Riparian thickets and woodlands Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Yellow-breasted chat
Icteria virens
-- CSC Riparian thickets and riparian woodlands
with dense understory
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus
PT CSC Agricultural areas, fallow fields, grasslands,
prairies
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Coastal cactus wren
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus couesi
-- CSC Desert succulent scrub, desert wash, scrub
and chaparral habitats with cactus
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
347
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-7 4.3 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
S. California rufouscrowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps
canescens
-- CSC Coastal sage scrub, grasslands Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
MNBMC -- Coastal sage scrub, grassland Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Bell’s sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
MNBMC CSC Coastal sage scrub, chaparral Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
-- CSC, CCE Marshes for nesting; forages in fields and
scrub habitats
Low Potential: marginally suitable
foraging habitat present
Mammals
Long-eared myotis
Myotis evotis
FSC -- Found in nearly all brush, woodland, and
forest habitats from sea level to at least
9,000 ft.
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Small-footed myotis
Myotis ciliolabrum
FSC -- Arid wooded and brushy uplands near
water from sea level to at least 9,000 ft.
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Fringed myotis
Myotis thysanodes
FSC -- Utilizes open habitats and early
successional stages, streams, lakes, and
ponds from sea level to at least 9,350 ft.
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Long-legged myotis
Myotis volans
FSC -- Found in nearly all brush, woodland, and
forested habitats from sea level to around
9,000 ft.; a bat primarily of coniferous
forests
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
FSC CSC Found in a variety of habitats; optimal
habitats are open forests and woodlands
with sources of water over within to feed
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Spotted bat
Euderma maculata
FSC CSC Deserts, scrublands, chaparral, and
coniferous woodlands; highly associated
with prominent rock features
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Pale big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
pallescens
FSC
Full Species
CSC
Full Sp.
Utilizes a variety of communities, including
conifer and oak woodlands and forests, arid
grasslands and deserts, and high-elevation
forests and meadows
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
-- CSC Arid habitats, including grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and forests; prefers
rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with
access to open habitats for foraging
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
FSC
(ssp.
californicus)
CSC Primarily arid lowlands and coastal basins
with rugged, rocky terrain, along with
suitable crevices for day-roosts; primarily a
cliff-dweller
Low Potential: limited foraging
and roosting habitat present
Pocketed free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
-- CSC Pine juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm
oasis, desert wash, desert riparian; rocky
areas with high cliffs
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Big free-tailed bat
Nyctinomops macrotis
-- -- Low lying arid areas in California; needs
high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Western yellow bat
Lasurius xanthininus
-- CSC Valley footlhill riparian, desert riparian,
palm oasis
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida
intermedia
-- CSC Moderate to dense sage scrub; rocky
outcrops
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus
bennettii
FSC CSC Chaparral, coastal scrub, grasslands Low Potential: marginally suitable habitat present
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
-- CSC Open shrublands, sandy areas Not Expected: suitable habitat not present
Los Angeles pocket mouse
Perognathus
longimembris brevinasus
FSC CSC Grasslands and coastal sage scrub; prefers
lower elevational areas with open ground
and sandy soils.
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
348
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-8 4.3 | Biological Resources
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat Requirements Occurrence Potential
Federal State
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys merriami
parvus
FE CSC Coastal sage scrub; prefers lower
elevational areas with open ground and
sandy soils.
Not Expected: suitable habitat not
present
Stephens’ kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
FE CE Grasslands, open sage scrub Not Expected: no suitable habitat present
1 Based primarily on review of 2020 CNDDB and 2020 USFWS IPaC; additional locality information derived from internal unpublished data, technical reports from the region, and other informal grey literature regarding species accounts 1 Federal-USFWS
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
FPE: Federally Proposed Endangered
FPT: Federally Proposed Threatened
FC: Federal Candidate for listing as threatened
or endangered
FSC: Federal Species of Concern- no formal
protection is granted to this designation-former federal candidate species USFWS (1996)
MNBMC: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management
Concern
State-CDFW
CE: California Endangered
CT: California Threatened
CCE: California Candidate (Endangered)
CCT: California Candidate (Threatened)
CFP: California Fully Protected
CP: California Fully Protected
CSC: California Species of Special Concern
: CDFG Special Animal
Special-Status Habitats
Special-status habitat types are vegetation communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although sensitive habitats are not necessarily afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts to them may increase concerns and mitigation suggestions by resources agencies.
Sensitive habitat types known from the Project site vicinity (mostly associated with Prado Dam and the Santa Ana River) include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Cypress Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. None of these native or special-status habitats were recorded on the Project site.
Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity
The Project site is surrounded by agriculture and development. The nearest known habitats (as mentioned above) that would support sensitive biological resources would be the Santa Ana River and Prado Dam areas located approximately 3.0 miles south of the Project site. The species associated with these sensitive biological resource areas would not be expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat.
Jurisdictional Resources
Based on the field investigation conducted by Ecological Sciences, the United State Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) “waters of the United States” per Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and “streambeds” per Section 1600-1603 of the CDFW Code were not observed on the Project site.
The on-site detention basins on the southern border of the Project site were listed in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory as freshwater ponds. However, these basins would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered freshwater ponds. The artificial basins are not connected to a natural stream, nor do they divert natural flow from any river, stream or lake. Since the 349
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-9 4.3 | Biological Resources
source of the water for these artificial features are not part of a natural stream, river, or lake, the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake…”. Therefore, the stock ponds/basins on the Project site are not a “natural flow” of a stream, river, or lake, and would not be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Further, the artificial basins are not adjacent to and are not considered Waters of the United States. The stock ponds/basins are isolated features that are not tributary to, nor do they have a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States.
Therefore, the artificial basins on the project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the CWA.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project site is essentially surrounded by various forms of existing development, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Project site occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement.
As such, Project implementation would not be expected to have any substantial effect on local or regional corridors.
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), as amended, protects, and conserves any species of plant or animal and their habitats that are threatened or endangered with extinction. The “take” of endangered species is prohibited under FESA Section 9. The term “take” in this instance means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” FESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on proposed federal actions that may affect any endangered, threatened, or proposed species or critical habitat that may support the species. FESA Section 4(a) requires that critical habitat be designated by the USFWS “to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened.” This provides guidance for planners/managers and biologists by indicating locations of suitable habitat and where preservation of a species has high priority. FESA Section 10 provides the regulatory mechanism for incidental take of a listed species by private interests and nonfederal government agencies during lawful activities. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) for the impacted species must be developed in support of incidental take permits to minimize impacts to the species and formulate viable mitigation measures.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-712 et seq.) is a federal statute that affirms and implements four international conservation treaties that the United States entered into with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. This treaty is intended to protect shared migratory bird resources and ensures the sustainability of populations. The MBTA governs the transportation of 350
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-10 4.3 | Biological Resources
migratory birds, their eggs, their parts, and their nests. It also prohibits the sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these items, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations.
USFWS administers permits concerning migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. According to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), one can locate this list of protected migratory bird species under CFR Title 50 Part 10.13 (10.13 list). The 10.13 list was last updated in 2020, incorporating the most current scientific information on taxonomy and natural distribution.
Clean Water Act, Section 404
The USACE regulates discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands under the CWA. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource Projects, infrastructure development and mining Projects. A permit is required before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, which entails assessment of potential adverse impacts to Corps wetlands and jurisdictional waters and any mitigation measures that the Corps requires unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). Section 7 consultation with USFWS may be required for impacts to a federally-listed species. If cultural resources may be present, Section 106 review may also be required. When a Section 404 permit is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification is also required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Clean Water Act, Section 401 and 402
Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA specifies that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters shall provide the federal permitting agency with a certification, issued by the state in which the discharge originates, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA. In California, the applicable RWQCB must certify that the Project will comply with water quality standards. Permits requiring Section 401 certification include Corps Section 404 permits and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 402 of the CWA. NPDES permits are issued by the applicable RWQCB. The City of Ontario is in the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).
State
California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600
The California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 1600 requires a Project proponent to notify the CDFW of any proposed alteration of streambeds, rivers, and lakes. The intent is to protect habitats that are important to fish and wildlife. CDFW may review and place conditions on the Project, as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), that address potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW’s jurisdictional limits.
California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, 3511, 3515,3800 Section 3503.5 of the CFGC states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such 351
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-11 4.3 | Biological Resources
bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, CFGC, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and CFGC, Section 3515 states that it is unlawful to take any non- game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.
Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take any nongame bird except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations of the commission or, when relating to mining operations, a mitigation plan approved by the department.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), enacted in 1970 and amended in 1984, is a California law that conserves and protects plant and animal species at risk of extinction. It generally parallels the main provisions of the FESA and is administered by the CDFW. Plant and animal species may be designated threatened or endangered under CESA after a formal listing process by the CFGC. With already approximately 250 species currently listed, a CESA-listed species, or any part or product of the plant or animal, may not be imported into the state, exported out of the state, “taken” (i.e., killed), possessed, purchased, or sold without proper authorization. Implementation of CESA has reduced and avoided impacts to California’s most imperiled plants and animals, has protected hundreds of thousands of acres of vital habitat, and has led to a greater scientific understanding of California’s incredible biodiversit y.
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Under certain conditions and if the take is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, CESA has provisions for take through Incidental Take Permits (ITP);2081) or memorandum of understanding (MOU). In addition, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the State as “fully protected species.” California “species of special concern” are species designated as vulnerable to extinction due to declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. This list is primarily a working document for the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), which maintains a record of known and recorded occurrences of sensitive species. Informally listed taxa are not protected per se but warrant consideration in the preparation of biological resources assessments.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was established as the Statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis.
The SWRCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state is given authority to regulate waters of the state, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the CWA is not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially 352
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-12 4.3 | Biological Resources
defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act
In 1991, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act; CFGC Section 1900 et seq.) was approved and the NCCP Coastal Sage Scrub program was initiated in Southern California.
California law (CFGC Section 2800 et seq.) established the NCCP program “to provide for regional protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity while allowing compatible land use and appropriate development and growth.” The NCCP Act encourages preparation of plans that address habitat conservation and management on an ecosystem basis rather than one species or habitat at a time.
CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
The Lake and Streambed Alteration Program requires that an entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.
Local
City of Ontario TOP
The City’s The Ontario Plan (TOP) Environmental Resources Element contains goals and policies which pertain to protecting biological resources in Ontario:
Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER5 Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
Policy ER5-1 Habitat Conservation Areas. We support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.
Policy ER5-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.
Policy ER5-4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses.
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Municipal Code, Volume II, Chapter 2
The City’s Municipal Code (MC), Volume II, Chapter 2 contains a provision for “Parkway Tree Regulations” (Ordinance 1664), to preserve parkway trees and to regulate the maintenance and removal of such trees.
Parkway is defined as “…that portion of any public street right-of-way between the right-of-way boundary line and the curb line, and also the area enclosed within the curb lines of a medial divider.” The property owner abutting upon public rights-of-way (ROW) is responsible to water any tree located in the parkway and for trimming that can be done from the ground to preserve the neat appearance and non-obstructed 353
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-13 4.3 | Biological Resources
use of the parkway, while the City is responsible for all major pruning. Removal or relocation of any parkway tree requires prior authorization from the Public Works Agency of the City through a permit process, and planting of a replacement tree, whenever feasible, shall be a condition included in any permit issued by the City for the removal of any parkway tree. Alternatively, a cash-in-lieu deposit may be accepted by the City as an alternate to the actual planting of any required parkway tree based on a fair value established by the Public Facilities Manager.
Municipal Code, Section 6.05.020
The City MC Section 6.05.020 addresses heritage trees in the City of Ontario. The Project site does not contain trees that fall under the definition of a heritage tree, as noted below. • Heritage tree – (c) a defining landmark or significant outstanding feature of a neighborhood or district, or typical of early Ontario landscapes, [i] Cinnamomum camphora [ii] Cedrus deodora, and [iii] Platanus acerifolia.
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would a have significant effect on the biological resources if the project would:
B-1 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
B-2 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
B-3 Have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
B-4 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
B-5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
B-6 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Section 7.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant (EFNTBS), substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold B-5
• Threshold B-6
354
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-14 4.3 | Biological Resources
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
4.3.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP BIO-1 The Project shall comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
PPP BIO-2 The Project shall comply with the California Endangered Species Act and Fish and Game Code.
4.3.5 Methodology
The Project and associated PPPs are evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning biological resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards [LORS]) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts.
Burrowing Owl (BUOW) Protocol Survey
Existing documentation pertinent to the distribution and habitat requirements of the burrowing owl was reviewed and analyzed. This included a review of: (1) the CNDDB, (2) both the 1995 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, and (3) other literature pertaining to habitat requirements of the BUOW as referenced herein.
The BUOW surveys were conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. These guidelines within the 2012 CDFG Staff Report include searches for BUOW, burrows (natural and artificial), and BUOW sign by walking parallel transects (where feasible) through suitable habitat over the entire survey area [i.e., the Project site and within a 150-meter(500 feet) buffer area where feasible or at least by visual means]. Upon arrival at the survey area and prior to initiating the walking surveys, the biologist used binoculars and/or spotting scope to scan suitable habitat.
Ecological Sciences’ Principal Biologist initiated the first of four total focused breeding season BUOW surveys on April 12, 2020. Subsequent surveys were conducted on May 17, June 14, and July 11 of 2020.
No direct BUOW observations were recorded during the April-July 2020 focused BUOW breeding season surveys. No potential burrows inspected during the survey were determined to be currently occupied by BUOW based on absence of BUOW observations and sign (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) at or near burrow entrances/aprons. BUOW were also not observed utilizing the site for foraging purposes on or adjacent to the site (adjacent areas viewed by binocular only).
Avian species observed on-site included turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common raven (Corvus corax), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto), black-phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say's 355
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-15 4.3 | Biological Resources
phoebe (Sayornis saya), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Reptile species observed included site-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Mammal species directly observed, or of which sign was detected, included California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae).
Recommendations
Burrowing Owl Protocol (BUOW) Survey
Despite that fact that the Projectsite has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, BUOW often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. If it were later determined that active nests of BUOW would be lost as a result of site-preparation, it could result in CEQA significant adverse impacts and would be in conflict with CDFW code sections. Although no BUOW were recorded on-site, it is recommended by CDFW to complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where Project activities would occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be evaluated by monitoring BUOW (if present on-site). BUOW may recolonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.
4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
Impact 4.3-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [Threshold B-1] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact Sensitive Plants
No special-status plant species are expected to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. .
Long-standing use of the Project site for agricultural uses and other anthropogenic disturbances have likely altered soil chemistry and other substrate characteristics such that on-site soils are not likely capable of supporting those sensitive plant species known from the Project site vicinity. Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for potentially occurring special-status plant species, nor reduce population size of sensitive plant species below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis (if present). Therefore, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant specifies identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS. Hence, no significant impact to special-status plant species or their habitat would occur. 356
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-16 4.3 | Biological Resources
Sensitive Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were directly recorded on-site; however, the California horned lark and loggerhead shrike have moderate-high occurrence potential because they are well known to utilize agricultural areas. However, these species were deemed by USFWS to be too widespread and common to warrant listing as threatened or endangered, and as such, were removed from formal sensitive species status. Impacts to agricultural-related habitats could amount to an incremental reduction of potential foraging habitat for certain species that may be considered locally adverse. However, Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for these species, nor reduce population size below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis. Therefore, less than significant impacts to these species would be expected.
Nesting Birds
No nesting birds were incidentally observed during surveys conducted on the Project site in 2020.
Although many native bird species are not protected by CESA or FESA, most are protected under the federal MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. If it were later determined that active nests of any of specialstatus or native species would be lost or indirectly impacted as a result of site-preparation, it could result in adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. If construction activities (e.g., site disturbances) are proposed during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey(s) may be required prior to development. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season (generally September 1 to December 31) usually eliminates the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most native species known from the site vicinity and ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG Code. Compliance with the MBTA/CDFG Code would be necessary prior to development; however, no special permit or approval is typically required in most instances where BUOW are not present. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season would generally eliminate the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most common native species (other than BUOW) known from the Project site vicinity, and likely ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG codes.
Although not expected on the Project site, due to absence of preferred nesting habitat, the tricolored blackbird would need to be considered under CESA due to its current status as endangered. According to the General Habitat Assessment (see Appendix C1), tricolored blackbird habitat in the nesting season was found in the “vicinity of fresh water, especially marshy areas. The most favored sites for colonies are heavy growths of cattails and tulles, but even when these are available, other vegetation may be resorted to for nesting: sedges, nettles, willows, thistles, mustard, blackberry, wild rose, foxtail grass, barley, etc.” Tricolored blackbird breeding habitat requirements are summarized as a nesting substrate that is relatively impenetrable or is flooded, is adjacent to water, and is within a few kilometers of foraging areas such as rangeland, alfalfa or cut hay, or irrigated pasture, with adequate insect prey. The tricolored blackbird’s preferred winter roosting sites included “cattail and bulrush marshes near suitable foraging areas in pasturelands, recently cultivated croplands, and livestock feedstores” (in Report to the Fish and Game Commission, Evaluation of the Petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to List Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), CDFW March 2015. Tricolored blackbird colony sites require nesting 357
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-17 4.3 | Biological Resources
substrates offering protection from predation. These include emergent marsh vegetation (cattails, Typha latifolia, less frequently T. angstifolia), bulrushes (Schoenoplectus californicus, S. acutus) and Himalayan blackberries (Rubus discolor) thickets, thistle, and nettles. Tricolored blackbirds do not settle in grain, hay, silage, or cut-feed fields before grain forms seed awns, or spiny or prickly weeds develop in them. It is assumed that grain fields are identified as spiny vegetation by tricolors”. Based on the General Habitat Assessment, absence of breeding habitat, and that no known colony sites are present in the Project site vicinity, no significant impacts are expected either to potential breeding or foraging habitat under CESA or CEQA.
Furthermore, no special-status bat species are expected to occur on-site due to absence of preferred habitat. Because many North American bat species tend to congregate at preferred roosting sites or at isolated water sources, several field methods are available to identify species and broad habitat associations (e.g., tree cavities, exfoliating bark, bark fissures, crevices, cliff faces, and/or dense foliage).
Acoustic surveys convert the ultrasonic echolocation signals of bats into audible electronic signals, which can be recorded and processed to assist in identification of the species. If construction activities (e.g., tree removal) are proposed during the breeding season, acoustic bat surveys will be conducted prior to development to determine current roosting status and species present. The breeding season of native bat species in California is generally from April 1 through August 31. CDFW shall be notified of any active maternity roosts within the construction zone. If non-maternity day roosts or hibernacula are found in trees scheduled to be removed, in crevices or man-made structures within the grading footprint, the individuals will be safely evicted following approved CDFW guidelines developed specifically for the species and location. No special-status bat species are expected to occur on the Project site due to absence of preferred habitat. Results of pre-construction bats surveys would determine specific measures if applicable.
Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3 will require that nesting bird and roosting bat surveys be conducted and acoustic surveys prior to construction start to reduce impacts to nesting birds and roosting sites for bats to less than significant levels.
Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. No direct observations or BUOW sign (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) were recorded during the 2020 focused surveys or habitat-based surveys.
However, several California ground squirrel burrows potentially suitable to accommodate BUOW were recorded on-site. None of the potential burrows inspected during the surveys were determined to be currently occupied or recently used by BUOW based on the lack of owl observations and absence of sign around burrow entrances. Despite that fact that the site has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, the BUOW (Low-Moderate occurrence potential) often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. While this species is not protected by state or federal endangered species acts, Burrowing Owls (and other native avian species) are protected under the MBTA and CDFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibits take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs (in particular raptor species such as BUOW). If it were later determined that active nests of BUOW (or other native species) would be lost as a result of Project site-preparation, it could result in significant adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. Specific BUOW survey and mitigation guidelines were 358
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-18 4.3 | Biological Resources
developed and described in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation in order to reduce project-related impacts to Burrowing Owls(MM BIO-4). If Project site-preparation activities occur within potential BUOW habitat, a pre-construction BUOW/Initial Take Avoidance Survey conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Staff Report is required by CDFG to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA and/or CDFG codes are present in the construction zone for CEQA compliance and to subsequently evaluate appropriate measures that may reduce potential adverse project-related impacts. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-4would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Impact 4.3-2 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [Threshold B-2]
Impact 4.3-3 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [Threshold B-3] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Since riparian habitats and protected wetlands have similar features and are often addressed in the same State or federal regulations, these two impacts will be analyzed together in the following discussion.
Special-Status Habitats
Special-status habitat types are vegetation communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife. Although sensitive habitats are not necessarily afforded legal protection unless they support protected species, potential impacts to them may increase concerns and mitigation suggestions by resources agencies.
Sensitive habitat types known from the site vicinity (mostly associated with Prado Dam and the Santa Ana River) include Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, Southern Interior Cypress Forest, Southern Riparian Forest, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, and Southern Willow Scrub. None of these native or special-status habitats were recorded on-site.
Sensitive Habitats in the Project Vicinity
The Project site is surrounded by agriculture and development. The nearest knownhabitats (as mentioned above) that would support sensitive biological resources would be the Santa Ana River and Prado Dam areas located approximately 3.0 miles south of the Project site. The species associated with these sensitive biological resource areas would not be expected to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat.
Jurisdictional Resources
Based on the field investigation conducted by Ecological Sciences, USACE “waters of the United States” per Sections 401 and 404 of the federal CWAand “streambeds” per Section 1600-1603 of the CDFW Code were not observed on the property.
359
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-19 4.3 | Biological Resources
The on-site detention basins on the southern border of the Project site were listed in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory as freshwater ponds. However, these basins would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered freshwater ponds. The artificial basins are not connected to a natural stream, nor do they divert natural flow from any river, stream or lake. Since the source of the water for these artificial features are not part of a natural stream, river, or lake, the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake…”. Therefore, the stock ponds/basins on the Project site are not a “natural flow” of a stream, river, or lake, and would not be considered jurisdictional by CDFW. Further, the artificial basins are not adjacent to and are not considered Waters of the United States. The stock ponds/basins are isolated features that are not tributary to, nor do they have a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States.
Therefore, the artificial basins on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the CWA. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.
Impact 4.3-4 Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [Threshold B-4] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project site is surrounded by various forms of existing development, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Project site occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement. As such, Project implementation would not be expected to have any substantial effect on local or regional wildlife movement. The Project site is currently developed with manmade structures and is surrounded by development and/or existing agricultural uses. The Project site is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Damn Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, the Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor.
Furthermore, as stated above, no BUOW or nesting birds were incidentally observed during surveys conducted on the Project site, however there is still potential for these species to occur on-site. In order to avoid direct impacts, the Project would implement MM BIO-1, which would require that vegetation removal be conducted outside of the nesting season for migratory birds to avoid direct impacts and that, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be performed within three days prior to vegetation removal.
Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County. This area consists of a variety of land uses that includes agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The agricultural areas may include sensitive habitats which may contain special-status plants, 360
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-20 4.3 | Biological Resources
migratory bird species, and jurisdictional resources. However, as discussed above the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the identified species to less than significant levels.
Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, and impacts would be less than cumulatively significant.
Project development would not involve the removal of critical habitat and is not expected to make a considerable contribution to the decline of wildlife species. The Project would remove potential raptor foraging habitat through development of the warehousing and business park structures. Although the existing agriculture may provide foraging habitat for raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained to minimize use by small mammals (prey for raptors) and active ground squirrel management programs are continually implemented. This loss of potential raptor foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors.
Mitigation has been incorporated into the Project that would avoid direct impacts to any potentially sensitive wildlife species that may occur on-site. Therefore, the mitigation measures for the proposed Project would mitigate the potential of the Project to cumulatively combine with other projects; and the Specific Plan would not contribute to the cumulative loss of any special status wildlife species.
According to the several field surveys, none of the potential burrows identified on the Project site were determined to be currently occupied by BUOW. MM BIO-4 would be implemented to further reduce potential BUOW impacts to less than significant levels.
The types of birds potentially affected are common to the region and the number of individuals would be limited given the type of vegetation proposed for removal (agriculture, ornamental plantings). Based on the types of species and expected limited number of nesting pairs potentially affected, development of the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of native nesting bird populations. However, because native birds are protected by MBTA, mortality to a single native bird due to the Project would be in violation of the MBTA, CESA or FESA CESA. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to nesting birds would be less than cumulatively significant.
The General Habitat Assessment also indicated that the Project would not impact CDFW jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of jurisdictional waters.
4.3.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, these impacts would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.3-1: Development of the proposed Project could impact sensitive wildlife species and nesting birds.
• Impact 4.3-4: The proposed Project may impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 361
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-21 4.3 | Biological Resources
4.3.9 Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.3-1
MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the MBTA to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario that either of the following has been accomplished:
▪ Conduct grading activities and vegetation removal outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds, including raptors. ▪ If vegetation removal will occur during the bird nesting season, between February 1 and August 31, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are found, they shall be flagged and the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nest (generally a minimum of 200 feet up to 500 feet for raptors and a minimum of 50 feet up to 300 feet for passerine species, with specific buffer widths to be determined by a qualified biologist). The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
MM BIO-2 The Project Applicant shall conduct surveys for tricolored blackbird across all suitable breeding and foraging habitat with the Project site. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, the Project Proponent shall avoid all occupied habitat on-site. If on-site avoidance is infeasible, the Project Proponent shall apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and shall mitigate for the loss of all habitat through the acquisition, conservation, and management of inkind habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio, or as approved by the final ITP. Habitat shall be conserved in perpetuity via conveyance of a conservation easement to a CDFWapproved conservation entity and a management fund (endowment) shall be established by the Project Proponent consisting of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, fencing and signage replacement and repair, law enforcement measures, long-term management reporting, and other actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity.
A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted to determine the management needs and costs described above, which then will be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the fund. Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except maintenance of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials. 362
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-22 4.3 | Biological Resources
MM BIO-3 Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal to determine whether the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species. This survey work will occur between late-spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).
If the results of the bat survey finds a total of a single roosting individual of a specialstatus bat species or 25 or more individuals of non-special-status bat species with potential to be present in the study area (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, pallid bat, western red bat, and western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devices/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).
MM BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit for any ground disturbing activity, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for BUOW across all suitable breeding, wintering, and foraging habitat with the Project site, within 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. If burrowing owls are identified, the Project Proponent shall either avoid all impacts on-site or conserve non-impacted occupied habitat onsite and/or conserve occupied burrowing owl habitat off-site at a minimum total 2:1 ratio of conserved to impacted habitat. Coordination with the CDFW shall occur to mitigate for the loss of habitat through the acquisition, conservation, and management of in-kind habitat. Lands conserved shall include 1) sufficiently large acreage with fossorial mammals present; 2) permanent protection through a conservation easement for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use; 3) development and implementation of a mitigation land management plan to address long-term ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls; and 4) funding for the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.
Impact 4.3-4
MM BIO-1 applies.
4.3.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels for all impacts. Therefore, upon buildout of the Project, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
363
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.3-23 4.3 | Biological Resources
4.3.11 References
City of Ontario. (1992) City of Ontario Policy Plan. Accessed December 30, 2020. Available at https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.
City of Ontario. (2020). City of Ontario Municipal Code. Accessed December 30, 2020. Available at:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-35678.
Code of Federal Regulations for MBTA. Retrieved from: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=b85587342ebe4f607983dfb6d1e07461&mc=true&node=se50.1.10_113&rgn=div8 EPA. (2019). Exemptions to Permit Requirements under CWA Section 404. Accessed December 29, 2020.
Available at https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/exemptions-permit-requirements-under-cwasection-404.
General Habitat Assessment for Ontario Ranch Business Park, Ecological Sciences, Inc., March 2021; Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys, Ecological Sciences, Inc., December 27, 2020 Permit Program under CWA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/permit-program-undercwa-section404#:~:text=Section%20404%20of%20the%20Clean%20Water%20Act%20(CWA)%20establishes %20a,the%20United%20States%2C%20including%20wetlands.&text=Proposed%20activities%20 are%20regulated%20through,required%20for%20potentially%20significant%20impacts. 364
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-1 4.4 | Cultural Resources
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the potential impacts of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) on the surrounding cultural resources on a regional and local level, within the City of Ontario (City). Cultural resources comprise paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals. Archaeology is the branch of paleontology that studies human artifacts, such as places, objects, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, cultural, or everyday activities. Historical resources include sites, structures, objects, or places that are at least 50 years old and are significant for their engineering, architecture, cultural use or association, etc. In California, historic resources cover human activities over the past 12,000 years. Cultural resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. Refer to Section 4.4.4, Project Impacts and Mitigation, for legal definitions and significance thresholds associated with archaeological and historical resources. Paleontological resources are analyzed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources are analyzed in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR. The evaluation of the Project site and the potential impacts on cultural resources is largely based on the following sources:
• City of Ontario Policy Plan Update EIR
• Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, Material Culture Consulting (MCC), May 2020 (Appendix D).
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site islocated east of the unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, and west of Campus Avenue, in the City, San Bernardino County (County), California. This Project is an extension to the Ontario Business Ranch Park Specific Plan (Approved SP), comprising of approximately 71.69 acres, which would replace the existing agriculture and dairy fields on the east side of Sultana Avenue. The Project site consists of eight parcels, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 1054-041-01, -02; 1054-03-01, -02; 1054-261-01, -02; and 1054-291-01, -02. 1 To the
north is a mixture of dairy/agricultural and service commercial properties, east is agricultural and vacant land, west is the Approved SP, and the Chino Airport is located to the south. The City lies within the broad alluvial fan originating from the southern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains, and dips gradually southward to the confluence of San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel/Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River at the Prado Dam Flood Control Basin in Riverside County. The Santa Ana River flows to the south of the City and Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek traverse north to south through the City. The Project site is generally flat, with an elevation averaging approximately 197 meters (646 feet) above mean sea level (AMSL). The entire Project site and immediate vicinity have been disturbed by the development and over 1 Public San Bernardino County Parcel Viewer. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=87e70bb9b6994559ba7512792588d57a. 365
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-2 4.4 | Cultural Resources
80 years of use by dairy farms. Vegetation is characterized as primarily agricultural and commercial landscaping with no native vegetation observed.
Cultural Setting
Prehistory
Most researchers agree that the earliest occupation for the City area dates to the early Holocene (11,000 to 8,000 years ago). The following discussion of the cultural history of the County references the San Dieguito Complex, the Milling Stone Horizon, the Encinitas Tradition, the La Jolla Complex, the Pauma Complex, and the San Luis Rey Complex, since these culture sequences have been used to describe archaeological manifestations in the region. The Late Prehistoric component in the area of San Bernardino County was represented by the Cahuilla, Gabrieliño, and Luiseño Indians.2 Absolute chronological information, where possible, will be incorporated into this discussion to examine the effectiveness of continuing to use these terms interchangeably.
Paleo Indian Period
The Paleo Indian Period is associated with the terminus of the late Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 years before present). The environment during the late Pleistocene was cool and moist, which allowed for glaciation in the mountains and the formation of deep, pluvial lakes in the deserts and basin lands.
However, by the terminus of the late Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, which caused glaciers to melt, sea levels to rise, greater coastal erosion, large lakes to recede and evaporate, extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and major vegetation changes.3 Paleo Indians were likely attracted to multiple habitat types, including mountains, marshlands, estuaries, and lakeshores. These people likely subsisted using a more generalized hunting, gathering, and collecting adaptation, utilizing a variety of resources including birds, mollusks, and both large and small mammals. The earliest sites known in the area are attributed to the San Dieguito culture, which consists of a hunting culture with flaked stone tool industry.
The material culture related to this time included scrapers, hammer stones, large-flaked cores, drills, and choppers, which were used to process food and raw material.
Milling Stone Period
Around 8,000 years ago, subsistence patterns changed, resulting in a material complex consisting of an abundance of milling stones (for grinding food items) with a decrease in the number of chipped stone tools. The material culture from this time period includes large, bifacially worked dart points and grinding stones, handstones and metates. Archaeologists initially designated this period as the “Millingstone Horizon.” Later, the Millingstone Horizon was redefined as a cultural tradition named the Encinitas Tradition with various regional expressions including Topanga and La Jolla. Use by archaeologists varied as some adopted a generalized Encinitas Tradition without regional variations, while others continued to use Millingstone Horizon, and still others used Middle Holocene (the geologic time period) to indicate this observed pattern. Recently, this generalized terminology was suppressing the identification of cultural, spatial, and temporal variation, as well as the movement of peoples throughout space and time. It is these 2 Material Culture Consulting. Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Page 12.
3 Ibid.
366
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-3 4.4 | Cultural Resources
factors that are believed to be critical to an understanding of prehistoric cultural adaptation and change in this portion of southern California.
The Encinitas Tradition characteristics include abundant metates and manos, crudely-made core and flake tools, bone tools, shell ornaments, very few projectile points, indicating a subsistence pattern focused on hunting and gathering a variety of floral resources. Faunal remains vary by location but include marine mammals, fish, and shellfish, as well as terrestrial animals, reptiles, and birds. The Encinitas Tradition has been redefined to have four patterns. These include the Topanga Pattern in coastal Los Angeles and Orange counties, the La Jolla Pattern in coastal San Diego County, and the Sayles or Pauma cultures in inland San Diego County extending into western San Bernardino County, where the Project is located. At approximately 3,500 years ago, Pauma groups in the general Project vicinity adopted new cultural traits which transformed the archaeological site characteristics - including mortar and pestle technology. This indicated the development of food storage, largely acorns, which could be processed and saved for the leaner, cooler months of the year.
Late Prehistoric Period
At approximately 1,500 years before present, bow and arrow technology started to emerge in the archaeological record, which also indicates new settlement patterns and subsistence systems. The local population retained the subsistence methods of the past but incorporated new materials into their dayto-day existence, as evidenced by the archaeological record. The Palomar Tradition is attributed to this time and is comprised of two larger patterns: The Peninsular Pattern in the inland areas of the northern Peninsular Ranges (e.g., San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains) and the northern Coachella and San Luis Rey pattern of the Project site. Archaeological sites from this time period are characterized by soapstone bowls, arrowhead projectile points, pottery vessels, rock paintings, and evidence of cremation sites. The shift in material culture assemblages is largely attributed to the emergence of Shoshonean (Takicspeaking) people who entered California from the east.
Historical Setting
The “Sacred Expedition” of 1769, led by Spaniard Gaspar de Portola and Franciscan Fray (or Father) Junipero Serra, started the process of colonization in Alta California, which was meant to begin the permanent settlement of Alta California, beginning in San Diego. Once the first European exploration of California occurred, the region underwent immense change. As early as 1827, Anglo-Americans were migrating into southern California. In the decades to come, California would be taken by the United States with the close of the Mexican-American War and subsequent events such as the Civil War and California Gold Rush would continue to shape the history of California.
Spanish Period (1769 to 1821) to Mexican Period (1821 to 1848) The Spanish period began in 1769 with Captain Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition and ended in 1821 with Mexican Independence. During the Spanish Period, the establishment of the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (1771) was influential throughout the surrounding regions, using the area for cattle grazing. An asistencia was established within the area nearby in Redlands in 1819 and helped facilitate the Mission’s control of the surrounding area. However, after control of the area shifted to Mexico, secularization began 367
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-4 4.4 | Cultural Resources
throughout the area and the missions and their associated ranches began to decline. The Mexican government proceeded to push settlements of Mexican populations from the south by deeding large grants to individuals who promised to employ settlers. One such land grant was the Rancho Santa Ana del Chino.
In 1841, Antonio Maria Lugo was granted the rights to what became Rancho Santa Ana del Chino. After building an adobe house (now currently the location of Boy’s Republic in Chino Hills), Lugo turned over the management of the ranch to his son-in-law, Isaac Williams. For decades, Williams successfully grazed cattle on the 46,000-acre rancho. Notably, Williams played a significant part of the Battle of Chino, a local skirmish during the Mexican-American War. On September 26 and 27, 1846, the Mexican army sent an advancing contingency to intercept 24 American sympathizers, led by Benjamin D. Wilson, on their way to Los Angeles. The adobe house at Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, where the sympathizers had been hiding, was set ablaze as a result of multiple attacks. The American group surrendered and, instead of execution, the group was taken to Los Angeles where they remained prisoners of war until they were eventually released.
American Period (1848 to present)
The Gold Rush of 1849 would see tremendous influx of Americans and Europeans flooding into southern California. Rancho Santa Ana del Chino became a popular stopover for travelers of the rush. The passing of the Homestead Act of 1862 continued this increase of settlers within the region; George and William Chaffey were among these early pioneers. In 1881, the Chaffey brothers believed that if the land was properly irrigated, it could be converted to profitable agriculturalproperty. They bought over 6,000 acres of land in 1882 that was arid and covered by patches of scrub brush. The Chaffey brothers designed a water system that connected miles of cement pipe from an underground water source to each parcel of land. This land would eventually become the cities of Ontario and Upland. George and William Chaffey derived the name of the City from their native province of Ontario in Canada. The City was incorporated in 1891, becoming one of the earliest established towns in the County. By 1903, the City was referred to as a “Model Irrigation Colony” after receiving an award at the World Fair as a “Model Colony” for innovation in water rights and technology, which assisted in attracting settlers to the City. Charles Frankish, an early citizen of the City, guided and encouraged early development in the City by successfully attracting the Southern Pacific Railway to locate a depot in the center of town on Euclid Avenue, making it an important feature of the City. The establishment of the Southern Pacific Railroad depot transformed the City into an agricultural center. The City focused primarily on the citrus industry, but also grew walnuts, peaches, and grapes. There was a large gentry class of citrus growers who constructed many grand ornamental Victorian houses throughout the City.
Dairies began to be established in the region, known as Chino Valley, during the late 1890s and continued to dominate the area throughout the 20th century. During the 1920s and 1930s, middle European dairymen began settling in the area. In 1967, the San Bernardino County designated 14,000 acres of land in Chino Valley as an agricultural preserve protected by the Williamson Act and the Land Conservation Act. By the 1980s, the area had more cows per acre and higher milk yields than anywhere else in the world. By the 1990s, increased demand for housing and high dairy operation costs pressured farmers in the San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve to consider relocating their dairies and annexing their land to 368
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-5 4.4 | Cultural Resources
adjoining cities. Anticipating the expiration of the Williamson Act, the area was divided, and portions were incorporated into the cities of Ontario, Chino, and Chino Hills. The City annexed 8,200 acres of the former San Bernardino Agriculture Preserve in 1999 and called the area the New Model Colony. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) required the City to prepare a General Plan Amendment and EIR prior to annexation. In 1996, the City began planning for annexation and adopted the New Model Colony General Plan Amendment and EIR in 1998.
Historical Resources
According to the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, the Project site has been consistency used for agricultural and dairy activities since the 1930s. Per information from the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, the existing dairy operation was established in 1976 on 76.66 acres of land. The dairy operation included two, single-family residences, and associated pens and structures for holding livestock.
Refer to Appendix D, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, for a description of the dairy operation and associated structures, as well as an aerial photograph from 1966 depicting that there were not any built-environment resources located within the Project site parcels. These structures have met the aspects of physical integrity and character-defining features to be identified as a Large Capacity Dairy, but do not appear to have played a significant role in the history of dairy farming, or appear to be an important example of a large-scale, concentrated animal dairy operation in the City, or the Chino Valley area. Figure 3-3, Aerial Photograph, provides an aerial view of the Project site and surrounding areas. In assessing the historical significance of the Project site, federal, State, and local significance criteria were applied. The Project site is not currently listed in either the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a City of Ontario Historic Landmark.
Federal and State Criteria
Pursuant to the NRHP and/or CRHR criterion relating to the Project site’s association with significant historical events that exemplify broad patterns of our history, the Project site does not qualify as a significant resource under Criteria A/1. While the history of the Project site with the development of the dairy industry in Chino Valley-Ontario is important, the property was not specifically identified in research as the site of an event important to the history of large-scale dairy farming in California, or the United States. There is no evidence that the Project site is eligible for listing under NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1. Pursuant to NRHP and CRHR criteria relating to the Project site’s association with the lives of persons significant in our past, the property does not qualify as a significant resource under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR Criterion 2. This criterion is used to determine if a person important to the history dairy farming in the United States and/or California is directly associated with the Project site. Research has not revealed that there were important persons associated with the property before 1975 (45 years ago). The property does not appear to have become part of the extended Borba Family holdings until 1988.
Pursuant to the NRHP and CRHR criteria relating to the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, the Project site does not appear to be eligible for listing as a significant Large Capacity Dairy under NRHP Criterion C or CRHR Criterion 3. The property is an example of a Large Capacity Dairy constructed in Ontario in 1976. The design of a Large Capacity Dairy had been developed over 50 years of both technical improvements in milking machinery and the handling of dairy cows. The Large 369
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-6 4.4 | Cultural Resources
Capacity Dairies were simply an expansion of the dairy operations built soon after World War II, which brought together the improved hygienics of milking operations with the use of mechanical milking parlors.
Large-scale dairy farms had been established, constructed, and operated in southern California and the Chino Valley Dairy region since the early 1950s. The Millers built an operation in 1976 whose success was ensured by following the example of the layout and management of other regional farms and industry guidelines. The Project’s dairy operation was not found to be a pioneer of large-scale dairy management and does not present any significant contributions to the history of Large Capacity Dairies as the property was constructed in the New Model Colony Area between 1950 and 1969. Therefore, the dairy operation is not eligible for listing as a significant property under Criterion C/3.
The East and West Houses located on the Project site were constructed in 1976 and have not met the sufficient age (50 years) to be evaluated as historic resources for listing in the NRHP and/ or CRHR. In addition, the East and West Houses do not meet Criterion G of the NRHR as buildings of exceptional importance that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. Under Criterion A/1, the East and West Houses have not been found to have been associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of dairy farm ranch houses, or to the cultural history of dairy farming, in Chino Valley-Ontario, California, or the United States. Under Criterion B/2, the East and West Houses have not been found to have been directly, or remotely, associated with persons important to the dairy farm industry in Ontario, California, or the United States prior to 1988. Lastly, under Criterion C/3, the East and West Houses have not been found to present sufficient character defining features of “1960s through 1980s” Ranch style houses of high artistic values, or designs that contribute to the national or regional discussion regarding Ranch style houses constructed in 1976.
City of Ontario Criteria
The Project site was constructed in 1976, which is outside of the time parameters of “Post 1950 to 1969” timeframe to be considered under the criterion for a “Scientific, Large Capacity Dairy” farm as presented in the City of Ontario’s Historic Context for the New Model Colony Area. While the Project site possesses the physical attributes of a large-scale dairy operation, it does not meet the age criterion to be considered a contributor to the history of dairy farming in the City.
Prior to 1950, the dairy farms in the Chino Valley area were primarily owned and operated by a single family, with some hired hands to supplement the family’s involvement. Even with the advent of modern milking equipment and improved feeding and animal husbandry, the dairy farms continued to resemble those of the early 20th century, with the cows able to graze in pastures and the farms making a visual connection to the early days of settlement in the City and the Chino Valley.
After World War II, the pressure from urban development, high price of land, and loss of interest by the younger generations of dairy farmers, forced dairy farmers in the New Model Colony Area to adapt to the modern livestock business plan of operating, what is called in common terminology, a factory farm. The dairy operation on the Project site can accommodate approximately 1,500 head of cattle on the property, with approximately 1,000 head being milked on a daily basis due to the improvement of technology. A factory farm is considered:
370
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.4-7 4.4 | Cultural Resources
An operation is defined as an animal feeding operation (AFO), or AFO, if the facility confines, stables, or feeds animals for 45 days or more in a 12-month period, and a ground cover of vegetation is not sustained over at least 50 percent of the confinement area. An operation is defined as a concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO, if it meets the definition of an AFO and also confines more than 1,000 animal units (1,000 animal units is equal to 700 dairy cows).
4 As noted above, the East and West Houses have not achieved sufficient age to be evaluated for historical significance as Ranch style dwellings in the New Model Colony Area, or the City. Nonetheless, under criteria established by the City, the East and West Houses do not possess the level, and number, of character-defining features that are necessary for the buildings to be considered good examples of “1960s through 1980s” Ranch style house as defined under the New Model Colony Area Historic Context. The East and West Houses do not possess asbestos/composition roof shingles; aluminum-framed windows set to present a strong horizontal alignment; lack of a low-pitch gable or cross-gable roof system; large, singlelight picture windows; plain metal-or wood-post porch supports; concrete slab front porch situated under a long, narrow shed roof along the front façade; use of decorative stone and masonry; arch patterns along the walkways; wide surrounds around the main and entry windows; stylized double doors with ornate panels and ornamental oversized hardware.
Criterion A. It Exemplifies or Reflects Special Elements of the City’s History.
Using the City’s criteria for historic landmarks, the Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the dairy operation on the Project site has not been found to exemplify or reflect special elements of the City’s history. The “Post 1950 [to 1969], Scientific, Large Capacity Dairies” were identified in the “New Model Colony Historic Context” not for their contribution to the post World War II development of the City, but rather that the advancements of dairy management and technology allowed for farmers to milk a greater number of cows in a 24-hour period. The buildings and structures on the Project site were constructed in 1976, outside the period of significance for “Scientific, Large Capacity Dairies” in the New Model Colony Area.
The Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment concluded that the East and West Houses on the Project site do not exemplify or reflect special elements of the City or New Model Colony’s history.
Criterion B. It is Identified with Persons or Events Significant in Local, State, or National History.