Table 4.11-12, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, lists vibration levels at 25 feet for typical construction equipment. Vibration levels at 82 feet, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors from the Project site boundary during construction activities are also included in Table 4.11-12.
Groundborne vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. As indicated in Table 4.11-12, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction range from 0.003 to 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.
Table 4.11-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Project Construction
Peak Particle Velocity
at 82 Feet (in/sec)1
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.0150
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.0150
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.0128
Rock Breaker 0.059 0.0099
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0059
Small Bulldozer/Tractors 0.003 0.0005
559
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-22 4.11 | Noise
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity
at 25 Feet (in/sec)
Project Construction
Peak Particle Velocity
at 82 Feet (in/sec)1
1 Calculated using the following formula: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 , where: PPVequip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018; D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project construction site is approximately 82 feet to the north of the Project site boundary. As shown in Table 4.11-12, at 82 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed 0.0150 in/sec PPV, which is below the FTA’s 0.20 in/sec PPV threshold for building damage and below the 0.10 in/sec PPV annoyance threshold. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the Project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project construction would be less than significant.
Operational Vibration
The proposed Project would include truck movement activity at the proposed Project site. These movements would generally be low-speed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. For perspective, Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltransfurther notesthatthe highest traffic-generatedvibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 in/sec, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).”
7 In addition, sensitive receptors located along the Project truck route identified in the Traffic Analysis are a minimum of 50 feet (15 meters) from the centerline of the nearest lane. Since the Project’s truck movements would not be at freeway speeds and the trucks would be a minimum of 50 feet from a sensitive receptor, Project-related vibration associated with truck activity would not result in excessive groundborne vibrations; thus, novehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project operation would be 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] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact 7 California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”). 560
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-23 4.11 | Noise
Chino Airport
The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport. The Chino General Plan’s Noise Element has noise contours for the Chino Airport. The noise contours show the Project site outside the 55 dBA CNEL contour, therefore people working at the Project site would not be exposed to excessive airport related noise. Impacts would be less than significant.
Ontario International Airport
The Project is approximately five miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport. The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Map 2-3, Noise Impact Zones, shows airport noise contours.8 The map shows that the Project site is outside the 60-65 dB CNEL contour. People working at the Project site would not be exposed to excessive airport related noise. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts
Construction Noise
Project-related construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. Construction noise impacts would be periodic and temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. The Project would contribute to other proximate construction Project noise impacts if construction activities were conducted concurrently. However, based on the noise analysis above, the Project’s construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
Construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise. Activities would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable MC, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Because noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the Project site and immediate vicinity. Therefore, Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
Cumulative noise impacts describe how much noise levels are projected to increase over existing conditions with the development of the proposed Project and other foreseeable projects. Cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Future Without Project scenarios to the Future Plus Project scenario 8 The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Map 2-3, Noise Impact Zones. (2011). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-3.pdf. 561
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-24 4.11 | Noise
identified in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I). The Ontario Ranch Business Park Traffic Analysis (Appendix I) considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects.
A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria is used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with Project noise level (“Cumulative With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use. Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project.
• Incremental Effects. The “Cumulative With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Cumulative Without Project” noise level.
A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon and attenuates as the distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Table 4.11-13, Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels, identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Cumulative Without Project,” and “Cumulative With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts.
Table 4.11-13: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Existing
dBA
CNEL1
Future
Without
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Future
With
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In
dBA Between
Existing and
Future With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Future
Without
Project and
Future With
Project
Euclid Avenue
between Walnut Ave and SR 60 73.9 76.4 76.6 2.7 0.2 No
between Riverside Dr and Walnut Ave 74.2 76.6 76.8 2.6 0.2 No between Chino Ave and Riverside Dr 73.3 75.8 76.0 2.7 0.2 No between Schaefer Ave and Chino Ave 74.5 76.9 77.1 2.6 0.2 No between Edison Ave and Schaefer Ave 74.8 77.2 77.4 2.6 0.2 No between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 74.9 77.1 77.2 2.3 0.1 No between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 74.9 77.1 77.3 2.4 0.2 No 562
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-25 4.11 | Noise
Roadway Segment
Existing
dBA
CNEL1
Future
Without
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Future
With
Project
dBA
CNEL1
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Cumulatively
Significant
Impact?
Difference In
dBA Between
Existing and
Future With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Future
Without
Project and
Future With
Project
Bon View Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 57.0 59.7 59.8 2.8 0.1 No Grove Avenue
between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 63.2 67.1 67.1 3.9 0.0 No Walker Avenue
between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 55.4 63.4 63.4 8.0 0.0 No Archibald Avenue
between Limonite Ave and Merrill Ave 74.4 75.7 75.7 1.3 0.0 No between Merrill Ave and Eucalyptus Ave 74.2 76.3 76.4 2.2 0.1 No between Eucalyptus Ave and Edison Ave 73.7 76.0 76.1 2.4 0.1 No EucalyptusAvenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 61.9 63.0 63.0 1.1 .00 No between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 58.7 61.3 62.0 3.3 0.7 No between Grove Ave and Walker Ave 58.7 61.4 62.1 3.4 0.7 No Merrill Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Bon View Ave 68.7 72.2 72.7 4.0 0.5 No between Bon View Ave and Grove Ave 68.9 72.2 72.5 3.6 0.3 No between Grove Ave and Flight Ave 68.8 72.4 72.7 3.9 0.3 No between Flight Ave and Van Vliet Ave 68.9 72.4 72.7 3.8 0.3 No between Van Vliet Ave and Hellman Ave 68.9 72.7 73.0 4.1 0.3 No between Hellman Ave and Carpenter
Ave
69.3 72.8 73.1 3.8 0.3 No
between Carpenter Ave and Archibald
Ave
68.8 72.5 72.7 3.9 0.2 No
Edison Avenue
between Euclid Ave and Walker Ave 71.3 75.1 75.2 3.9 0.1 No between Walker Ave and Archibald Ave 71.4 75.1 75.3 3.9 0.2 No between Archibald Ave and Turner Ave 71.9 75.2 75.3 3.4 0.1 No Ontario Ranch Road
between Turner Ave and Haven Ave 72.2 75.6 75.7 3.5 0.1 No between Haven Ave and Hamner Ave 73.8 75.8 75.9 2.1 0.1 No between Hamner Ave and I-15 72.2 74.6 74.8 2.6 0.2 No
ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL= Community Equivalent Noise Level
1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline.
Source: Based on traffic data provided by Urban Crossroads (2021). Refer to Appendix H for traffic noise modeling results. 563
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-26 4.11 | Noise
A significant cumulative traffic noise increase would be identified if a cumulative traffic noise increase of greater than the 3 dBA significance threshold of perceptibility is calculated, and the relative contribution from project traffic is calculated to contribute 1 dBA or more to this cumulative impact. As shown in Table 4.11-13, combined traffic noise increases greater than 3 dBA would occur along several roadway segments. However, no roadway segments would exceed the 1 dBA incremental increase threshold.
Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the Project would result in an incremental increase in nontransportation noise sources in the Project vicinity. However, as discussed above, operational noise caused by the Project would be less than significant. Additionally, due to Project site’s distance to sensitive receptors, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. Similar to the proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there would be a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact.
Given that noise attenuates as the distance from its source increases, operational noise impacts from onsite activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and the immediate vicinity.
Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant.
4.11.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, Impact 4.11-1 could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 would be less than significant.
4.11.9 Mitigation Measures
MM NOI-1 Heavy construction equipment will not remain stationary for more than fifteen minutes while operating within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor.
MM NOI-2 Stationary construction equipment will not be placed within 500 feet of a sensitive receptor and will be oriented away from receptors.
4.11.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would ensure that construction impacts remain less than significant.
564
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.11-27 4.11 | Noise
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements, implementation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would ensure the Project applicant and construction contractors are aware of potential construction noise impacts and have specified procedures to reduce impacts sensitive receptors.
4.11.11 References
California Department of Transportation. 2013, September. Technical Noise Supplement (“TeNS”).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, August. Construction Noise Handbook.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018, September. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2003, October. State of California General Plan Guidelines.
Ontario, City of. 2020. Municipal Code, Chapter 29 Noise – Section 5-29.04 Exterior Noise Standards.
Ontario, City of. 2010, January. The Ontario Plan Safety Element.
Ontario, City of. 2011. April. LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 565
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-1 4.12 | Population and Housing
4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the changes in population, employment generation, and demand for housing effects of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project). This section evaluates the Project’s relationship to regional housing and jobs policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the adopted The Ontario Plan (TOP) for the City of Ontario (City), with a particular emphasis on jobs-housing relationships in the City and San Bernardino County (County).
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is located on approximately 71.69 acres of land currently occupied by agricultural uses, including a dairy farm and row crops, and vacant land. Several residences that house the dairy owner and workers are also located within the Project area. With that, employment opportunities available on the Project site are those associated with agricultural operations. According to Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan of TOP1, the Project site is currently designated for Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) and Business Park (0.6 floor area ratio [FAR]) land uses.2 Population
Citywide and Countywide Population
As of January 2020, the City and County have a population of approximately 182,871 persons and 2,180,537 persons, respectively. Table 4.12-1, Population, Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County, exhibits the population growth trends in the City as well as in the County, collected by the Department of Finance (DOF). SCAG projects that by 2045, the horizon year of the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the population of the City and County would increase to 269,100 persons and 2,815,000 persons, respectively. 3 According to the data, population has steadily increased in both the City and the County from 2010 to 2020 with the largest percentage increase for the City being from 2018 to 2019, at 2.13 percent. The largest percentage increase for the County was from 2010 to 2011 at 1.01 percent. 1 City of Ontario. Rev. 2020. The Ontario Plan Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2020/12/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20201221.pdf. 2 This is the current land use designation in the City's TOP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed Project Specific Plan Amendment (SPA). As this Draft Subsequent EIR and Project are 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.
3 SCAG. 2020. 2020-2045 Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. 566
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-2 4.12 | Population and Housing
Table 4.12-1: Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County Year City of Ontario San Bernardino County
Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
2010 163,924 N/A 2,035,210 N/A
2011 165,563 1.00% 2,055,671 1.01%
2012 166,759 0.72% 2,071,326 0.76%
2013 168,255 0.90% 2,084,443 0.63%
2014 168,930 0.40% 2,094,951 0.50%
2015 170,267 0.79% 2,112,344 0.83%
2016 171,039 0.45% 2,123,677 0.54%
2017 174,607 2.09% 2,141,391 0.83%
2018 176,728 1.21% 2,152,845 0.53%
2019 180,494 2.13% 2,168,964 0.75%
2020 182,871 1.32% 2,180,537 0.53%
Source: DOF. 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-4/2010-20/.
Citywide and Countywide SCAG Projections
SCAG’s regional forecast population, housing, and employment projections for 2020 and 2045 for the City and the County are shown in Table 4.12-2, SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County.
According to SCAG, significant growth is anticipated tooccur within the City as well as the County between 2016 and 2045. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS forecasts that the City’s population will increase by 96,900 persons between 2016 and 2045, an approximately 56 percent increase. Households within the City are forecasted to increase by 28,500 from year 2016 to 2045, an approximately 62 percent increase.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS also forecasts that the number of jobs in the City will increase by 55,400 between 2016 and 2045, an approximately 49 percent increase.
Table 4.12-2: SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County 2016 2045 Projected Change
2016-2045
Percent Change
2016-2045
San Bernardino County Forecast
Population 2,141,000 2,815,000 674,000 31%
Housing 630,000 875,000 245,000 39%
Employment 791,000 1,064,000 273,000 35%
City of Ontario Forecast
Population 172,200 269,100 96,900 56%
Housing 46,000 74,500 28,500 62%
Employment 113,900 169,300 55,400 49%
Source: SCAG. 2020. RTP/SCS 2020-2045 – Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved from:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
Households
Citywide and Countywide Housing
As shown in Table 4.12-3, Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County, DOF estimates that there are currently approximately 51,283 housing units in the City. Characteristics of occupied and vacant housing units in the City and County, as reported by the DOF, are also shown in Table 4.12-3. 567
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-3 4.12 | Population and Housing
Table 4.12-3: Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County City of Ontario San Bernardino County
By Unit Type
Single-Family Detached 30,162 516,651
Single-Family Attached 3,114 25,181
Two to Four 5,103 46,375
Five Plus 10,740 94,511
Mobile Homes 2,164 43,962
Total 51,283 726,680
Average Household Size 3.69 3.31
Vacancy Rate 3.7% 11.1%
Source: DOF. 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ .
Employment
Citywide Employment
As shown in Table 4.12-4, Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2019), there were 124,060 jobs in the City from October 2018 to October 2019 as provided by the City‘s “Regional Intelligence Report.” The numbers of jobs in the City per industrial sector are shown in Table 4.12-4 with the most jobs at 15.9 percent occurring in the “Logistics/Utilities” sector.
Table 4.12-4: Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2019) Industrial Sector
Jobs in the City of Ontario
Jobs Percent (%) of Total Jobs
Logistics/Utilities 19,720 15.9
Admin Support 15,470 12.5
Manufacturing 14,420 11.6
Retail Trade 13,910 11.2
Wholesale Trade 13,100 10.6
Education/Health 12,030 9.7
Leisure and Hospitality 8,480 6.8
Prof, Sci, Tech & Mgmt. 5,960 4.8
Government 5,890 4.8
NR/Construction 5,480 4.4
Financial Activities 4,400 3.5
Other Svcs. 3,150 2.5
Information 2,050 1.7
Total 124,060 100%
Source: UC Riverside. 2019. City of Ontario Regional Intelligence Report. https://www.ontariothinksbusiness.com/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/City%20of%20Ontario%20RIR-Dec%202019.pdf.
Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing balance is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area—in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing—has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues.
The jobs-housing balance is one indicator of a project’s effect on growth and quality of life in the project 568
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-4 4.12 | Population and Housing
area. SCAG applies the jobs-housing balance at the regional and sub regional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG’s regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. SCAG defines the jobs-housing balance as follows:
Jobs and housing are in balance when an area has enough employment opportunities for most of the people who live there and enough housing opportunities for most of the people who work there. The region is, by definition, balanced… Job-rich subregions have balances greater than the regional average; housing-rich subregions have balances lower than the regional average.
Ideally, job-housing balance would… assure not only a numerical match of jobs and housing but also an economic match in type of jobs and housing.
Jobs-housing goals and balances are advisory only. No ideal jobs-housing balance is adopted in state, regional, or city policies. However, SCAG considers an area balanced when the jobs-housing balance is
1.36; communities with more than 1.36 jobs per dwelling unit are considered jobs-rich, while those with fewer than 1.36 are housing-rich. A job-housing imbalance can indicate potential air quality and traffic problems associated with commuting.
As shown in Table 4.12-5, Jobs-Housing Balance, the jobs-housing balance in the City is forecast to decrease between 2016 and 2045, from 2.47 to 2.27. The City is shown to have a disproportionate number of employment opportunities to housing. This suggests that many workers commute to the City. According to SCAG projections, the City is expected to remain jobs-rich. The size, location in the City, and noise and safety zones surrounding the City provide a physical barrier for the development of land uses such as housing, and therefore encourage placement of compatible land uses such as retail, office, industrial, warehousing, and airport service-related uses. Consequently, and as stated above, the City is inherently jobs-rich.
Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.12-5, the County is below the proposed balance of 1.36. It is expected to decrease from 2016 to 2045 to 1.22 which would still be considered housing-rich. Therefore, it is likely that residents within the subregion will supply most of the workforce, thereby reducing the influx of individuals migrating to southwest County and the City. Additional employment to the area is expected to create a better balance between housing and jobs within the County.
Table 4.12-5: Jobs-Housing Balance
Jurisdiction Year Employment Households Jobs-Housing Balance City of Ontario
2016 113,900 46,000 2.47
2045 169,300 74,500 2.27
San Bernardino County
2016 791,000 630,000 1.26
2045 1,064,000 875,000 1.22
Source: SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
State and regional laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the Project are summarized below.
569
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-5 4.12 | Population and Housing
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth (California Government Code Section 65300). This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the state level, the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) estimates the relative share of California’s projected population growth in each county based on California DOF population projections and historical growth trends. These figures are compiled by HCD in a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for each region of California. The RHNA is a tool used for SCAG and its member local governments in planning for growth. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction. Communities then plan, consider, and decide how they will address this need through the process of completing the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth but allows communities to prepare for growth in a way that enhances quality of life and mobility; improves access to jobs, transportation, and housing; and in a way that would not adversely impact the environment.
State law recognizes the vital role that local governments play in the supply and affordability of housing.
To that end, California Government Code requires that the housing element achieve legislative goals to:
• Identify adequate sites to facilitate and encourage the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for households of all economic levels, including persons with disabilities. • Remove, as legally feasible and appropriate, governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all incomes, including those with disabilities.
• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households.
• Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing. Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability. • Preserve for lower-income households the publicly assisted multifamily housing developments in each community.
California housing element laws (California Government Code §§ 65580–65589) require that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within its jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, and programs to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing for all economic segments of the community commensurate with local housing needs.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this 570
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-6 4.12 | Population and Housing
region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. It serves as a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG develops, refines and maintains SCAG's regional and small area socioeconomic forecasting/allocation models. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. The socioeconomic estimates and projections are used for federal and state-mandated long-range planning efforts such as the RTP/SCS, the Air Quality Management Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the RHNA.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair share housing needs.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which places a greater emphasis than ever on sustainability and integrated planning. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS vision encompasses a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the GHG emission reductions. This long-range plan, required by the state of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.
Local
Housing Element
The City of Ontario Housing Element’s purpose is to provide an adequate supply of quality and affordable housing that is fundamental to the economic and social well-being of the City. State law requires all communities to prepare a housing element every five years. The Housing Element is required to address the production, preservation, and improvement of housing in the community. Among its most important functions, the Housing Element analyzes existing and future housing needs; addresses constraints to meeting local housing needs; identifies land, financial, and administrative resources for housing; sets forth goals and policies to meet community housing needs; and establishes housing programs and an implementation plan.
571
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-7 4.12 | Population and Housing
Goal H2 Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario.
Policy H2-1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors.
4.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
P-1 Induce substantial 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).
P-2 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold P-2
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
4.12.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
There are no plans, policies, or programs applicable to the Project related to population and housing impacts.
4.12.5 Methodology
The Project’s demographics are examined in the context of existing and projected population for the County and the City and considers consistency with TOP and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Information on population, housing, and employment for the planning area is available from several sources including:
• U.S. Census. The official U.S. Census is described in Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. It calls for an actual enumeration ofthe people every 10 years, to be used for apportionment among the states of seats in the House of Representatives. The Census Bureau publishes population and household data gathered in the decennial census. This information provides a record of historical growth rates in the County.
• California Department of Finance. The DOF prepares and administers California’s annual budget.
Other duties include estimating population demographics and enrollment projections. DOF’s “Table E-5: City/County Population and Housing Estimates” reports on population and housing estimates for the State, counties, and cities.
• Southern California Association of Governments. Policies and programs adopted by SCAG to achieve regional objectives are expressed in its 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 572
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-8 4.12 | Population and Housing
The potential impacts of the Project were evaluated relative to the demographic condition, jobs-housing balance and socioeconomic profiles. The Project would be considered consistent with TOP and the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS if it is compatible with the general intent of such plans and would not preclude attainment of primary goals of such plans.
4.12.6 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 4.12-1 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] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant The Project would not introduce new population or housing to the Project site. Development would include business park and industrial uses; it would result in jobs for residents in the surrounding area.
Table 3-1, Maximum Specific Plan Buildout, provides the maximum allowable gross building area for each Planning Area based on its allowable FAR, resulting in a combined maximum building square footage of 1,640,690 square feet (sf) of business park and industrial uses.
Employment Growth
Construction
Project constructionwould generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction-related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. The unemployment rate is approximately 7.2 percent within the jurisdictions in the Project vicinity of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Area as of May 2021.
4 Because many of the employment opportunities
are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy, it is anticipated that an adequate number of persons are available to fill the employment positions without constructing new residential units.
Furthermore, the small percentage of skilled and managerial positions could either be filled by the local economy or by persons outside the local economy. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would result in less than significant growth inducement impacts in the Project vicinity.
Operations
The projected number of employees that would result from the implementation of the Project was calculated based on the land use projection assumptions in Appendix J of the TOP EIR.5 As shown in Table 4.12-6, Project Generated Employment, the Project site has the potential to generate 1,631 employees.
4 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (May 2021). Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas. https://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm.
Accessed July 21, 2021.
5 City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf. 573
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-9 4.12 | Population and Housing
Table 4.12-6: Project Generated Employment
Building Warehouse Space Total Building (sf) Employees/1,000 sf Total Employees Business Park Non-Office (50%) 113,975.5 0.650 74.08
Office (50%) 113,975.5 2.860 325.97
Industrial
Non-Office (90%) 1,271,465.1 0.650 826.45
Office (10%) 141,273.9 2.860 404.04
Total – 1,640,690 – 1,631
Source: City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf.
It should be noted that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (see Appendix I2) conducted by Urban Crossroads also projected a total of 1,630 employees which was used to determine the service population for purposes of calculating VMT per service population.
The forecast increase in Project employment is within SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City of 55,400 and the forecast employment increase for the County of 273,000 by 2045 (see Table 4.12-2, SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County). Additionally, the Logistics/Utilities sector constitutes 15.9 percent of the jobs in the City, highest among job sectors (see Table 4.12-4). The implementation of the Project would contribute to job growth in this already prosperous industrial sector.
Project-related employment growth impacts are not anticipated to be significant.
Population Growth
Implementation of the Project would increase jobs in the City, which would have the potential to increase the demand for housing in the area. As stated, the proposed increase of up to 1,640,690 sf of business park and industrial uses has the potential to result in 1,631 jobs. The San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) region is housing-rich. The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing-balance for the County. Because the region is housing-rich, it is expected that jobs at the Project site would be drawn from the local and regional labor force.
However, even if the Project increase in employees added equivalent population to the Project site, growth of 1,631 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the SBCOG region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.12-2). Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial population growth, and impacts would be less than significant.
Jobs-Housing Balance
As stated, the SBCOG region is considered housing-rich. According to the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, “the region will add 3,672,000 people, 1,621,000 households and 1,660,000 jobs over the RTP/SCS (2045) planning horizon.” The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing balance for the County.
Project impacts on the jobs-housing balance are estimated by comparing employment and household buildout statistics of the Project to that of SCAG’s 2045 projections. As shown in Table 4.12-7, Projected 574
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-10 4.12 | Population and Housing
Jobs-Housing Balance, at Project buildout, the jobs-housing balance for the City is estimated to be 2.35 which is similar to and only marginally different than SCAG projections for the City in 2045 of 2.27 (see Table 4.12-5). Buildout of the Project would result in an estimated jobs-housing balance of 1.22 for the County, equivalent to the SCAG projection for the County of 1.22. Therefore, no significant impact related to jobs-housing balance is anticipated to occur with implementation of the Project.
Table 4.12-7: Projected Jobs-Housing Balance
Year Employment Households Jobs-Housing
Balance
City of Ontario
2016 113,900 46,000 2.47
SCAG 2045 Projection 169,300 74,500 2.27
Net increase due to Project 5,664 Not Applicable Not Applicable1 SCAG 2045 Projection + Project 174,964 74,500 2.35
San Bernardino County
2016 791,000 630,000 1.26
SCAG 2045 Projection 1,064,000 875,000 1.22
Net increase due to the Project 5,664 Not Applicable Not Applicable SCAG 2045 Projection + Project 1,069,664 875,000 1.22
Source: SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal, Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. 1 Jobs-housing balances are identified for regions and subregions and are not applicable to an area as small as the Project.
4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the County. Impacts are analyzed using County projections in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Demographics and Growth Forecast. Development of the Project in conjunction with the related project list in Table 4-1, Related Approved and Pending Projects, in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft Subsequent EIR, would not result in cumulative wide population and/or housing impacts, as business park projects would further improve the jobshousing balance. This would encourage alignment with objectives set by SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as it would increase employment opportunities in an area that is predominantly residential. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals set forth in TOP by providing long-term employment opportunities associated with the buildout of the Project. Related projects would be reviewed by the City, and development would be required to be consistent with adopted State and City development standards, regulations, plans, and policies to minimize the effect of the increase in population on physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the indirect effect of Project employment on housing and population growth in the City has been anticipated in TOP, and therefore in regional housing and population forecasts provided in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively adverse growth impacts. Upon approval, the Project would improve the jobs-housing balance in the County which is considered a housing-rich area. Therefore, the Project combined with related projects would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing as no substantial new unplanned growth would occur.
575
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.12-11 4.12 | Population and Housing
4.12.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 4.12-1 would be less than significant.
4.12.9 Mitigation Measures
No significant Project-level or cumulative impacts to population and housing were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.12.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements, impacts would remain less than significant.
4.12.11 References
City of Ontario. 2009. The Ontario Plan Draft EIR, Appendix J: Land Use Modeling Methodology. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32253.pdf.
City of Ontario. Rev. 2020. The Ontario Plan Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2020/12/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6_20201221.pdf.
DOF. 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/.
SCAG. 2020. Connect SoCal – Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-andgrowth-forecast.pdf?1606001579.
UC Riverside. 2019. City of Ontario Regional Intelligence Report. https://www.ontariothinksbusiness.com/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/City%20of%20Ontario%20RIR-Dec%202019.pdf. 576
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-1 4.13 | Public Services
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates potential Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) impacts on public services amenities by identifying anticipated demand and evaluating its relationship to existing and planned public services, facilities, and availability to serve the City of Ontario (City) population. For abbreviation purposes, the general term “public services” in this Draft Subsequent EIR includes the following: fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and library services. This section identifies potential impacts that could result from implementation of the Project, which includes construction and operation of the Project site.
In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the emphasis in this Draft Subsequent EIR is on impacts to public services that could result from implementation of the Project and that could require construction or expansion of existing public service facilities resulting in a physical impact on the environment.
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The City of Ontario Fire Department (OFD) provides fire protection, paramedic, and emergency response services to the City and the Project site. The Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Bureau was created by the OFD to provide additional medical care in emergency cases. This is accomplished through the continued training of firefighters in paramedic methods and programs. 1 The OFD Fire Operations Bureau includes specialized teams trained to provide advanced services. These teams include the Bomb Squad, the Hazardous Materials Team, the Urban Search and Rescue team, and the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team.2 The Fire Prevention Bureau is responsible for developing and implementing programs and policies that prevent or reduce the magnitude of emergency occurrences (i.e., loss of life and property, or environmental damage). The OFD serves the City’s population of more than 181,000 people, covering nearly 50 square miles. The OFD currently has ten 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.
3 The Project site is within the existing first-in service area of Station 2, meaning they are the first to arrive on scene in case of emergency. Station 2 is located at 544 W. Francis Street, approximately four miles north-northwest of the Project site. Fire stations near the Project site are provided in Table 4.13-1, Project Area Fire Services.
1 City of Ontario. EMS – EMS Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/EMS. 2 City of Ontario. Operations. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/Operations. 3 City of Ontario, Fire Department via email January 18, 2022. 577
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-2 4.13 | Public Services
Table 4.13-1: Project Area Fire Services
Station/Address Distance from Project Site Apparatus Daily Staffing #2 located at 544 W. Francis St.,
Ontario, CA 91762
Approx. 4 miles northnorthwest of the Project
site
1 paramedic engine,
Type 3, 1 fire
4 #3 located at 1408 E. Francis St.,
Ontario, CA 91761
Approx. 4 miles northnortheast of the Project site
1 paramedic engine,
1 Water Tender
4 Source: City of Ontario (2020). Fire Stations. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/FireStations OFD maintains a mutual-aid agreement with the Operation Area and State of California and receives first alarm automatic aid from the following fire departments:
• Chino Valley Fire Department District—Fire Stations 63 and 65 • Montclair Fire Department—Fire Stations 151 and 152
• Ontario Airport Fire Department, Station 140 at Ontario International Airport • Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department—Fire Stations 172 and 174 • San Bernardino County Fire Department—Central Valley Battalion Fire Stations 74 and 72 • San Bernardino County Fire Department —Fire Station 161 Chino Valley Fire Department Station 63 is located approximately two miles south of the Project site, on the southern end of the Chino Airport. The OFD has several response times benchmarks as identified in Table 4.13-2, OFD Response Times. OFD achieves its benchmarks with a 90 percent of the calls are within benchmark. Due to the lack of surrounding development, the average response time to the Project site is 10 minutes and 32 seconds.
Table 4.13-2: OFD Response Times
Measure OFD Benchmark
Fire Heading EMS
Alarm Processing Time 1:30 1:30
Travel Time 6:29 6:29
Total Response Time 9:59 9:29
Source: Ehrman, Paul, Deputy Fire Chief. 2022, January 11. Response to Fire Services Correspondence.
Ontario Fire Department.
The Kaiser Permanente Ontario Medical Center, located northeast of the Project site, and the Chino Valley Medical Center, located west of the Project site, are the nearest hospitals to the Project site, both approximately 3.5 miles away. Both medical facilities offer EMS and urgent care.
Police Protection
The Ontario Police Department (OPD) provides law enforcement services for the City. As part of the ongoing commitment to provide superior police services to the community, the OPD has implemented a geographical-based policing program. As part of this “Geo-Policing” program, the City has been drawn into three geographical areas: West, East, and South. Each area has an assigned Lieutenant as Area Commander. The Area Commander is responsible for the delivery of police services in their area of control with an emphasis on the preservation and improvement of the quality of life, safety, and economic value 578
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-3 4.13 | Public Services
of those who live and do business in the City.4 Each area has dedicated teams of officers and corporals, headed by police sergeants, who work day-to-day (24/7) patrol operations; traffic officers; Community Oriented Problem Solving (C.O.P.S.) officers, who work special projects; narcotics investigators; and detectives. The Project would be located at the southern end of the South Area Command. The nearest OPD facility is located approximately five miles north of the Project site, located at 2500 S. Archibald Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761.
5 The OPD has five main service bureaus: Field Operations, Special Operations, Investigations, Airport, and Administration. These bureaus consist of several divisions and units such as: Air Support, C.O.P.S., Special Enforcement, Career Criminal, Traffic, Detectives, the Ontario Mills Mall unit, Recruitment and Training, Forensics, Records, Communications and Crime Prevention/Crime Analysis. OPD is equipped with patrol vehicles, motorcycles, K-9 units, unmarked units, helicopters, bicycles, a SWAT van, command armored rescue vehicle, and crime prevention vans.
The OPD currently employs 289 sworn police officers, 105 civilian personnel, and a minimum of 14 patrol officers per shift.6 The OPD provides staffing based on the needs of the OPD and City and utilizes both civilian and sworn staff.
The OPD’sresponse time is the time between receipt of a service call and the on-scene arrival of a patrol officer, which varies depending on the urgency of the call. Due to the uniqueness of each call, the department strives for a quick and specific response for non-emergency calls. The average emergency call response time is four minutes.7
Schools
The Project would be located within the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). CVUSD has 35 schools, of which 19 are California Distinguished Schools. 8 The district offers educational facilities for Elementary, Junior High School, and High School attendees. The Project site is within the attendance areas for Liberty Elementary, Woodcrest Junior High School, and Chino High School. 9,10,11 The closest school to the Project site is Egan Lyle High School, less than a mile away, located at 15180 Euclid Avenue, Chino, CA91710. Other nearby schools are Liberty Elementary and Woodcrest Junior High School, approximately 3 miles from the Project site.
4 The Ontario Police Department. Area Command. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police. 5 The Ontario Police Department. (2021). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Police. 6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Chino Valley Unified School District (2020). Chino Valley Unified School District. Retrieved from: https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/domain/44. 9 Chino Valley Unified School District (2009). Elementary School Attendance Areas. Retrieved from https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Bou ndary_Map.pdf.
10 Chino Valley Unified School District (2009). Junior High School Attendance Areas. Retrieved from:
https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Bo u ndary_Map.pdf.
11 Chino Valley Unified School District (2009). High School Attendance Areas. Retrieved from:
https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&dataid=88557&FileName=Junior_High_School_Bo undary_Map.pdf.
579
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-4 4.13 | Public Services
Parks
City parks are managed by the City Parks and Street Maintenance Department. The nearest parks to the Project are Centennial Park, which is a City park, and two City of Chino parks: Constellation Park and Cypress Trails Park. These parks are approximately three miles north, less than one mile west, and two miles northwest of the Project site, respectively.
Libraries
The City’s libraries are managed by the City’s Community Life and Culture Department.12 The Community Life and Culture Department manages the City’s two public libraries, neither of which are near the Project site. The South Ontario Lewis Family Branch Library (South Ontario Library) is approximately 5 miles east of the Project site, and the Ovitt Family Community Library is located 5.4miles north of Project site.
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC) establishes minimum requirements for fire prevention and fire protection systems using prescriptive and performance-related provisions. This is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC includes general and specialized technical fire and life safety regulations addressing fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, use and storage of hazardous materials, protection of emergency responders, industrial processes, and many other topics. The IFC is issued by the International Code Council, an international organization of building officials.
State
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 9) is based on the 2018 adoption of the IFC and includes amendments from the State fully integrated into the code. The CFC contains fire safety-related building standards that are referenced in other parts of Title 24 of the CCR.
The CFC is updated once every three years; the 2019 CFC took effect on January 1, 2020. The CFC sets forth regulations regarding building standards, fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building standards, and fire suppression training. It contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the code also include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises.
Development under the Project would be subject to applicable regulations of the CFC. 12 City of Ontario (2020). Library. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Library. 580
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-5 4.13 | Public Services
California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 13000 et seq., includes fire regulations for building standards (also in the California Building Code [CBC]), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with the CCR, Title 8 Sections 1270 “Fire Prevention” and 6773 “Fire Protection and Fire Fighting Equipment,” California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, firehouse sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.
Senate Bill 50, California Government Code Section 65995(b), and Education Code (California Government Code Section 17620)
Senate Bill (SB) 50 places limitations on the power of local governments to require mitigation of school facilities by developers. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts can collect fees to offset the cost of expanding school capacity, which becomes necessary as development occurs. These fees are determined based on the square footage of proposed uses. As a part of SB 50, school districts must base their long-term facilities needs and costs on long-term population growth in order to qualify for this source of funding. Payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be adequate mitigation of school impacts under CEQA. Prior to SB 50, case law allowed cities to consider and impose conditions to mitigate impacts of new development on school facilities.
SB 50 amended California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. California Government Code Section 65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments.
Currently, the maximum impact fees allowed by SB 50 are as follows:
• In the case of residential construction, $1.93 per square foot (sf) of assessable space. • In the case of any commercial or industrial construction, $0.31 per sf of chargeable covered and enclosed space. (California Government Code Section 65995(b)).
According to California Government Code Section 65995(3)(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization...on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the California Government Code.
581
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-6 4.13 | Public Services
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008) The Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency, such as the city establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development, to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development project on which it is to be levied. This Act became enforceable on January 1, 1989.
Assembly Bill (AB) 97
Approved in July 2013, AB 97 revises existing regulations related to financing for public schools, by requiring State funding for county superintendents and charter schools that previously received a generalpurpose entitlement. AB 97 authorizes local educational agencies to spend, for any local educational purpose, the funds previously required to be spent for specified categorical education programs, including, among others, programs for teacher training and class size reduction.
California Building Code
The State provides a minimum standard for building design through the CBC, which is in Part 2 of Title 24 of the CCR. CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been modified for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan checked by local City and County building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include the installation of sprinklers in all commercial and residential buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.
Mutual Aid Agreements
The Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) system is a collaborative effort between city and county emergency managers in the Office of Emergency Services (OES) in the coastal, southern, and inland regions of the state. EMMA provides service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center, local Emergency Operations Centers, the Disaster Field Office, and community service centers. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional emergency management personnel. In accordance with the Mutual Aid Agreements, local and state emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a variety of plans and procedures.
The Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) was established by the California legislature in 1965 to develop new or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community park or recreation facilities.
This legislation was enacted in response to the need to provide parks and recreation facilities for California’s growing communities. The Quimby Act gives the legislative body of a city or county the authority, by ordinance, to require the dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination of 582
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-7 4.13 | Public Services
both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition of approval of a tract map or parcel map. The Quimby Act is implemented through City Ordinance and is discussed further below.
Senate Bill 50
SB 50 (the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998), adopted in 1998, defined the school impact fee needs analysis process in California Government Code Sections 65995.5–65998. Pursuant to its provisions, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. By statute, payment of a statutory fee by developers serves as the total mitigation of the potential impact of a development on school facilities pursuant to CEQA.
Local
The Ontario Plan
Included in TOP is the Policy (General) Plan which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. For the analysis of potential effects on public services, the Safety and Parks and Recreation Elements provide important guidelines and policies to ensure the City’s goals are met.
Safety Element
Goal S3 Reduced risk of death, injury, property damage and economic loss due to fires, accidents, and normal everyday occurrences through prompt and capable emergency response.
Policy S3-8 Fire Prevention through Environmental Design. We require new development to incorporate fire prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces and buildings.
Goal S7 Neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts that are kept safe through a multi-faceted approach of prevention, suppression, community involvement and a system of continuous monitoring.
Policy S7-4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). We require new development to incorporate CPTED in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces and buildings.
Parks and Recreation Element
Goal PR1 A system of safe and accessible parks that meets the needs of the community.
Policy PR-14 Multi-family Residential Developments. We require that new multi-family residential developments of five or more units provide recreational facilities or open space, in addition to paying adopted impact fees.
City of Ontario Development Code
The following are a list of fees charged by the City’s Building Department or collected by the Building Department on behalf of other departments or governmental agencies at the time permits are issued, for 583
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-8 4.13 | Public Services
the City, specifically within the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) and Project site area. These fees took effect on October 17, 2020.
Police Impact Fees
The purpose of police impact fees is to ensure that new development finance its fair share of police protection facilities. This includes coverage for the cost of apprehensions of all suspects and recovery programs to reimburse the City (California Government Code, Title 5, Section 53150). The fees as of writing this EIR, are calculated as follows:
• Business Park Uses: $0.240/sf
• Industrial Uses: $0.014/sf
• High-Density Dwellings: $362/unit
Fire Impact Fees
The purpose of fire impact fees is to ensure coverage for fire protection facilities, where new development occurs. Fees are calculated as follows:
• Business Park Uses: $0.409/sf
• Industrial Uses: $0.030/sf
• High-Density Dwellings: $627/unit
Park Impact Fees
The purpose of park impact fees is to ensure coverage for park facilities, where new development occurs.
Fees are calculated as follows:
• High-Density Dwellings: $9,218/unit
Library Impact Fees
The purpose of library impact fees is to ensure coverage for library facilities, where new development occurs. Fees are calculated as follows:
• High-Density Dwellings: $891/unit
4.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
PS-1 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:
o Fire protection?
584
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-9 4.13 | Public Services
o Police protection?
o Schools?
o Parks?
o Other public facilities?
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Schools
• Parks
• Other public facilities
These impacts will not be addressed in the following analysis.
4.13.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP PS-1 The Project is required to comply with the latest Edition of the CFC.
4.13.5 Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning public services. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce a 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 associated with public services.
The potential impacts related to public services were evaluated based on the ability of existing and planned public services staffing, equipment, and facilities to meet the additional demand for any public services resulting from the development of the Project. Impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Project would result in inadequate staffing levels, response times, and/or increased demand for services that would require the construction or expansion of new or altered facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which hold potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.
585
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-10 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?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact The development of the Project site includes six buildings with a maximum of 1,640,690 sf of industrial warehouse and office uses. Office uses are ancillary to the warehouses and occupy up to 227,951 sfspread across the buildings. The industrial warehousing would occupy up to 1,412,739 sf of the Project site. The increase in development and workers within the Project site could potentially result in additional calls for fire department services, which would increase needs for fire department staffing and equipment. The area that would be occupied by the Project is currently developed with agricultural use. Although there are existing uses, the modification of the area to industrial and office uses would potentially create an increased need for fire protection.
The six new tilt-up industrial/warehouse buildings would be constructed from non-flammable concrete and would be equipped with automatic ceiling-mounted fire sprinkler systems. All other fire-related safety features would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted CFC and the City’s Municipal Code (MC) Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. Additionally, prior to the approval of the Project, the City’s Building Department and OFD would review building plans in order to ensure that all applicable fire safety features are incorporated as part of the Project. Prior to the approval of occupancy permits for the new buildings, it would be required that the OFD would inspect all new structures in order to ensure that all fire safety features have been implemented and installed correctly.
As stated above, the Project site would be served by Station 2, approximately four miles north-northwest of the Project site. Implementation of the Project would be required to be consistent with the City’s General Plan for Business Park and Industrial uses as well as permitted floor area ratios (FAR). Therefore, fire protection and emergency services to the Project would be accommodated within the City’s new and existing fire service facilities, and buildout of the Project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to maintain an adequate level of fire protection service to the area.
The Project would not create any deficiencies in current response times or staffing models, nor require provision of new or expanded fire facilities, construction of which would have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, fire protection and EMS to the Project site would be accommodated within the City’s existing fire service facilities, and buildout of the Project would not result in a significant impact on the ability to maintain adequate level of fire protection service to the area.
Development Impact Fees (DIF) would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary 586
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-11 4.13 | Public Services
infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.
ii) POLICE PROTECTION?
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact To accommodate the growth of the City population, new police officers and potential for new protection facilities were anticipated. To help offset costs and ensure adequate service is provided; development mitigation fees are collected. Additionally, the Project would include installation of security features and surveillance through the provision of low-intensity security lighting in and around the new buildings and parking areas. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate design features that would discourage crime, including features such as thematic fencing; parcel lighting which addresses illumination of parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features; and the installation of ground or low mounted fixtures to provide for safety and convenience along pedestrian walkways, entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features. The design would also incorporate skylights and landscaping into the Project.
Additionally, pursuant to the City’s existing permitting process, the City’s Building Department would review final site plans in order to ensure that crime prevention through design measures is incorporated as part of the Project. Furthermore, as the six new buildings are expected to operate 24/7, security would always be on-site, thereby lowering the crime potential for the Project site, lessening the potential for increased police facilities or personnel.
The OPD has prepared for growth of the Ontario Ranch area, where the Project site is located, and is expected to have adequate facilities and personnel to serve the proposed development. The OPD would continue to add staff and equipment on an as-needed basis in order to accommodate the incremental increasing demands from buildout of land uses, as was identified in TOP. Furthermore, buildout of the Project would require DIF payments, and would not require construction of additional police facilities to maintain adequate police protection service. Thus, impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant.
4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts
Fire Protection Services
The cumulative study area for fire protection services is the City of Ontario. Future development projects are anticipated to occur throughout the City, specifically in the Ontario Ranch area, including the Project site. As indicated in the City’s TOP, development of the Ontario Ranch area would generate a proportional increase in demand for additional fire protection and EMS. The City is in the process of constructing two new fire stations with one proposed in the Ontario Ranch area that would help accommodate cumulative increases to fire protection services in the southern portion of the City, including the Project site.
As stated above, the Project would increase the demand for fire protection services through the incorporation of additional people on-site in addition to the cumulative development of projects within the City. Thus, a periodic review process would ensure that adequate service would be maintained 587
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-12 4.13 | Public Services
throughout the City and would add staffing and equipment as necessary. The OFD can presently serve the Project site without the need for additional fire facilities with payment of DIFs.
Since the Project would be consistent with the buildout assumptions of TOP and other applicable plans and regulations, and payment of fees, implementation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the need for fire protection and EMS facilities or personnel.
Police Protection Services
Similarly, future development projects are anticipated to occur within the City. This overall development would generate a proportional increase in calls for police services. All future cumulative projects would be reviewed by OPD staff prior to issuance of any development permit to ensure adequate security measures are provided for each site-specific development in the City, including this Project. It is anticipated that future development would result in the need of additional sworn officers and equipment, but with payment of DIF, implementation of the Project would not create a cumulatively considerable need for new or expanded police stations. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of the Project would be less than significant.
Schools, Parks, and Other Public Services
As discussed above, the Project is not anticipated to cumulatively increase the need for schools, parks, and other public services in the City. The anticipated increased demands for schools, parks, and other public services within the City was accounted for in the City’s General Plan and analyzed in TOP EIR, which accounts for the cumulative growth in the City. In addition, cumulative development projects would pay the required development fees that would be appropriately allocated, in this case, to schools and parks.
In addition, the TOP concluded that additional library services would not be required with buildout of the TOP. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with schools, parks, and other public services from the Project would be less than cumulatively significant.
4.13.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impacts would be less than significant: 4.13-1, (i and ii).
4.13.9 Mitigation Measures
No significant Project-level or cumulative impacts to public services were identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
4.13.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPP impacts would remain less than significant impact.
588
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-13 4.13 | Public Services
4.13.11 References
California AB 97. (2013). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB97.
California Senate Bill 50. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50.
California Fire Code. (2019). Retrieved from: https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-fire-code-2019.
California Government Code. Title 5, Article 8, Section 53150. (1985). Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum =53150.
City of Ontario, Policy (General) Plan. (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.
City of Ontario. (2009). TOP EIR. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31728.pdf.
City of Ontario Development Fees. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Building/Fees.
City of Ontario, Ontario Ranch Development Impact Fees. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Building/OR%20DIF%20Effective%2010-17-2020.pdf.
City of Ontario (2020). EMS – EMS Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Fire/EMS.
City of Ontario (2020). Library. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Library.
Chino Valley Unified School District (2009). Elementary School Attendance Areas. Retrieved from https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&datai d=88556&FileName=Elementary_School_Boundary_Map.pdf.
Chino Valley Unified School District (2009). Junior High School Attendance Areas. Retrieved from:
https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=40374&datai d=88557&FileName=Junior_High_School_Boundary_Map.pdf.
Chino Valley Unified School District (2020). Chino Valley Unified School District. Retrieved from:
https://www.chino.k12.ca.us/domain/5297.
Education Code. (2010). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum =17620.
Government Code 65995. (2015). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNu m=6599.
International Fire Code (2018). Retrieved from: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IFC2018P4/effectiveuse-of-theinternational-fire-code. 589
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.13-14 4.13 | Public Services
Mitigation Fee Act. (1987). Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&titl e=7.&part=&chapter=5.&article.
590
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-1 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
4.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) to result in transportation and traffic impacts in the City of Ontario (City). The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report(s):
• Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis (TA), Urban Crossroads, August 26, 2021. (Appendix I1)
• Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, Urban Crossroads, May 5, 2021. (Appendix I2)
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
The Project site comprises eight parcels totaling approximately 71.69 acres of agricultural development and residential uses. The Project area is located approximately three miles south of State Route 60 (SR 60) via State Route 83 (SR 83), which is located west of the Project site. The Project site is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Merrill Avenue on the south, unimproved right-of-way of Sultana Avenue on the west, and Campus Avenue on the east via Merrill Avenue on the south. The Project site is currently accessible by multiple driveway entrances via Eucalyptus Avenue. Access to the proposed Project would be provided via Merrill Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Campus Avenue, and Sultana Avenue. Merrill Avenue will serve as the primary travel route for heavy trucks to and from the site consistent with other projects in the immediate vicinity.
The City’s Functional Roadway Classification Plan1 designates Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue as four-lane Collector Streets; Campus Avenue is designated as a Minor Arterial Street; and Sultana Avenue is designated as a Collector Street. Sultana Avenue is not yet developed adjacent to the Project site.
However, the right-of-way exists, and no dedication is required.
Existing Regional Transportation System Characteristics The Project site is located approximately three miles south of SR 60 and SR 83 (Euclid Avenue), which is located west of the Project site. Regional access to the Project site is provided by Interstate 15 (I-15) freeway, located east of the Project site. The I-15 near the Project site is an eight-lane freeway providing access to the Project site via Ontario Ranch Road from the east. Interstate 10 (I-10) provides regional access for the Project site as an interstate freeway facility, traversing both San Bernardino County (County) and Los Angeles County. I-10 begins at its western terminus from the Pacific Ocean at State Route 1 (SR 1) and ends at the Interstate 95 (I-95) in Florida. In the Project vicinity, I-10 is generally a four-lane freeway providing access to the proposed Project site via SR 83, Euclid Avenue.
Existing Local Transportation System Characteristics
The City’s General Plan, also known as “The Ontario Plan” (TOP), provides descriptions of the various classes of roadways within the City. The City’s circulation system includes three freeways, an international 1 City of Ontario. 2016. TOP. Functional Roadway Classification Plan. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/M-2-Funct-Road-Class.pdf. 591
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-2 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
airport, two railroad main lines of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and one Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) rail line, and a system of arterial and local streets. The following definitions from the City’s TOP EIR describes the characteristics of the various roadway classifications:
Other Principal Arterials: Other Principal Arterials serve the major centers and corridors of activity, carry the highest volumes of traffic, and serve the longest trips of all City roadways. Other Principal Arterials typically accommodate four to eight lanes of traffic and medians.
Minor Arterials: Minor arterials accommodate less traffic and are for trips of moderate length. Minor Arterials allow a greater level of access to abutting properties, so speeds are lower than Other Principal Arterials. Minor Arterials connect our community but ideally should not penetrate residential neighborhoods. The roadway configuration and right-of-way width vary depending on local conditions, but typically accommodate four to six lanes of traffic and medians.
Collector Streets: are two-to four-lane roadways that connect local streets to arterials. These facilities are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, provide access to major developments, and allow travel between areas of the City.
Local Streets: are two-lane streets designed to provide access to local neighborhoods and individual properties. The City has two different cross-sections for local streets, although the configuration and purpose are the same for both.
Local Industrial Streets: are two-lane streets designed to provide access in industrial areas and to accommodate a higher percentage of truck traffic than to other local streets.
The Project vicinity consists of major roadways within the Cities of Ontario, Chino, Chino Hills, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facilities. Regional access to and from the proposed Project is provided by SR 71 approximately three miles to the southwest, I-15 approximately five and a half miles to the east, and SR 60 approximately three miles to the north. A detailed description of the existing roadway network and conditions is provided in Section 3 of the TA (see Appendix I1).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths
There are currently no designated pedestrian or bicycle paths located on the Project site. Pursuant to the Project buildout, sidewalks will be provided along all streets abutting the Project site, to improve safety and the pedestrian experience, connect the various parts of the Project site, and expand access to nearby land uses. Sidewalks shall be five feet wide, constructed of concrete, and installed in conjunction with adjacent roadway improvements. 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 3-15, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and Figure 3-16, City of Ontario Trail and Bikeways Plan). The City’s TOPMobility 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 Figures 3-15 and 3-16). The Project’s trail andbikeway improvements shall be installed in conjunction with 592
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-3 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
street improvements. The City reserves the right to implement bike lanes on Eucalyptus Avenue at the discretion of the Traffic and Transportation Division.
Truck Routes
The City has designated certain roadways for the purpose of channeling large trucks through and within the City. The City also maintains these routes to establish a network that provides for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition to the City’s routes, the State has identified Mission Boulevard and parts of Milliken Avenue and Jurupa Street as extralegal load limit streets. Merrill Avenue, which runs along the southern boundary of the Project site, is a designated truck route from Euclid Avenue to Archibald Avenue.
Rail Lines and Crossings
Two major east-west freight lines traverse the City. A third east-west line runs just north of the northern boundary of the City. The northern route through the City is the UPRR Alhambra Subdivision Line, which begins at the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach and runs through Pomona, but travels southeast to Riverside and points farther east.
The UPRR main lines run parallel to each other from the western boundary of the City to Campus Avenue.
The Alhambra Subdivision Line continues to the east along the northern boundary of Ontario International Airport (ONT) north of Airport Drive, and the Los Angeles Subdivision Line runs southeast along the south side of ONT and the north side of Mission Avenue. Metrolink’s Riverside County Line runs on the southern tracks and the Amtrak Sunset Limited runs on the northern tracks. The rail line that traverses north of the City is the SCRRA line, on which Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line operates. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad has trackage rights on that line.
Both UPRR tracks are grade separated at Mountain Avenue and Euclid Avenue in the western portion of the City. The northern tracks are grade separated at Grove Avenue, Archibald Avenue, and Haven Avenue.
The southern tracks are grade-separated at Grove Avenue and Haven Avenue.
Bus Transit
Omnitrans Transit Agency provides local transit service throughout the County, including the City.
Omnitrans provides Countywide bus service and currently has five bus routes in the City that provide connections between rail stations, ONT, major employment and shopping centers, and residential areas. • 61 – Fontana – Ontario Mills – Pomona (via Holt Boulevard – Inland Empire Boulevard) • 63 – Chino – Ontario – Upland (via Chino Avenue – Riverside Drive – Mountain Avenue – Holt Boulevard – Campus Avenue – 4
th Street)
• 80 – Montclair – Ontario Convention Center – Rancho Cucamonga (via Mountain Avenue – Holt Boulevard– Vineyard Avenue)
• 81 – Ontario – Ontario Mills – Chaffey College (via Holt Boulevard– Francis Street – Archibald Avenue – Riverside Drive – Haven Avenue)
• 83 – Upland – Euclid Avenue – Chino Avenue (via Euclid Avenue) 593
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-4 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
There are three transfer centers in the City. The first is at the Civic Center on Sultana Avenue, between Holt Boulevard and D Street; the second is at the Ontario Mills Mall; and the third is at ONT. Omnitrans provides connections to other regional bus services such as Foothill Transit, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Agency, and others. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue west of the Project site. The nearest bus stop to the Project site is at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue approximately 0.5 miles to the west.
Metrolink
Commuter train service in the City is provided by Metrolink, which operates six commuter rail lines throughout southern California. The Riverside County Line runs between Los Angeles Union Station and downtown Riverside on Mondays through Fridays between 4:30 AM and 8:00 PM, passing through the City. There is no Metrolink service on this line on Saturdays or Sundays. There is one Metrolink station in the City, off of Haven Avenue on Francis Street. This station is served by Omnitrans Bus Route 81. The Metrolink San Bernardino line is less than a mile north of the northern City limit. Nearby stations on this line are at Milliken Avenue and Campus Avenue.
Amtrak
Amtrak has one route (Sunset Limited route) that regularly stops in the City, which travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans, Louisiana. The Amtrak stops in the City and is located near the transfer center, on Emporia Street and Lemon Avenue (about one block from Holt Boulevard and Sultana Avenue). This service arrives and departs on Sunday, Wednesday, and Friday.
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Americans With Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibits discrimination toward people with disabilities and guarantees that they have equal opportunities as the rest of society to become employed, purchase goods and services, and participate in government programs and services. The ADA includes requirements pertaining to transportation infrastructure. The Department of Justice’s revised regulations for Titles II and III of the ADA, known as the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Designs, set minimum requirements for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations, and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. These standards apply to accessible walking routes, curb ramps, and other facilities.
Surface Transportation Assistance Act Routes
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 allows large trucks, referred to as STAA trucks that comply with maximum length and wide requirements, to operate on routes that are part of the National Network. The National Network includes the Interstate System and other designated highways that were a part of the Federal-Aid Primary System on June 1, 1991; states are encouraged, however, to allow access for STAA trucks on all highways.
594
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-5 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
State
Assembly Bill 1358, Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act of 2008, Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, was signed into law on September 30, 2008. Beginning January 1, 2011, AB 1358 required circulation elements to address the transportation system from a multimodal perspective. The bill states that streets, roads, and highways must “meet the needs of all users…in a manner suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.” Essentially, this bill requires a circulation element to plan for all modes of transportation where appropriate—including walking, biking, car travel, and transit.
The Complete Streets Act also requires general plan circulation elements to consider the multiple users of the transportation system, including children, adults, seniors, and the disabled. For further clarity, AB 1358 tasked the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to release guidelines for compliance with this legislation by January 1, 2014.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 or Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed into law on September 30, 2008. The SB 375 regulation provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and to improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce automobile commuting trips and length of automobile trips, thus helping to meet the statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions set by AB 32. SB 375 requires each metropolitan planning organization (MPO)to add a broader vision for growth, called a “Sustainable Communities Strategy” (SCS), to its transportation plan. The SCS must lay out a plan to meet the region’s transportation, housing, economic, and environmental needs in a way that enables the area to lower GHG emissions. The SCS should integrate transportation, land-use, and housing policies to plan for achievement of the emissions target for their region.
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law. The Legislature found that with adoption of the SB 375, the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions, as required by AB 32. Additionally, AB 1358, described above, requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users.
SB 743 started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Changes implemented include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. As part of the new State CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” OPR developed alternative metrics and thresholds based on VMT. The guidelines were certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency in December 2018, and automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) of similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment. 595
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-6 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
There was an opt-in period until July 1, 2020, for agencies to adopt new VMT-based criteria. As such, the City developed its own VMT impact thresholds, which were adopted by City Council on June 16, 2020, using both the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Guidelines.2
Caltrans
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State Highway System (SHS) facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than this target LOS, the existing LOS should be maintained. In general, the regionwide goal for an acceptable LOS on all freeways and intersections is LOS D. Consistent with the City’s LOS threshold of LOS D and in excess of the City’s stated LOS threshold of LOS E, LOS D will be used as the target LOS for freeway ramps, freeway segments, and freeway merge/diverge ramp junctions.
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal), which places a greater emphasis than ever on sustainability and integrated planning. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS vision encompasses a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes a strong commitment to reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375, improve public health, and meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This long-range plan, required by the state of California and the federal government, is updated by SCAG every four years as demographic, economic, and policy circumstances change. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is a living, evolving blueprint for the region’s future.
San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program
The SBCTA is San Bernardino’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA). SBCTA prepares, monitors, and periodically updates the County Congestion Management Program to meet federal Congestion Management Process requirement and the County’s Measure I Program. The County Congestion Management Program defines a network of State highways and arterials, LOS standards and related procedures, the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportations system, and technical justification for the approach.
Measure I Strategic Plan
Measure I authorizes a half-cent sales tax in the County until March 2040 for use exclusively on transportation improvement and traffic management programs. San Bernardino County voters first approved the measure in 1989 and in 2004 overwhelmingly approved the extension through 2040. 2 City of Ontario. 2020. A Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds for Determining Significance of Transportation Impacts Through the California Environmental Quality Act in Conformance with SB 743. Retrieved from: https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250356- 3/attachment/DJHTFbnM6oJs9ffzDmoKkg50hBDLi_bHx9JBp5n0_NC2VsLGmits_fmVeyGhDmsCcUZAp4KRZIGaC07m0. 596
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-7 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Measure I includes language mandating development to pay its fair share for transportation improvements in San Bernardino County. The Measure I Strategic Plan is the official guide for the allocation and administration of the combination of local transportation sales tax, State and Federal transportation revenues, and private fair-share contributions to regional transportation facilities to fund the Measure I 2010–2040 transportation programs. The Strategic Plan identifies funding categories and allocations and planned transportation improvement projects in the County for freeways, major and local arterials, bus and rail transit, and traffic management systems. The City has adopted a development impact fee (DIF) program that is consistent with Measure I requirements.
Local
The Ontario Plan (TOP)
The Mobility Element of TOP establishes a guideline that is intended to provide a balanced transportation/ circulation system that will support the anticipated growth in local and regional land uses. The Mobility Element is based on the following principles:
• Access to convenient local and regional mobility options is essential to the City’s growth and prosperity.
• A comprehensive multi-modal mobility system is vital to achieving access to jobs, schools, shopping, services, parks, and other key destination points. • Transportation systems should reflect the context and desired character of the surrounding land uses.
• Well designed and maintained roadways are essential for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people.
• Transportation routes and their rights-of-way should be planned and preserved based upon projected travel demands.
The Mobility Element stipulates that roadways within the City comply with federal, State, and local design and safety standards. Furthermore, the Mobility Element requires City roads maintain a peak hour LOS or better at all intersections. The Mobility Element further provides goals and policies for bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit facilities. The following goals and policies would apply to the proposed Project:
Bicycle and Pedestrians
Goal M2 A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage bicycling and walking.
Policy M2-1 Bikeway Plan. We maintain our Multipurpose Trails & Bikeway Corridor Plan to create a comprehensive system of on- and off-street bikeways that connect residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, and other key destination points.
Policy M2-2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways as our primary paths of travel and use the Class III for connectivity in constrained circumstances.
597
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-8 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Policy M2-3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points.
Policy M2-4 Network Opportunities. We explore opportunities to expand the pedestrian and bicycle networks. This includes consideration of utility easements, levees, drainage corridors, road rights-of-way, medians, and other potential options.
Public Transit
Goal M3 A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.
Policy M3-2 Transit Facilities at New Development. We require new development to provide transit facilities, such as bus shelters, transit bays and turnouts, as necessary.
Policy M3-3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may provide additional development-related incentives to those inherent in the Land Use Plan for projects that promote transit use.
4.14.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
T-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
T-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
T-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
T-4 Result in inadequate emergency access.
Section 7.0 Effects Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following thresholds would be less than significant:
• Threshold T-4
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
4.14.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP TR-1 The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Ontario’s DIF program, which helps fund transportation improvements. The City’s DIF includes regional improvements to comply with Measure I. If roadway improvements are not included in the DIF program, the proposed Project would be required to provide funding on a fair share basis where appropriate, as determined by the City. These fees shall be collected by the City of Ontario, with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases. Chapter 8 of the TA (contained in 598
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-9 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Appendix I1) provides more information on the DIF program, fair share contributions, and the proposed Project’s expected contributions.
PPP TR-2 The proposed Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-ofway, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards.
4.14.5 Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning transportation resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) 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.
Project Design Features
The Project includes frontage improvements to the buildout condition identified in the TOP Circulation Element. The Project is responsible for a half-width improvement only to the following:
• Merrill Avenue: Collector Street, 4 Lanes (98-foot right-of-way [ROW]) • Campus Avenue: Minor Arterial Street 4 Lanes (108-foot ROW) • Eucalyptus Avenue: Collector Street, 4 Lanes (108-foot ROW) • Eucalyptus and Merrill Avenues each require additional dedication (21 feet) and half-width improvements, to include curb and gutter 42 feet from centerline and a 12-foot parkway including sidewalk.
• Campus Avenue will require a 29-foot half-width dedication and a 12-foot parkway including the sidewalk. An additional 23-foot dedication in fee simple for the neighborhood edge is required. • Sultana Avenue is fully dedicated paper street; half-width improvements would be required, to include curb and gutter 24 feet from centerline and a 13-foot parkway including sidewalk.
4.14.6 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 4.14-1: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? [Threshold T-1]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact 599
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-10 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
In compliance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment, a TA (see Appendix I1) was conducted for the Project which includes an LOS analysis. However, please note that the LOS analysisis provided for information purposes only, as vehicle delay is no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA pursuant to SB 743. Specifically, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21099(b)(2) states that: “Upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” (emphasis added).
As summarized below under the “Supplemental Traffic Analysis” discussion, with respect to consistency with TOP LOS policies, with recommended improvements the Project’s effects on operational LOS will be consistent with applicable local agency policies. Refer to Appendix I1 for a complete discussion of analysis methodology and findings.
TOP Mobility Element
As noted above, the TOP Mobility Element guides mobility and transportation in the City, including public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would adhere to the TOP goals and policies outlined in Section 4.14.2, Regulatory Setting, above, including PPP TR-1 and TR-2. This includes enhancing transportation networks and for vehicles and bicycle facilities, safely accommodating pedestrian walkways and providing easy access to the Project site via public transportation. More specifically, the Project’s circulation network would be designed consistently with the existing transportation system by adhering to the transportation guidelines set in the TOP. If applicable, the Project would comply with the City’s DIF program which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the Project’s impact would not significantly impact the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County (i.e.,, Congestion Management Program). The payment of fees pursuant to the DIF program would also help the City keep pace with improvements associated with the projected population increases or other identified roadway deficiencies.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
According to the TOP, the City proposes to develop a Class II bikeway and multipurpose trails along Merrill Avenue and Campus Avenue, located near the Project site. As stated above, the Project would provide a payment of fees towards the City’s DIF Program to ensure that existing and proposed bicycle facilities are supported and not impacted. The Project would also improve pedestrian walkways adjacent to the Project site and be designed to ensure pedestrian safety. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur in regard to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Transit Facilities
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The nearest transit facilities to the Project site are Omnitrans Bus Route 83 to the northwest and Omnitrans Route 87 to the east. Omnitrans Route 83 operates along Route 83 and Eucalyptus Avenue. Omnitrans Route 87, near the Project, is located along Archibald Avenue. Transit 600
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-11 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
service is reviewed and updated by Omnitrans periodically to address ridership, budget and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. The City strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel.
The Project would support public transit use by improving roadway circulation and pedestrian walkways near the Project site. This would allow employees to utilize public transit, specifically Omnitrans Route 83.
The Project would also pay fees pursuant to the DIF program, which would support the expansion of public transit near the Project site, including the entirety of the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, the Project would support future public transit facilities with proposed roadway and pedestrian improvements, including payment of fees; and as such, a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
The Project would not conflict with the relevant goals, policies, and ordinances, addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Refer to the following discussion that evaluates operational LOS and recommends improvements in order to meet applicable local agency transportation policies. Please note that while LOS is not a significant impact under CEQA per SB 743, this information is provided here for informational purposes and will be considered by decision-makers. Recommended improvements are likely to be incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval for construction or payment of fair share contributions.
Supplemental Traffic Impact Analysis
To ensure that the TA satisfies the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines requirements, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a Project traffic study scoping package (Agreement) for review by City staff prior to the preparation of the TA. The Agreement provides an outline of the Project’s traffic study area, trip generation, trip distribution, and analysis methodology.
In an effort to conduct a conservative analysis, the TAutilized high-cube fulfillment center warehouse use and high-cube cold storage warehouse use to capture the range of allowable uses within the Industrial areas of the Project. Similarly, the industrial park rate was selected to capture the range of allowable uses within the Business Park areas of the Project. From a trip generation perspective, these land use assumptions are conservative in that trip generation would likely be overstated as opposed to understated.
Project Forecast Trip Generation
Trips generated by the Project’s land uses were estimated in the TA based on trip generation rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and the High-Cube Warehouse Trip Generation Study. The Project is anticipated to generate a total of 3,656 tripends per day, 274 AM peak hour trips and 323 PM peak hour trips (in actual vehicles). 601
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-12 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Traffic Study Scenarios and Assumptions
The TA includes documentation of existing conditions, future conditions, and identification of Projectrelated deficiencies at 52 study intersections (refer to Table 1-1 of Appendix I1). Analyses of these intersections/segments were conducted for the following scenarios in the morning and evening peak hours:
• Existing (2021) Conditions
• Existing plus Project (E + P)
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project
• Horizon Year (2040) Without Project
• Horizon Year (2040) With Project
In summary, the TA noted various operational deficiencies at off-site locations under these six scenarios.
As noted above, operational delay is no longer a significant impact under CEQA and the discussion below and in the TA is provided for informational purposes only. With implementation of recommended improvements, the Project will be consistent with applicable local agency operational LOS standards, as listed in 4.14.2, Regulatory Settings, above. Also note that improvements noted below have already been conditioned as part of other project approvals in the City or represent regional improvements where the Project will be required to pay a fair share through the required payment of regional traffic impact fees in accordance with the City’s DIF Program. Refer to the TA (Appendix I1; Section 8: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms) for detailed discussion.
Existing (2021) Conditions
The existing study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS during the peak hours with the exception of the following intersections:
• Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Riverside Drive – LOS E PM peak hour only • Grove Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Grove Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM peak hour; LOS E PM peak hour • Carpenter Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Limonite Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road – LOS F PM peak hour only Existing Plus Project Conditions
There are no additional study area intersections that are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS, in addition to those identified for Existing traffic conditions. 602
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-13 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project Conditions The following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak hours for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Riverside Drive – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Edison Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Merrill Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Sultana Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour only • Bon View Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Grove Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Grove Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Walker Avenue & Edison Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Walker Avenue/Flight Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Carpenter Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Archibald Avenue & Limonite Avenue – LOS F AM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project Conditions
The following study area intersection is anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during both peak hours for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project Buildout traffic, in addition to the locations identified previously for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic conditions.
• Campus Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions
The following additional study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS under Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions:
• Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & SR 60 Westbound Ramps – LOS E AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & SR 60 Eastbound Ramps – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Riverside Drive – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Chino Avenue – LOS E AM peak hour; LOS F PM peak hour • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Schaefer Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Edison Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Euclid Avenue (SR 83) & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours 603
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-14 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
• Sultana Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Sultana Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Campus Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS E PM peak hour only • Campus Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Bon View Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Bon View Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Grove Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Grove Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Walker Avenue & Edison Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Walker Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue LOS F and AM peak hours • Walker Avenue/Flight Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Van Vliet Avenue/Baker Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Vineyard Avenue & Edison Avenue – LOS F PM peak hour only • Vineyard Avenue /Hellman Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Carpenter Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Hellman Avenue & Edison Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road – LOS AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Merrill Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Archibald Avenue & Limonite Avenue – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Tuner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road – LOS F AM and PM peak hours • Haven Avenue & Ontario Ranch Road – LOS F AM peak hour only • Hamner Avenue & Ontario Ranch Roach – LOS F AM and PM peak hours Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions
There are no additional study area intersections anticipated to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak hours for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions with the addition of Project traffic, in addition to the locations identified above for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the improvements needed to accommodate site access.
Recommendation 1 – Sultana Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. 604
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-15 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
• Project to construct a westbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 2 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 1 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 3 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 2 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 4 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 3 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 5 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 4 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 6 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 5 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 7 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 6 (#16) – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 8 – Sultana Avenue & Driveway 7 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the westbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 9 – Sultana Avenue & Merrill Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound right-turn lane.
Recommendation 10 – Driveway 8 & Merrill Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 11 – Driveway 9 & Eucalyptus Avenue – The following improvements are recommended:
• Project to install a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right lane. 605
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-16 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
• Project to construct an eastbound shared through-right turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 12 –Driveway 10 & Eucalyptus Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right lane. • Project to construct an eastbound shared through right-turn lane. • Project to construct a westbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 13 – Driveway 11 & Merrill Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 14 – Campus Avenue & Eucalyptus Avenue – The following improvements are necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the northbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound right-turn lane.
Recommendation 15 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 12 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 16 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 13 – The following improvement isrecommended:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 17 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 14 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 18 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 15 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 19 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 16 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 20 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 17 – The following improvement is necessary to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. 606
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-17 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
Recommendation 21 – Campus Avenue & Driveway 18 – The following improvement isrecommended to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the eastbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane.
Recommendation 22 – Campus Avenue & Merrill Avenue – The following improvements are recommended to accommodate site access:
• Project to install a stop control on the southbound approach and a shared left-right turn lane. • Project to construct an eastbound left-turn lane.
Recommendation 23 – Merrill Avenue – Merrill Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located along the Project site’s southern boundary. Project to construct Merrill Avenue from Sultana Avenue to Campus Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a four-lane collector (108-foot ultimate ROW) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP.
Recommendation 24 – Eucalyptus Avenue – Eucalyptus Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located along the Project site’s northern boundary. Project to construct Eucalyptus Avenue from Sultana Avenue to Campus Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a four-lane collector (108-foot ultimate ROW) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP.
Recommendation 25 – Sultana Avenue – Sultana Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project site’s western boundary. Project to construct Sultana Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a two-lane local street (84-foot ultimate ROW) plus one lane (southbound) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP.
Recommendation 26 – Campus Avenue – Campus Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway located on the Project site’s eastern boundary. Project to construct Campus Avenue from Merrill Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue at its ultimate half-section width as a four-lane minor arterial(108-foot ultimate ROW) plus one lane (northbound) in compliance with the circulation recommendations found in TOP.
On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented agreeable with the provisions of the Caltrans California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the Project site.
Sight distance at each Project access point should be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Off-Site Recommendations
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies identified under Existing (2021), Opening Year Cumulative (2023), and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions are summarized in Table 1-3 of the TA. For those improvements listed in Table 1-3 of the TA and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees (e.g., DIF) or fair share that would be 607
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-18 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements. Please refer to the TA (Appendix I1; Section 8: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms) for detailed information.
Table 1-3 of the TA also summarizes the applicable cost associated with each of the recommended improvements based on the preliminary construction cost estimates found in Appendix G of the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Programin conjunction with a cost escalation factor of 1.568 to reflect current (2021) costs. A rough order of magnitude cost has been prepared to determine the appropriate contribution value based upon the Project’s fair share of traffic as part of the Project approval process. Based on the Project fair share percentages, the Project’s fair share cost is estimated at $308,307 to the City of Ontario. These estimates are a rough order of magnitude only as they are intended only for disclosure purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation.
Recommendation 27 – Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay the Project’s fair share amount of $308,307 for the improvements identified in Table 1-3 of the TA at intersections located within the City, or as agreed to by the City and Project Applicant.
Summary of Available Funding Mechanisms for Operational Improvements (not for CEQA Impacts)
The recommended improvements needed to address the cumulative deficiencies identified under Existing (2021), Opening Year Cumulative (2023), and Horizon Year (2040) traffic conditions are summarizedin Table 1-3 of the TA (Appendix I1). For those improvements listed in Table 1-3 of the TA and not constructed as part of the Project, the Project Applicant’s responsibility for the Project’s contributions towards deficient intersections is fulfilled through payment of fees (e.g., DIF) or fair share that would be assigned to construction of the identified recommended improvements (Appendix I1; Section 8: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms).
Impact 4.14-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? [Threshold T-2]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Impact Project Screening
Projects that meet certain VMT screening criteria may be presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact, which is consistent with the approach suggested in OPR’s Technical Advisory. The screening criteria adopted by the City are generally consistent with guidance identified in the Technical Advisory. The City lists the following VMT screening criteria3:
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Project Type Screening
3 City of Ontario Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Thresholds for CEQA (SB 743); Page 1. 608
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-19 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria are presumed in a less than significant impact.
1. Low VMT Area Screening
City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines state that projects are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in low VMT generating model traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that generate total daily VMT per service population (SP) that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the County.4 The SBCTA screening tool was utilized to determine low areas of VMT within the City. The screening tool uses the sub-regional San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) to measure VMT performance within individual TAZ’s throughout the region. Parcel(s) containing the proposed Project were selected and the screening tool was run for the Origin/Destination (OD) VMT per SP measure of VMT. Based on the Screening Tool results (see Appendix I2 for VMT Screening Tool Analysis), the Project resides within TAZ 53653301, which is not a low VMT generating TAZ. Thus, the Low VMT Area screening threshold is not met.
2. Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
The City Guideline City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines indicate that small development projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. Based on information contained in the TA, (see Appendix I1), the Project is anticipated to generate more than 110 vehicle daily trips. The Low Trip Generating Uses screening threshold is not met.
3. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines indicate that projects located within a TPA (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop”5 or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor”6) may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.
However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the MPO); or
• Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.
4 City Guidelines; Exhibit A.
5 Pub. Resources Code, Section 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interva l of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 6 Pub. Resources Code, Section 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 609
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-20 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
The Project site is not located within ½-mile of an existing major transit stop, or along a high-quality transit corridor. The TPA screening threshold is not met.
4. Project Type Screening
City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines indicate that local-serving retail less than 50,000 square feet (sf) or other local-serving essential services (e.g., daycare centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. In addition, small projects anticipated to generate low traffic volumes and by association low GHG emissions are also assumed to cause a less than significant impact. The Project consists of industrial and business park uses, which do not typically consist of local-serving retail or essential services.
The Project Type screening threshold is not met.
5. Project Generated VMT
The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines state that projects not screened from VMT analysis based on their location or land use type should conduct VMT forecasting through the SBTAM travel demand model to determine if the project would result in a significant VMT impact. SBTAM is a useful tool to calculate VMT as it considers interaction between different land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, employment and other factors, and is identified in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines as the appropriate travel forecasting tool for conducting VMT analysis in the City.
Project-generated VMT has been calculated using the most current version of SBTAM, which was updated by SBCTA as part of the development of their recommended VMT guidelines. Adjustments to socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., estimated employment levels) have been made to the appropriate TAZ. A separate TAZ is used to isolate Project-generated VMT from other land uses in the model. Table 4.14-1, SED Estimates,summarizes the employment estimates for the Project.
Table 4.14-1: SED Estimates
Land Use % Mixture Employees/TSF Total TSF
Estimated
Employment
Business Park Non-Office (50%) 0.650 227.951 74
Office (50%) 2.860 326
Industrial Non-Office (90%) 0.650 1,412.739 826
Office (10%) 2.860 404
Total 1,640.690 1,630
Source: Traffic Analysis Study. Table 1. (See Appendix I1) Because the tenant of the Project’s buildings are not yet known, the number of employees that the Project would generate cannot be precisely determined; therefore, for purposes of this analysis, employment estimates were calculated using employment density factors of 0.65 employees/thousand square feet (TSF) for non-office portions and 2.86 employees/TSF for office portions of industrial and business park uses consistent with the TOP Buildout Methodology document.7 Based on these employment generation rates, the Project is expected to generate approximately 1,630 employees. Project 7 City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan Buildout Methodology. Retrieved from http://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/01/Methodology-Revised.pdf. Accessed October 2021. 610
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-21 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
employment was added to the Project’s TAZ in both the base year model (2016) and the cumulative year model (2040). The base year model and cumulative year model were then run inclusive of the Project’s employment estimate.
The City has chosen the OD method of calculating VMT for purposes of establishing their impact threshold.
The OD method of calculating VMT includes all vehicle trips and trip purposes (i.e., passenger cars and heavy trucks). Project-generated VMT using the OD trip matrix from SBTAM was calculated for both the base year model (2016) and cumulative year model (2040), and linear interpolation was used to determine the Project’s baseline (2021) VMT value. The VMT value was then normalized by dividing by the Project’s SP, which in this case is the number of Project employees. Table 4.14-2, Project VMT per SP, presents the key inputs for the calculation of Project-generated VMT per SP.
Table 4.14-2: Project VMT per SP
Base Year (2016) Cumulative (2040) Baseline (2021)
Project generated VMT 71,583 68,460 70,579
SP 1,630 1,630 1,630
Project VMT per SP 43.92 42.00 43.30
The City has selected a threshold based on the General Plan Buildout VMT performance in the City. More specifically, the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines state that a significant impact would occur if the project VMT per SP exceeds the Citywide average VMT per SP under General Plan Buildout Conditions.
Table 4.14-3, Project VMT Impact Determination, presents a comparison between baseline Projectgenerated VMT per SP to the City’s impact threshold. As shown, the baseline Project-generated VMT per SP is 43.30 or 19.61 percent above the City’s threshold.
Table 4.14-3: Project VMT Impact Determination
Baseline (2021)
Project VMT per SP 43.30
General Plan Buildout VMT per SP 36.20
Percent Change +19.61%
Potentially Significant? Yes
6. Project’s Cumulative Effect on VMT
Consistent with City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, projects that are found to have a potential impact using efficiency-based metrics (such as VMT per SP) should also provide an additional assessment to evaluate a project’s effect on VMT. This analysis is performed using the boundary method, which includes all vehicle trips with one or both trip-ends within a specific geographic area of interest (i.e., City). As shown on Table 4.14-4, Cumulative Net Change in Citywide VMT, the Project is anticipated to result in an increase in total VMT within the City for General Plan Buildout conditions as well as cumulative. The Project would increase the final General Plan buildout by 0.18 percent.
Table 4.14-4: Cumulative Net Change In Citywide VMT
General Plan Buildout (2040)
No Project
General Plan Buildout (2040)
With Project
VMT 8,992,608 9,008,768
611
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-22 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
7. Potential VMT Reduction Strategies
Consistent with City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, VMT reduction strategies should be considered to address Project-generated VMT that exceeds the City’s threshold. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies have been evaluated for the purpose of reducing VMT impacts determined to be potentially significant, some of these TDM strategies are described in MM AQ-3 (see Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this Draft Subsequent EIR). The effectiveness of TDM strategies to reduce VMT has been determined based on the SB 743 Implementation Mitigation and TDM Strategy Assessment prepared for SBCTA (SBCTA TDM Report), which was based on a regionally focused assessment of the previously published Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for its applicability to land use projects within the SBCTA region. The SBCTA TDM Report indicates that of the 50 transportation measures pres ented by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), only 41 of those measures are applicable at a building and site level. The remaining nine measures are functions of, or depend on, site location and/or actions by local and regional agencies or funders.8 Based on a review of the 41 transportation measures identified by CAPCOA, the SBCTA TDM Report identifies that only seven of those measures may be effective at the project level. Land use context is a major factor relevant to the potential application and effectiveness of TDM measures. More specifically, the land use context for the area in which the Project resides is characteristically suburban. 9 Based on a
review of the potentially relevant TDM measures presented in the SBCTA TDM Report, the following seven TDM measures identified by the SBCTA TDM Report were evaluated for their applicability to the Project based on its suburban context and their ability to reduce Project-generated VMT:
• Measure 1: Increase Diversity of Land Uses (LUT-3). Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transportation. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs.
Remarks: The Project proposes the construction of 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park use. In order for the above measure to apply, at least three of the following land uses should be located on-site, or if not on-site then within ¼-mile or less of the Project: residential development, retail development, office development, park, or open space. As the proposed Project does not include a diverse mix of land uses on-site and is not located within a ¼-mile of three of the land uses listed above, this particular TDM measure is therefore not evaluated further as a means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
It is, however, recognized that the Project would introduce additional employment opportunities, acting to generally improve the City and region jobs/housing balance. The resulting improved jobs/housing balance could reduce area commute VMT. This analysis, however, conservatively assumes no such VMT reduction.
8 Measures obtained from SBCTA TDM report, p. 5.
9 Suburban: Characterized by dispersed, low intensity, single use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb). (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 60). 612
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-23 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
• Measure 2: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements (SDT-1). Providing on-site pedestrian access network to link areas of the Project to the off-site pedestrian network encourages people to walk for short trips instead of drive. This mode shift results in people driving less for nearby trips (typically less than ¼-mile and no greater than ½-mile) and thus a reduction in VMT.
Remarks: Although there are existing sidewalks off-site along portions of Merrill Avenue, field observations conducted at the time the Project’s level of service analysis was prepared indicate there is nominal pedestrian activity in the study area likely due to the lack of pedestrian connections and a limited diversity of land uses. The Project would build pedestrian walkways within the Project site area connecting development and extending those sidewalk connections to the roadway adjacent pedestrian walkways. The potential reduction in VMT is limited with a maximum reduction 2.0 percent for pedestrian accommodations within the Project site and connecting off-site, as noted by CAPCOA (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 187).
• Measure 3: Provide Traffic Calming Measure (SDT-2). Providing traffic calming measures encourages people to walk or bike instead of using a passenger car. This mode shift would result in a decrease in VMT. Traffic calming features may include marked crosswalks, count-down signal timers, curb extensions, speed tables, raised crosswalks, raised intersections, median islands, tight corner radii, roundabouts or mini-circles, on-street parking, planter strips with street trees, chicanes/chokers, and others.
Remarks: Given the industrial nature of the Project and similar characteristics of surrounding uses, there is limited opportunity for pedestrian and bicycle activity. This measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT. • Measure 4: Implement Car-Sharing Program (TRT-9). Implementing a car-sharing program would allow individuals to have on-demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as-needed basis.
User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees.
Remarks: It is possible that employers within the Project site could implement car-sharing programs. This may provide car access for employees on an as-needed basis, and thereby alleviate some of the costs and responsibilities of individual car ownership. However, this would not necessarily result in a reduction in VMT but would rather transfer the VMT source from individually-owned autos to employee-subsidized autos. The potential reduction in VMT is also extremely limited with a maximum reduction in VMT between 0.4 – 0.7 percent as noted by CAPCOA (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 245). This measure is not evaluated further as a means of providing a reduction in Project VMT. • Measure 5: Increase Transit Service Frequency and Speed (TST-4). This measure serves to reduce transit-passenger travel time through more reduced headways and increased speed and reliability. This makes transit service more attractive and may result in a mode shift from auto to transit which reduces VMT.
Remarks: The Project site and immediate vicinity is currently served by Omnitrans, a public transit agency serving various jurisdictions within San Bernardino County. No bus routes currently 613
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-24 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
provide proximate service (within one-quarter mile) of the Project site. Transit service is reviewed and updated periodically to address ridership, budget, and community demand needs. Changes in land use can affect these periodic adjustments which may lead to either enhanced or reduced service where appropriate. It is recommended that the Project Applicant work in conjunction with the Lead Agency and Omnitrans to coordinate potential bus service to the Project site. Since implementation of this measure would require agency implementation, it is not applicable for individual development projects. This measure is therefore not evaluated further as means of providing a reduction in Project VMT.
• Measure 6: Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedule (TRT-6). Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks.
Remarks: The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on the ultimate building tenant(s) which are unknown at this time. This measure could provide for a potential reduction in Project VMT.
CAPCOA notes that implementation of this measure could reduce commute VMT by 0.07 – 5.50 percent (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 236). • Measure 7: Provide Ride-Sharing Programs (TRT-3). This strategy focuses on encouraging carpooling and vanpooling, but its ultimate implementation is limited similarly as Measure 6 above.
Remarks: The effectiveness of this measure is dependent on the ultimate building tenant(s) which are unknown at this time. This measure could provide for a potential reduction in Project VMT.
CAPCOA notes that implementation of this measure could reduce commute VMT by 1.0 – 15.0 percent (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 227).
The effectiveness of the above-noted TDM measures would be dependent on building occupancies, which are unknown at this time. Beyond Project tenancy considerations, the Project’s suburban context acts to reduce the range of feasible TDM measures and moderates their potential effectiveness.
It is also recognized that as the Project site vicinity and the City develop as envisioned under the TOP, new residential, commercial/retail, and industrial development would be implemented. These actions could collectively alter transportation patterns, improve the City’s jobs/housing ratio, diminish VMT per SP, and support implementation of new or alternative TDM measures. There is no means however to quantify any VMT reductions that could result. Additionally, the effectiveness of the TDM strategies that have potential to reduce the Project VMT per SP are dependent on as yet unknown final Project building tenant(s).
Further, the identified TDM measures are not likely to reduce Project truck VMT. Pointedly, CAPCOA provides no TDM measures targeted at truck traffic.
Conclusion
In summary, the Project was found to exceed the City’s adopted 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 614
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-25 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
in areas that are characteristically suburban10 in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 15 percent,
11 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 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]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less Than Significant Impact Construction activities associated with the Project may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic or cause temporary hazards. The Project would implement feasible measures that would help facilitate the passage of vehicles through/around any required road or lane closures to maintain traffic flow near the Project site pursuant to Municipal Code Section 7-3.07. This would also apply to any off-site roadway areas. In addition, the Project includes improvements to allow for heavy truck access to the Project site. Conflicts have the potential to occur if: 1) there is inadequate site access, or 2) there is inadequate turning radii in and out of the Project site. Implementation of the Project Specific Plan Amendment and its circulation plans will ensure avoidance of these inadequacies.
Site Access and Off-Site improvements
The Project includes the construction of access drivewaysfrom all four fronting streets, for a total of 16 driveway access points. Internal drive aisles would provide connectivity throughout the Project site. As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Discussion above, the Project’s proposed on- and off-site roadway improvements would be constructed accordingly with Recommendations 1 through 28 listed in the Project TA to accommodate on-site access. All roadway improvements would be designed according to the Traffic and Transportation Guidelines set in the TOP’s Mobility Element and pursuant to the PPP TR-1 and PPP TR-2. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design features or dangerous intersections, and a less than significant impact would occur.
Turning Radius
The TA evaluated large trucks’ turning radius to determine necessary intersection improvements in the study area. The TA overlaid a truck turning template and tables Project driveway and study areas intersections anticipated to be utilized by large trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radius and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers (refer to Appendix 1.1 of Appendix I1 for more information). Implementation of the Project design features and Recommendations 1 through 28, and compliance with the City’s Traffic and TransportationGuidelinesset in the TOP’s Mobility Element, would ensure large trucks have adequate access to and from the Project site and adjacent intersections. Implementation of the identified Project design features would ensure 10 Suburban: A project characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb).
11 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association: “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures” August 2010; page 55. 615
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-26 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
that impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to heavy truck maneuvers.
4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative traffic impacts are addressed in the Project TA (Appendix I1) and summarized above. The Project’s contribution to operational LOS deficiencies would be fully addressed through implementing the recommended measures and providing construction or funding for the identified improvements (note that operational LOS is no longer a significant impact under CEQA per SB 743). The Project’s VMT analysis(Appendix I2, summarized above) provides an analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on VMT. Cumulative analysis is based on the Project’s effect on VMT using total VMT within the City (boundary method). The VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT would increase with the Project, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact. As noted above, although the identified VMT reduction measures could reduce Project and cumulative VMT impacts, this analysis has conservatively assumed no VMT reduction for reasons noted above. Therefore, the VMT analysis concludes that Citywide VMT increases from the Project will result in a significant and unavoidable Project and cumulative VMT impact.
4.14.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impact 4.14-1 and Impact 4.14-3 would be less than significant.
Without mitigation, the following impact would be potentially significant:
• Impact 4.14-2 Buildout of the Project could conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
4.14.9 Mitigation Measures
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 Climate Action Plan (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.
4.14.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
The Project was found to exceed the City’s adopted 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 suburban12 in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 15 percent,
13 which is not enough to reduce Project-generated VMT to a level below the City’s adopted 12 Suburban: A project characterized by dispersed, low-density, single-use, automobile dependent land use patterns, usually outside of the central city (a suburb).
13 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association: “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures” August 2010; page 55. 616
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-27 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
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.
4.14.11 References
CAPCOA. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 227. (2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhousegas-mitigation-measures.pdf.
City of Ontario. 2016. TOP. Functional Roadway Classification Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/M-2-Funct-Road-Class.pdf.
Accessed February 2021.
City of Ontario Guidelines, Low VMT area screening. Pg. 6. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250356-
3/attachment/DJHTFbnM6oJs9ffzDmoKkg50hBDLi_bHx9JBp5n0_NC2VsLGmits_fmVeyGhDmsCc UZAp4KRZIGaC07m0.
City of Ontario. SB 743 VMT Thresholds. City of Ontario: s.n., June 2020.
City of Ontario Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis Thresholds for CEQA (SB 743). (2020). Retrieved from:
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/250356-
3/attachment/DJHTFbnM6oJs9ffzDmoKkg50hBDLi_bHx9JBp5n0_NC2VsLGmits_fmVeyGhDmsCc UZAp4KRZIGaC07m0.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. 10th Edition. 2017.
Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. State of California: s.n., December 2018.
Public Resources Code, Section 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21064.3.&law Code=PRC.
Public Resources Code, Section 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC§ionNum =21155.&highlight=true&keyword=Transit%20Priority%20Project.
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority. Recommended Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment. February 2020.
TOP. Ontario General Plan Buildout. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2020/12/LU-03-Table.pdf. 617
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.14-28 4.14 | Transportation and Traffic
TOP. Mobility Element System Map. (2016). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/M-1-Mobility-Element-System.pdf.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Ontario Ranch Business Park Traffic Analysis. August 2021.
Urban Crossroads, Inc. Ontario Ranch Business Park Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. May 2021.
WRCOG SB 743 Implementation Pathway. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/12/WRCOG-SB743-Document-Package.pdf.
WRCOG SB743 Implementation Pathway Document Package, p. 67. (2019). Retrieved from:
https://www.fehrandpeers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WRCOG-SB743-DocumentPackage.pdf. 618
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-1 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.15 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) to impact tribal cultural resources (TCRs)in the City of Ontario (City), within San Bernardino County (County). TCRs include landscapes, sacred places, or objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe.
Other potential impacts to prehistoric, historic, and disturbance of human remains are evaluated in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, and impacts to paleontological resources are addressed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
This evaluation of the Project site and the potential impacts to TCRs is largely based on the following sources:
• City of Ontario The Ontario Plan (TOP) 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).
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The Project site is an eastern expansion of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP), consisting of 71.69 acres of Low-Medium DensityResidential and Business Park land uses. It contains an operational dairy farm and vacant lots used for agricultural purposes. The entire Project area has been repeatedly and significantly altered and disturbed by over 80 years of agricultural/dairy operations.
Surrounding land uses directly adjacent to the Project site include agricultural uses to the north and east, residential uses and vacant land to the west, and public uses for the Chino Airport 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.
Ethnography
The territory of the Gabrielino (Gabrieliño) at the time of Spanish contact covered much of current-day Los Angeles and Orange counties and extended into the western part of the County. The southern extent of this territory is bounded by Aliso Creek, the eastern extent is located east of present-day San Bernardino County along the Santa Ana River, the northern extent includes the San Fernando Valley, and the western extent includes portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. The Gabrieliño also occupied several Channel Islands including Santa Barbara Island, Santa Catalina Island, San Nicholas Island, and San Clemente Island.
Because of their access to certain resources, including a steatite source from Santa Catalina Island, this group was among the wealthiest and most populous aboriginal groups in all of southern California. Trade of materials and resources controlled by the Gabrieliño extended as far north as the San Joaquin Valley, as far east as the Colorado River, and as far south as Baja California. 619
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-2 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
The Gabrieliño lived in permanent villages and smaller, resource-gathering camps occupied at various times of the year depending upon the seasonality of the resource. Larger villages were comprised of several families or clans, while smaller, seasonal camps typically housed smaller family units. The coastal area between San Pedro and Topanga Canyon was the location of primary subsistence villages, while secondary sites were located near inland sage stands, oak groves, and pine forests. Permanent villages were located along rivers and streams, as well as in sheltered areas along the coast. As previously mentioned, the Channel Islands were also the locations of relatively large settlements.
The Gabrieliño tribe carried out food exploitation strategies that utilized local resources ranging from plants to animals; coastal resources were also exploited. Rabbit and deer were hunted and acorns, buckwheat, chia, berries, fruits, and many other plants were collected. Artifacts associated with their occupations include a wide array of chipped stone tools including knives and projectile points, wooden tools like digging sticks and bows, and ground stone tools like bedrock and portable mortars, metates and pestles. Local vegetation was used to construct shelters as well as for medicinal purposes. Cooked foods were prepared on hearths. Acorns were one of the most important food resources utilized by the Gabrieliñoand other Native American groups across California. The acorns were ground into a fine powder in order to make an acorn mush or gruel. A dietary staple, acorns provided a large number of calories and nutrients. The ability to store and create stockpiles in case of lean times also contributed to the importance of acorns as a vital natural resource. Much of the material evidence available to archaeologists concerning the Gabrieliño is a result of tools and technologies related to their subsistence activities.
The social structure of the Gabrieliño is little known; however, there appears to have been at least three social classes: 1) the elite, which included the rich, chiefs, and their immediate family; 2) a middle class, which included people of relatively high economic status or long-established lineages; and 3) a class of people that included most other individuals in the society. Villages were politically autonomous units comprised of several lineages. During times of the year when certain seasonal resources were available, the village would divide into lineage groups and move out to exploit them, returning to the village between forays. Each lineage had its own leader, with the village chief coming from the dominant lineage.
Several villages might be allied under a paramount chief. Chiefly positions were of an ascribed status, most often passed to the eldest son. Chiefly duties included providing village cohesion, leading warfare and peace negotiations with other groups, collecting tribute from the village(s) under his jurisdiction, and arbitrating disputes within the village(s). The status of the chief was legitimized by his safekeeping of the sacred bundle, a representation of the link between the material and spiritual realms and the embodiment of power. Shamans were leaders in the spirit realm. The duties of the shaman included conducting healing and curing ceremonies, guarding of the sacred bundle, locating lost items, identifying and collecting poisons for arrows, and making rain. Marriages were made between individuals of equal social status and, in the case of powerful lineages, marriages were arranged to establish political ties between the lineages.
Men conducted the majority of the heavy labor, hunting, fishing, and trading with other groups. Women’s duties included gathering and preparing plant and animal resources, and making baskets, pots, and clothing. The name “Gabrieliño” is Spanish in origin and was used in reference to the Native Americans associated with the Mission San Gabriel. It is unknown what these people called themselves before the Spanish arrived, but today they call themselves “Tongva,”meaning “people of the earth.” 620
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-3 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.15.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 regulates the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on federal lands and Indian lands.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains, associated funerary objects, and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
California public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC Section 21083.2 additionally requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on “unique archaeological resources.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning. Under California Code of Regulations(CCR), Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)) “historical resource” includes the following:
• A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC), for listing in the California Register of Historical Resource (CRHR), (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by 621
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-4 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1 and Title 14 CCR Section 4852) including the following:
▪ Criterion 1 - Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ▪ Criterion 2 - Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; ▪ Criterion 3 - Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
▪ Criterion 4 - Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
• The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
CEQA addresses significant impacts to historical resources. “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1)).
CEQA also requires agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” PRC Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that “‘unique archaeological resources’ means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized, important prehistoric or historic event or person.”
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18, effective September 2004, requires a local government to notify and consult with California Native American tribes when the local government is considering adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan. SB 18 provides California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early stage of planning, for the purpose of protecting or mitigating impacts to cultural places. Prior to adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, 622
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-5 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
a local government must refer the proposed action to those tribes that are on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. The referral must allow a 45-day comment period pursuant to Government Code Section 65352(b).
SB 18 (Chapter 905 of the 2004 statutes) says, in pertinent parts:
Section 1(b): In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship between California local governments and California tribal governments, it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this act, to accomplish all of the following:
1. Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.
2. Establish meaningful consultations between California Native American tribal governments and California local governments at the earliest possible point in the local government land use planning process so that these places can be identified and considered.
3. Establish government-to-government consultations regarding potential means to preserve those places, determine the level of necessary confidentiality of their specific location, and develop proper treatment and management plans.
4. Ensure that local and tribal governments have information available early in the land use planning process to avoid potential conflicts over the preservation of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places.
5. Enable California Native American tribes to manage and act as caretakers of California Native prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places.
6. Encourage local governments to consider preservation of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places in their land use planning processes by placing them in open space.
7. Encourage local governments to consider the cultural aspects of California Native American prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial places early in land use planning processes.”
And:
Section 65352.3 of the Government Code is as follows:
a) (1) Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a city or county’s general plan, proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.995 of the PRC that are located within the city or county’s jurisdiction. (2) From the date on which a California Native American tribe is contacted by a city or county pursuant to this subdivision, the tribe has 90 days in which to request a consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by that tribe.
623
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-6 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
b) Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Section 65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects.”
Assembly Bill 52
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 52) took effect July 1, 2015 and incorporates tribal consultation and analysis of impacts to TCRs into the CEQA process. It requires TCRs to be analyzed like any other CEQA topic and establishes a consultation process for lead agencies and California tribes. Projects that require a Notice of Preparation of an EIR or Notice of Intent to adopt a ND or MND are subject to AB 52. A significant impact on a TCR is considered a significant environmental impact, requiring feasible mitigation measures.
TCRs must have certain characteristics:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (must be geographically defined), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. (PRC Section 21074(a)(1))
2. The lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses to treat the resource as a TCR. (PRC Section 21074(a)(2))
The first category requires that the TCR qualify as a historical resource according to PRC Section 5024.1.
The second category gives the lead agency discretion to qualify that resource—under the conditions that it supports its determination with substantial evidence and considers the resource’s significance to a California tribe. The following is a brief outline of the process (PRC Section 21080.3.1–3.3).
1. A California Native American tribe asks agencies in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated to be notified about projects. Tribes must ask in writing.
2. Within 14 days of deciding to undertake a project or determining that a project application is complete, the lead agency must provide formal written notification to all tribes who have requested it.
3. A tribe must respond within 30 days of receiving the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation.
4. The lead agency must initiate consultation within 30 days of receiving the request from the tribe.
5. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a TCR, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
6. Regardless of the outcome of consultation, the CEQA document must disclose significant impacts on TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the impact. 624
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-7 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
California Health and Safety Code
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, states that every person who knowingly mutilates or disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remains in or from any location other than a dedicated cemetery without authority of law is guilty of a misdemeanor, except as provided in Section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains.
If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.
Local
City of Ontario Policy Plan
The Ontario Plan (TOP) is the main planning vision for the City. TOP considers the growth of the City within six areas of focus:
1. Vision
2. Government Manual
3. Policy Plan
4. City Council Priorities
5. Implementation, and
6. Tracking and Feedback
TOP includes the Policy Plan which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. For the analysis of TCRs effects, the Community Design Element provides applicable regulations and policies.
625
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-8 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Community Design Element
Goal CD4 Historic buildings, streets, landscapes, and neighborhoods, as well as the story of Ontario’s people, businesses, and social and community organizations, that have been preserved and serve as a focal point for civic pride and identity.
Policy CD4-1 Cultural Resource Management. We update and maintain an inventory of historic sites and buildings, professional collections, artifacts, manuscripts, photographs, documents, maps, and other archives.
4.15.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
TCR-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i.) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or ii.) 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 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (See Impact 4.14-1).
4.15.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP TCR-1 The Project is required to comply with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, PRC Sections 21083.2 and 5097.9, and Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5, to properly recover and evaluate any TCRs, if encountered.
4.15.5 Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning TCRs. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts.
California Historic Resources Inventory System and Cultural Background Research On July 25, 2018, MCC conducted a search of the California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) at the South-Central Coast Information Center (SCCIC), located at the California State University, City of Fullerton, Orange County. The record search covered the Approved SP. In February 2020, MCC was 626
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-9 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
retained by EPD to conduct a supplemental assessment of an expanded Specific Plan Area (Project site) encompassing an additional 80.83 acres. This assessment included a compilation of previous CHRIS record searches that overlap the = Project site. These searches covered any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a one-mile radius of the entire Project area. The CHRIS search also included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Inventory of Historic Resources.
Native American Outreach and Background Research
MCC requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) from the NAHC on July 24, 2018. The NAHC responded on July 25, 2018, stating that there are no known sacred lands within a one-mile radius of the Project area. The NAHC requested that 20 Native American tribes or individuals be contacted for further information regarding the general vicinity. MCC subsequently sent letters on August 1, 2018 to the 20 Native American contacts, requesting any information related to cultural resources or heritage sites within or adjacent to the Project area. If responses were not made by the 20 parties mentioned above, additional attempts at contact by letter, email, or phone call were made on August 10, 22, and 23, 2018. This SLF search conducted included the Project site and did not identify any previously known cultural resources within the entire Project site. These efforts represent MCC’s due diligence in information, rather than formal consultation with the Tribes. The Lead Agency was responsible for conducting consultation as per AB 52 or SB 18, as applicable to the Project and/or Projects within the Project site.
Informal Consultation – Native American Outreach and Background Research MCC requested further information from 20 Native American tribes or individuals, as requested by NAHC.
Of the 20 tribes or individuals, 18 did notrespond or stated that the Project site is outside theirrespective tribe’s ancestral territory and/or areas of tribal affiliation or interest. Two tribes responded by phone, as follows:
• On August 30, 2018, Mr. Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieliño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians informed MCC that the Project is in the vicinity of important prehistoric and historic tribal routes and water sources. The tribe indicated that the heightened sensitivity warrants archaeological and Tribal monitoring by their Tribe. • On August 22, 2018, Mr. Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieliño Band of Mission IndiansKizh Nation informed MCC that the Project is located in a culturally-sensitive area that is part of the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation ancestral territory. Based on traditional and historical information, Mr. Salas recommended both archaeological and Tribal monitoring for the Project. In addition, Mr. Salas requested that MCC include in their report that: the Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation wouldlike to be the primary Tribe to consult on the Project because the Project is located in their ancestral territory; that they wish to be in contact with the Lead Agency for consultation; and that they would like to draft mitigation language for TCRs as Mr.
Salas anticipates encountering prehistoric and historic cultural resources. 627
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-10 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
Formal Consultation – Native American Outreach and Background Research As part of the current CEQA process for the Project site, the City initiated formal tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18. City staff requested an updated SB 18 tribal consultation list from the NAHC. Tribal consultation was concluded on September 22, 2021, per an email from Chairman Andy Salas of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. As a result of this consultation, recommended mitigation measures were provided in order to address specific concerns regarding sensitive environmental resources located near the Project site. It should be noted that the approved Native American lists for SB 18 and AB 52 consultations are not the same as the tribes and individuals identified on NAHC’s SLF list. The following Tribes were notified:
SB 18 Consultation
• Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas, Chairman • Gabrieliño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales, Chief • Gabrieliño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, Robert Dorame, Chairperson • Gabrieliño/Tongva Nation, Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
• Gabrieliño-Tongva Tribe, Charles Alvarez
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Robert Martin, Chairperson • San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, Donna Yocum, Chairperson • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Lee Clauss, Director of Cultural Resources • Serrano Nation of Mission Indians, Goldie Walker, Chairperson • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resources Director AB 52 Consultation
• Gabrieliño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Andrew Salas, Chairman • Gabrieliño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Anthony Morales, Chief • San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Cultural Resources Director • Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural Resources Director Based on the records search and previous disturbance associated with agricultural operations, the potential to uncover TCRs for the site was later determined to be anticipated, as resources were found at two locations near the Project site.
Pedestrian Field Survey
An MCC Archaeologist and cross-trained Paleontologist, conducted a survey of the Approved SP, including the Project site, on July 27, 2018. The survey consisted of walking in parallel transects spaced at approximately 15-meter intervals over the Project site, while closely inspecting the ground surface. All undeveloped areas were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil 628
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-11 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). The type of sediment and land formations were also noted in order to assess the potential for paleontological sensitivity. Existing ground disturbances (e.g., cut banks, ditches, animal burrows, etc.) were also visually inspected to get a sense of subsurface deposits and soil horizons. Representative photographs were taken of the entire study area.
4.15.6 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 4.15-1 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) and (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 consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Construction and Operations
As previously stated, TCRs are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is either eligible or listed in the CRHR or local register of historical resources (PRC Section 21074). Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, public lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to TCRs, and reduce the potential for delay in the environmental review process. The intent of the consultations is to provide an opportunity for interested Native American contacts to collaborate with the City during the project approval process to identify and protect TCRs.
Sacred Lands File Search
As stated, a SLF search was conducted by NAHC to determine if any sacred lands or traditional cultural properties had been identified near the Project site. The NAHC’s SLF record search found no record of TCRs on or within one mile of the Project site (see Appendix D). The Project would not impact any known TCR that is listed or eligible for listing. However, since completion of the search, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site. Therefore, the Project site is considered archaeologically sensitive and could cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR listed or eligible in the 629
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-12 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
CRHR, should such resources be discovered during grading. Further, as required by MM TCR-1 a Qualified Archaeologist would consult with local experts and Native American Representatives for the preparation of a treatment plan, respectively, if significant unknown cultural resources are discovered during construction mass grading and trenching activities.
As discussed above, implementation of the proposed Project could result in disturbance or destruction of unknown buried TCR that were not identified during previous studies or site evaluation. MM CUL-1 and MM TCR-1 include provisions that will ensure the protection of any unknown or inadvertently discovered archaeological resources and human remains, or other culturally-significant resources. All such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to TCRs would occur when the impacts of the Project, in conjunction with other projects and development in the region, result in multiple and/or cumulative impacts to TCRs in the Ontario Ranch area. The cultural records search identified six previously-recorded cultural resources within one mile of the Project site. No previously-recorded fossil localities are located within a one-mile radius of the Project area, and no sacred sites are documented within or adjacent to the Project site.
However, it is possible that buried prehistoric artifacts or TCRs could be present within the area. The proposed Project includes mitigation to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of TCRs.
Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for the Project’s adverse impacts on TCRs.
Each future Project considered for approval by the City would be required to do its own consultation and include mitigation measures to protect resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. The Project would not combine with other projects in the region to create a cumulative impact to TCRs.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to TCRs would be less than significant.
4.15.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:
Impact 4.15-1 Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of 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) and (ii)] i. 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
ii. 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 consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 630
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-13 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
4.15.9 Mitigation Measures
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 grounddisturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing 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 Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing 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 631
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.15-14 4.15 | Tribal Cultural Resources
subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-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.
4.15.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
In addition to compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, implementation of MM CUL-1 and TCR-1 would ensure the Project applicant and construction contractors are aware of potential TCRs on-site and have specified procedures to implement to ensure these potentially-uncovered resources are not damaged during grading and construction activities. The mitigation will ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of TCRs. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for the Project’s adverse impacts on TCRs.
4.15.11 References
Material Culture Consulting (MCC). May 2020. Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Ontario Ranch Business Park, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. 632
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-1 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) discusses the current conditions for utility providers, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services, and the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project) effects on these providers, for the City of Ontario (City).
The following analysis in this section is based, in part, on service provider questionnaire responses and the following technical study information obtained from:
• Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for the Ontario Ranch Business Park II, Thienes Engineering Inc., February 14, 2020, revised January 3, 2022. (Appendix G1) • Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Phase 2, Thienes Engineering Inc., January 11, 2022. (Appendix G2)
• Water Supply Assessment for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, Kimley-Horn, March 2021. (Appendix J)
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
Water Supply
The Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) provides water service to residents, businesses, and other users in the City, including the Project site. Two small areas in the north central and northeastern sections of the City are served by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). As of 2020, OMUC provided water to a population of approximately 178,409 people. The primary source of water is groundwater from Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin). Other water supplies include treated groundwater from the Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA), recycled water from Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), and purchased water from the San Antonio Water Company (SAWCo).
The City has already inactivated several wells (Well 3, 4, 9, 15, 31, 35, and 50) due to high nitrate and perchlorate concentrations detected above the maximum contaminant levels (MCL). Well 34 was removed from service due to Trichloropropane (TCP) water quality issues. The operations of Wells 44 and 52 are limited due to the migration of the bacterial groundwater plume when these wells are used too frequently. Well 25 was taken out of service due to a Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) detection, which was below the PFOA interim notification level. The impact on supply due to the closure of these wells is minimized by constructing replacement wells at other locations where contaminant levels are low and constructing wellhead treatment facilities.
Groundwater from the Chino Basin is directly pumped by the City into its distribution system or is treated through an ion-exchange facility located at John Galvin Park before pumping it into the distribution system. The CDA desalters, Chino I and Chino II Desalters, consist of groundwater extraction wells 633
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-2 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
connected to pumps and pipelines that direct water to advanced treatment facilities. The final product is a high-quality drinking water.
The City’s existing domestic water system consists of the following:
• Five primary pressure zones (Zone 925, 1010, 1074, 1212, and 1348) • Over 2.8 million feet (546 miles) of transmission and distribution pipe, 2-inches through 42-inches in diameter
• 6,811 fire hydrants
• 12 reservoirs with a total volume of 75 million gallons • Four active booster pump stations, 1 inactive booster pump station • 16 pressure reducing stations
• Five inter-agency connections
• Two Connections to WFA
• Two Connections to CDA
The existing water service area includes only a very small portion of OR; Edenglen by Brookfield Homes (located south of Riverside Drive, east of Mill Creek Avenue), and Colony High School (located south of Riverside Drive and west of Mill Creek Avenue). The majority of the existing residents and businesses of OR use private groundwater wells for their water supply.
Total potable and recycled water demand within the OMUC service area averaged 39,374 acre-feet per year (AFY) between 2015 and 2020.1 Actual water supplies provided to the City for the year 2020 are summarized in Table 4.16-1, Water Supplies Summary. Potable water demands averaged 32,109 AFY and recycled water demands averaged 7,812 AFY. Over the past 10 years, the City’s total water demands (including potable and recycled water demands) have ranged from 36,036 AFY to 45,196 AFY, with an average of 40,831 AFY. In addition, the City recently experienced a five-consecutive-year-drought within its service area from fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 to FY 2015-16. Throughout this consecutive dry year period, the City’s annual water production ranged from 42,603 AFY (2012) to 36,036 AFY (2016), with an average of approximately 41,558 AFY. In the City’s Single-Dry year, annual water production was 43,346 AFY. In 2020, the City’s total demand was 39,921 AFY. The total water supply (potable and non-potable) demands in the year 2045 are projected to be 73,668 AFY. Potable water demands are projected to be 57,609 AFY and recycled water demands are projected to be 16,059 AFY. 1 City of Ontario. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, page 8-22. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf. Accessed September 2021. 634
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-3 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.16-1: Water Supplies Summary
Water Supplier Water Source Amount (AFY)
City of Ontario Groundwater 18,395
Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) Purchased/ Imported Water 6,636 Water Facilities Authority (WFA) Purchased/ Imported Water 6,513 San Antonio Water Company (SAWC) Purchased/ Imported Water 565 Potable Water Subtotal 32,109
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) – Agriculture Deliveries Recycled Water 7,812 Total 39,921
Source: City of Ontario, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Figure 2 – Historical Water Use by Source, page 6-3. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-Utilities-Company/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf AFY = Acre-feet per year
Refer to the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project (see Appendix J) for a more detailed description of watersupplies in the City.
The passage of Senate Bill (SB) X7-7 (also known as the Water Conservation Act of 2009) resulted in increased efforts to reduce potable water usage by requiring all California urban water suppliers to achieve a 20 percent reduction in demands (from a historical baseline) by 2020. Using a 10-year base period of 1995 to 2004, the City’s baseline water usage is 245 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The City’s actual water use rate during FY 2019-20 was 161 GPCD which is a decrease of up to 103 GPCD from the recent historical water use. The 2020 target was 196 GPCD.2 It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. As discussed in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2045.
The Project site is currently used for agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The site is not connected to the City’s water supply and utilizes groundwater for irrigation of crops and other agriculturalrelateduses.
Site Hydrology
The Project site currently contains an operational dairy farm with two single-family residential structures in the northeast portion, a dairy barn, a storage structure, approximately 10 feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals and an agricultural field on the majority of the Project site. The Project site generally drains southerly towards Merrill Avenue. A ditch located just north of the southern boundary of the Project site, detains and conveys the runoff to the west. The Project site ultimately drains to an earthen channel located adjacent to Euclid Avenue. The existing 25-year and 100-year peak flow rates from the Project site are approximately 49.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 85.1 cfs, respectively.
Wastewater Conveyance
The City is divided into two distinct areas, Old Model Colony (OMC) and New Model Colony, now known as Ontario Ranch (OR). The two areas are generally divided by Riverside Drive. OMC consists of existing 2 City of Ontario, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. 635
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-4 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
residential, commercial, and industrial developments. It comprises approximately 36 square miles. OR is an agricultural area that was annexed to the City in 1999. It is approximately 13 square miles and currently consists of primarily agricultural land.
The existing OMC sewer collection system is made up of a network of gravity sewers, pump stations, and force mains. The gravity system consists of approximately 365.7 miles of pipe and 7,582 manholes and cleanouts. The system also includes three pump stations and 11,588 feet of associated force mains. The total existing average sewer load for OMC is estimated at 18.75 million gallons per day (mgd). With an existing population of 174,536 persons, this is equivalent to approximately 107 gallons per day (gpd) per person.
The ultimate sewer collection system would include service to OR. The Project is in the OR and no sewer lines currently run in the vicinity of the Project site. Approximately 140,000 feet of additional trunk sewer would be added to the City’s system in OR, ranging in size from 12-inches to 36-inches. It would be financially infeasible for residential development to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements required to support a residential development.
Wastewater Treatment
Regional wastewater services are provided to the City and its neighboring agencies by the IEUA. Several regional trunk sewers collect sewage generated in the City and transport it to IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP-1) and Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5 (RP-5). RP-1 islocated south of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60) and west of Cucamonga Creek, and has been in operation since 1948 and has a current capacity of 44mgd. RP-1 also serves the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Fontana, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County (County). The RP-1 plant treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 28 mgd. The City’s sewer service area is divided into eight sewersheds, primarily based on the outlet points where the City’s system ties into the IEUA downstream facility. The OR is located in Sewershed 8.
IEUA began operation of RP-5 in March 2004. RP-5 is located in the City of Chino at the southeast corner of Kimball Avenue and El Prado Road. Sewage generated in the OR, as well as the wastewater flows diverted from the OMC sewer pump station tributary areas are treated at RP-5. The plant has a wastewater treatment capacity of 15 mgd and treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately nine mgd.
IEUA had originally planned to bypass an average flow of up to 20 mgd from RP-1 to RP-5 via the OR sewer system and Kimball Interceptor Sewer located on Kimball Avenue west of Baker Street. The first OR sewer constructed (Eastern Trunk Sewer) was designed to carry nine mgd of bypass flow from RP-1. Currently, IEUA does not expect to pursue the remaining 11 mgd bypass capacity in the OR sewer system.
Local Drainage
The City presently owns and maintains over 136 miles of storm drains, mostly serving the OMC area of the City. In addition to the City-owned storm drains there are the State-owned storm drains along Caltrans’ Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60) corridors. All the City-owned and State-owned 636
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-5 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
facilities drain to a number of regional backbone facilities owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) that are tributary to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Prado Flood Control Basin.
The City lies in the western portion of the Santa Ana River’s watershed, upstream of the Prado Flood Control Basin. It is in a 277-square-mile area referred to as Zone 1 by SBCFCD. Zone 1 generally slopes towards the south. Four major regional channel systems traverse Zone 1 in a north-south direction; they include San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, Day Creek Channel and San Sevaine Channel.
Solid Waste Collection
The City collects solid waste from residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. Customers are provided with a refuse container, a commingled recycling container, and a green waste container. City waste trucks collect recycling, green waste, and trash. Each truck contains one type of material, which is then recycled/ disposed of appropriately. Computers, televisions, and other electronic waste are recycled free of charge at Ontario's Household Hazardous Waste Facility located at 1430 S. Cucamonga Avenue.
Currently, the Project site is served primarily by the Badlands Sanitary and El Sobrante Landfills but may also be served by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Badlands Landfill is owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, and the El Sobrante Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.
According to 2019 data (most recent data available) from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 97 percent of solid waste collected from the City was taken to the Badlands and El Sobrante Landfills described in Table 4.16-2, Landfills Serving Ontario.
Table 4.16-2: Landfills Serving Ontario
Landfill Remaining
Capacity
(million cubic
yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Capacity (million
cubic yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Throughout
(tons per day)
Average Daily
Disposal
(2019)1(tons)
Estimated
Closing Date
Badlands Sanitary
Landfill
31125 Ironwood Avenue
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
15.7 34.4 4,800 2,139 1/1/2022
El Sobrante Landfill
10910 Dawson Canyon Rd
Corona, CA 91719
144 209.9 16,054 10,855 1/1/2051
Total 159.7 244.3 20,854 12,994 -
Source: CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details. (2019). Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367 1Average daily disposal is estimated based on 300 operating days per year. Each facility is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays.
637
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-6 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Collectively, Badlands and El Sobrante Landfills have a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 160 million cubic yards. The El Sobrante Landfill has a disposal capacity beyond the 15-year horizon, as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 939.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by actual disposal rates compared to target rates for residents and employees, respectively; actual disposal rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939.
Target disposal rates for Ontario are 9.9 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.4 ppd per employee.
Actual disposal rates in 2019 were 8.9 ppd per resident and 12.7 ppd per employee. 3 Thus, solid waste
diversion in the City is consistent with AB 939.
Electricity
The Project site is in the service area of Southern California Edison (SCE). Total mid-electricity4 consumption in SCE’s service area was 106,080 gigawatt-hour (GWh) in 2015 and is forecast to increase to 118,803 GWh in 2027.
Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to the City. SoCalGas’ service area spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County on the southeast to San Luis Obispo County on the northwest, to part of Fresno County on the north, to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County on the east. Total natural gas supplies available to SoCalGas in 2019 is estimated at 3,385 million cubic feet per day (MMCF/day). Supplies are forecasted to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/ day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’ service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035.
4.16.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (U.S. Code, Title 33, Section 1251 et seq.). Under the CWA, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is authorized to set wastewater standards and runs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States. The federal CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters. NPDES permits for such discharges in the Project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 3 CalRecycle, Disposal Rate Calculator. (2019). Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator 4 CEC forecast include three scenarios: a high energy demand case, a low energy demand case, and a mid-energy demand case. The high energy demand case incorporates relatively high economic/demographic growth, relatively low electricity and natural gas rates, and relatively low efficiency program and self-generation impacts. The low energy demand case includes lower 638
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-7 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since it came into law. The Act authorizesthe U.S. EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.
State
California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 as the State’s principal energy planning organization in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo.
The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing State energy policy:
• Forecast statewide electricity needs.
• License power plants to meet those needs.
• Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
• Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies. • Promote research, development, and demonstration.
• Plan for and direct the state’s response to energy emergencies.
California Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure
AB 1103 (2007) requires that electric and gas utilities maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service and that by January 1, 2009, upon authorization of a nonresidential building owner or operator, an electric or gas utility shall upload all of the energy consumption data for the specified building to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Energy Star Portfolio Manager in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the customer.
This statute further requires a nonresidential building owner or operator disclose Energy Star Portfolio Manager benchmarking data and ratings, for the most recent 12-month period, to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender. Enforcement of the latter requirement began on January 1, 2014. 639
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-8 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
On October 8, 2015, AB 802 was signed into law. AB 802 would revise and recast the above provisions.
AB 802 directs the CEC to establish a Statewide energy benchmarking and disclosure program and enhances the CEC's existing authority to collect data from utilities and other entities for the purposes of energy forecasting, planning, and program design. Among the specific provisions, AB 802 would require utilities to maintain records of the energy usage data of all buildings to which they provide service for at least the most recent 12 complete months. By January 1, 2017, AB 802 required each utility, upon the request and the written authorization or secure electronic authorization of the owner, owner’s agent, or operator of a covered building, as defined, to deliver or provide aggregated energy usage data for a covered building to the owner, owner’s agent, operator, or to the owner’s account in the Energy Star Portfolio Manager, subject to specified requirements. AB 802 also authorizedthe commission to specify additional information to be delivered by utilities for certain purposes.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.), which was passedin California in 1969 and amended in 2013, the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions.
RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The City is overseen by the Santa Ana Area RWQCB.
California Senate Bill 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 were amended in 2001 to assure coordination between the local water and land use decisions to confirm that California cities and communities are provided with adequate water supply.
Specific projects are required to prepare a WSA. The WSA is composed of information regarding existing and forecasted water demands, as well as information pertaining to available water supplies for the new development.
The following projects are required to prepare a WSA:
• Residential developments consisting of more than 500 homes; • A business employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 500,000 square feet (sf); • A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space;
• A hotel having more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor area; and
• A mixed-use project that requires the same or greater amount of water as a 500 dwelling-unit project.
640
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-9 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
SB 221 requires written verification that there is sufficient water supply available for new residential subdivisions that include over 500 dwelling units or meet the other requirements listed above. The verification must be provided before commencement of construction for the project.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 (Water Code Section 10610 et seq.) requires water suppliers to:
• Plan for water supply and assess reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in fiveyear increments. • Identify and quantify adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.
• Implement conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies.
Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water ConservationAct of 2009 (SB X7-7), which amends the Urban Water Management Planning Act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code.
Mandatory Water Conservation
Following Governor Brown’s declaration of a state of emergency on July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2014-0038. The emergency regulation was partially repealed by Resolution No. 2017-0024.
The remaining regulation prohibits several activities, including (1) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff; (2) the use of a hose to wash a motor vehicle except where the hose is equipped with a shut-off nozzle; (3) the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; (4) the use of potable water in nonrecirculating ornamental fountains; and (5) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall. The SWRCB resolution also directed urban water suppliers to submit monthly water monitoring reports to the SWRCB.
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, SB X7-7, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency.
The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015. Effective in 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans. The SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards, it also requires that agricultural water suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) required the Department of Water Resources (DWR)to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) by 2009. The State’s model ordinance was issued on October 8, 2009. Under AB 1881, cities and counties were required to adopt a State updated model landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or to adopt 641
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-10 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance. It also required reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances, with required reports due by December 31, 2015.
2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Per Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15)
To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the DWR updated the Model Ordinance in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15. The Model Ordinance promotes efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The Executive Order calls for revising the Model Ordinance to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.
New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 sf or more are subject to the Ordinance.
This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. The previous landscape size threshold for new development projects ranged from 2,500 sf to 5,000 sf.
State Water Resources Control Board: Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements The General Waste Discharge Requirements specify that all federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State need to develop a Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan evaluates existing sewer collection systems and provides a framework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities in order to maintain proper levels of service. The Sewer Master Plan includes inflow and infiltration studies to analyze flow monitoring and water use data, a capacity assurance plan to analyze the existing system with existing land use and unit flow factors, a condition assessment and sewer system rehabilitation plan, and a financial plan with recommended capital improvements and financial models.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution The General Pretreatment Regulations establish responsibilities of federal, State, and local government, industry, and the public to implement National Pretreatment Standards to control pollutants which pass through or interfere with treatment processes in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), or which may contaminate sewage sludge. Pretreatment standards are pollutant discharge limits which apply to industrial users.
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977.
Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency 642
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-11 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
technologies and methods. On June 10, 2015, the CEC adopted the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were adopted on May 9, 2018, went into effect starting January 1, 2020.
The 2016 Standards improve upon the previous 2013 Standards for new construction of and additions and alterations to residential and nonresidential buildings. Under the 2016 Standards, residential and nonresidential buildings are generally 28 and five percent more energy efficient than the 2013 Standards, respectively. Buildings that were constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the previous 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. Although the 2016 standards do not achieve zero net energy, they get very close to the State’s goal and take important steps toward changing residential building practices in California.
The 2019 standards move toward cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multifamily buildings of three stories and less. The 2019 standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements. Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient compared to the 2016 standards, and single-family homes will be seven percent more energy efficient. When accounting for the electricity generated by the solar photovoltaic system, single-family homes would use 53 percent less energy compared to homes built to the 2016 standards.
California Building Code: Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) The CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code and established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), as well as water conservation and material conservation, both of which contribute to energy conservation. As previously stated, the 2019 CALGreen Code standards became effective January 1, 2020. Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code; Title 24, California Code of Regulations [CCR], Part 11) requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The CALGreen Code is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2019 CALGreen Code took effect on January 1, 2020.
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609) include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce reducing energy demand as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
State Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Current State guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions from stationary sources are generally embodied in Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15; AB 32 and AB 197; and SB 32. While these regulations 643
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-12 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
are inherently aimed at reducing GHG emissions, they have a direct relationship to energy conservation.
A detailed discussion of these regulations is provided in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476) increased the statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020. The law, passed in 2011, mandates recycling for businesses producing four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. This commercial recycling law took effect July 1, 2012. Under the law, Ontario businesses must separate recyclables from trash and then either subscribe to City recycling services, self-haul their recyclables, or contract with a permitted private recycler.
The City is required to provide a number of programs to meet the requirements of AB 341. They include a public outreach program to inform Ontario businesses about the mandate, monitoring the progress of each business, notifying them if they are not in compliance, and reporting to the State.
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, PRC Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
Assembly Bill 1826
In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also required that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the State implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. 644
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-13 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Senate Bill 1383
In September of 2016, Governor Brown signed into law SB 1383, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP).
SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead collaborating with the jurisdictions located within the county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations.
Local
San Bernardino County Integrated Waste Management Plan
The preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) is one of the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act. The CIWMP consists of four elements and a Summary Plan. Each jurisdiction (cities and the County) prepared the first three elements:
• Source Reduction and Recycling Element: which analyzed the local waste stream to determine where to focus diversion efforts, and developed diversion programs and funding; • Household Hazardous Waste Element: which provides a framework for recycling, treatment, and disposal practices; and
• Non-disposal Facility Element: which lists planned and existing facilities such as material recovery facilities and composting facilities that recover waste from the waste stream.
The County prepared the Countywide Siting Element which demonstrates that there is at least 15 years of remaining disposal capacity to serve all the jurisdictions within the County. The Countywide Summary Plan, the final element of the CIWMP, contains goals and policies as well as a summary of integrated waste management issues faced by the County. It summarizes waste management programs and the steps needed to cooperatively implement programs among the County's jurisdictions to continue to meet the statewide diversion mandates. The Countywide Summary Plan is to be updated every five years along with any other affected elements of the CIWMP.
City of Ontario Urban Water Management Plan
Ontario is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) pursuant to Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, effective January 1, 1984.
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all urban water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources every five years. The City’s 2020 UWMP outlines current water demands, sources, and supply reliability to the City by forecasting water use based on climate, demographics, and land use changes in the City. The 2020 UWMP also provides demand management measures to increase water use efficiency for various land use types and details a water supply contingency plan in case of shortage emergencies.
City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines
The City’s Landscape Development Guidelines assures that the State’s current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is being implemented in the City. The guidelines include water conservation measures that need to be incorporated into landscape designs, the different elements that need to be 645
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-14 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
incorporated into preliminary landscape plans, and the required landscape construction documents.
Construction documents need to include a water efficient landscape worksheet, grading design, erosion control measures, and a maintenance schedule.
City of Ontario Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual
The Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual assists developers in meeting the City of Ontario's requirements on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Water Quality Control Plants NPDES Permit Wastewater discharge requirements for IEUA RP-1 and RP-5 are detailed in Order No. RS-2015-0036 NPDES No. CA8000409. The permit includes the conditions needed to meet minimum applicable technology-based requirements. The permit includes limitations that are more stringent than applicable federal technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve the required water quality standards.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97 The IEUA’s Regional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97 sets forth uniform requirements for industrial users of the IEUA’s regional sewage system to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including the CWA, the General Pretreatment Regulations, and the California Water Code. The objective of the ordinance is to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTWs that will interfere with their operation or that will pass through the POTWs, inadequately treated, into receiving waters.
City of Ontario Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines The City Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines ensures that water and sewer facilities constructed in the City are complete, correctly operating, and in compliance with government codes and good water and wastewater industry practice. The guidelines also provide interested parties with the City’s procedures, policies, and requirements for the design and construction of new water and wastewater infrastructure.
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Ontario Municipal Code (MC) sets forth uniform requirements and regulations for the direct and indirect users of the refuse and recycling collection services of the City. It also allows for the City to comply with all applicable State and federal laws, including, but not limited to, The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, California Code Title 14 Division 7, and any subsequent amendments to each.
Under Title 6, Chapter 7, the Public Sewer System, of the MC sets forth uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the City sewerage system and IEUA treatment system, and enables the City to comply with all applicable State and federal laws, including the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations, and subsequent amendments to each.
646
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-15 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
The purpose of the Water Conservation Plan, in the MC under Title 6, Chapter 8A, is to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. The chapter adopts provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible.
The purpose of Water Services, under Title 8B, is to describe rules and regulations regarding service connections, payments and fees, and conditions for pressure, as well as emergency response for repairs and regulations.
The purpose of Title 6, Chapter 8C (Ordinance 2689), Recycled Water Use, is to establish procedures, specifications, and limitations for the safe and orderly development and operation of recycled water facilities and systems within the City's service area, and adopt rules and regulations controlling such use.
The Ontario Plan (TOP)
The City’s TOP contains policies and goals addressing wastewater infrastructure. Table 4.16-3, Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Wastewater Utilities, provides a summary of the TOP goals and policies.
Table 4.16-3: Ontario Policy Plan Goals and Policies Relevant to Wastewater Utilities Goal/Policy No. Goal/Policy
Goal ER1 A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
Policy ER1-1
Local Water Supply. We increase local water supplies to reduce our dependence on imported water.
Policy ER1-2 Matching Supply to Use. We match water supply and quality to the appropriate use.
Policy ER1-3 Conservation. We require conservation strategies that reduce water usage.
Policy ER1-4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.
Policy ER1-5
Groundwater Management. We protect groundwater quality by incorporating strategies that prevent pollution, require remediation where necessary, capture and treat urban run-off, and recharge the aquifer.
Policy ER1-6
Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage the use of low impact development strategies to intercept run-off, slow thedischarge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.
Policy ER1-7
Urban Run-off Quality. We require the control and management of urban run-off, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.
Policy ER1-8
Wastewater Management. We require the management of wastewater discharge and collection consistent with waste discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Goal ER2
A cost effective, integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds state and federal recycling and waste diversion mandates.
Policy ER2-1 Waste Diversion. We shall meet or exceed AB 939 requirements.
Policy ER2-2
Hazardous and Electronic Wastes. We prohibit the disposal of hazardous and electronic waste into the municipal waste stream pursuant to state law.
Policy ER2-3
Purchase Products Made from Recycled Materials. We purchase recycled-content products where it is cost effective.
647
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-16 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Goal/Policy No. Goal/Policy
Goal ER3
Cost-effective and reliable energy system sustained through a combination of low impact building, site and neighborhood energy conservation and diverse sources of energy generation that collectivelyhelps to minimize the region’s carbon footprint.
Policy ER3-1
Conservation Strategy. We require conservation as the first strategy to be employed to meet applicable
energy-saving standards.
Policy ER3-3
Building and Site Design. We require new construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation.
Policy ER3-6
Generation- Renewable Sources. We promote the use of renewable energy sources to serve public and private
sector development.
Source: The Ontario Plan. Environmental Resources Element. (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/environmentalresources-element/
4.16.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project:
U-1 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?
U-2 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? U-3 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?
U-4 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? U-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Section 7.0, Effect Found Not to Be Significant, substantiates that impacts associated with the following threshold would be less than significant:
• Threshold U-5
This impact will not be addressed in the following analysis.
4.16.4 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP W-1 The Project’s water infrastructure improvements will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the City of Ontario’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines.
648
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-17 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
PPP W-2 Water conservation measures for the Project will abide by the requirements of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 8A, Water Conservation Plan, Title 6, Chapter 8B, Water Services, and Title 6, Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use.
PPP W-3 The Project will follow the City of Ontario’s Landscape Development Guidelines to assure compliance with the State’s current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
PPP WW-1 The Project will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the IEUARegional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97. All industrial wastewater discharges into IEUA facilities shall be required to comply with the discharge standards set forth to protect the POTWs.
PPP WW-2 The Project’s sewer infrastructure improvements will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the City of Ontario Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines.
PPP WW-3 The Project will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the requirements of the City’s MC Chapter 7, Public Sewer System, to protect the City of Ontario sewerage system and IEUA treatment system.
PPP HYD-1 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the City’s MC Chapter 6, Stormwater Drainage System to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Ontario by prescribing regulations to effectively prohibit nonstormwater discharges into the City's stormwater drainage system.
PPP HYD-2 Any construction shall be regulated by the SWRCB in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No.
CAS000002, SWRCB Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The City may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.
PPP HYD-3 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036 as renewed by the ROWD submitted on August 1, 2014). The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to adopt a water quality management plan (WQMP) to:
▪ Control contaminants into storm drain systems
▪ Educate the public about stormwater impacts
▪ Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
▪ Control runoff from construction sites
▪ Implement BMPs and site-specific runoff controls and treatments PPP SW-1 The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen Code, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario shall confirm that a sufficient plan has been submitted, and prior to final building inspections, the 649
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-18 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
City of Ontario shall review and verify the contractor’s documentation that confirms the volumes and types of wastes that were diverted from landfill disposal, in accordance with the approved construction waste management plan.
PPP SW-2 The Project will store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341.
PPP SW-3 The Project will abide by the requirements of San Bernardino County Integrated Waste Management Plan and Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the MC.
PPP SW-4 The Project will abide by the requirements of the City of Ontario’s Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.
PPP OU-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11).
PPP OU-2 All new appliances would comply with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609).
4.16.5 Methodology
The Project is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning transportation resources. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) 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.
4.16.6 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 4.16-1 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] Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP W-1, PPP WW-2, PPP WW-3, PPP OU-1 and PPP OU-2, Impact 4.16-1 would be Less Than Significant
The Project proposes new on-and off-site public sewer, potable water, and storm drain infrastructure, and would receive SCE electrical service. There are power poles and overhead facilities located opposite the site along Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Avenue. On-site improvements would include storm drains, water quality systems, a sewer main and sewer lines, water lines, and dry utility connections.
Water
The Project site is currently agricultural land use, including dairy operations and field crops. The site is not connected to the City’s water supply and utilizes groundwater for irrigation of crops and other agricultural 650
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-19 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
related uses. The use of this water supply would cease upon implementation of the Project. There is also one water well on-site which would be abandoned in accordance with DWR standards.
Potable water distribution to the Project would be provided by the City of Ontario. There are no existing water mains in the vicinity of the Project that are within the City’s jurisdiction; existing water mains along the south half of Merrill Avenue are within City of Chino jurisdiction. The Project proposes 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. It should be noted that the water main to be connected to is not currently constructed. The Approved SP was conditioned to construct the water main to be connected to. This infrastructure would be constructed prior to or concurrently with implementation of the Project. There is an existing 30-inch IEUA recycled water main adjacent to the Project site in Eucalyptus Avenue. This recycled water is provided to the City by IEUA via its four wastewater reclamation plants.
Recycled water infrastructure for the Project site is planned to extend an eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue from Euclid Avenue easterly to Campus Avenue. Additionally, an eight-inch recycled water main is planned to be installed in Campus Avenue that also connects the eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue to the existing 30-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue. Sizing and alignment of the recycled water lines would be consistent with the City’s recycled water system plan and a City approved hydraulic analysis. Refer to Section 3.0, Project Description for additional information on proposed buildout and development of the potable water and recycled water systems for the Project.
Until the ultimate pipeline network for OR 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 area may be required to construct additional pipelines not indicated in the City’s Water Master Plan or upsize master planned pipelines to meet Fire Department fire flow requirements and/or Water Master Plan criteria. All lines are per the City Water Master Plan, located in road rights-of-way that are already improved, according to the TOP EIR. The developer would submit a hydraulic analysis to the City for review and approval to demonstrate adequate fire flow and adherence to the City’s Water Master Plan criteria.
Although off-site construction of the water lines would be necessary for operation of the Project, these facilities have been planned by the City in its Water Master Plan, and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required. Furthermore, any off-site construction of potable water infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the standards and specifications of the MC. Off-site water mains required to serve the Project would need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. Within the Project site, a private network of two- to four-inch water lines for domestic water service and 10- to 12- inch water lines for fire service water would be installed. The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue and to the main in Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue. It should be noted that not all adjacent infrastructures have been constructed. The Approved SP was conditioned to construct this infrastructure. This infrastructure would be constructed prior to or concurrently with implementation of the Project. On-site construction of the proposed infrastructure would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the 651
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-20 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
MC. The necessary installation of on-site water lines is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in other sections of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities outside of already improved road rights-of-way or existing City Water Master Plan, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Recycled Water
Additionally, the City Ordinance 2689 requires all new development in OR 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 SWRCB is required. There are currently no existing City recycled water mains or City recycled water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site and the Project would require the construction of both on- and off-site recycle water mains to serve the site, consistent with the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. Recycled water infrastructure improvements for the Project require the planning, design, and construction of the 930 PZ Recycled Water Master Plan mains. The Specific Plan area requires the planning, design, and construction of new recycled water system lines which would be installed as follows:
• installing a 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue connecting to the eight-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue and extending to connect to the IEUA 30-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue.
• installing an eight-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue connecting to the 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue.
• installing an eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue connecting to the eight-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue and extending to connect to the eight-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue.
• installing an eight-inch recycled water main in Grove Avenue connecting to the eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue and extending to connect to the 12-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and installing an eight-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue connecting to the eight-inch recycled water main in Bon View Avenue and extending to Campus Avenue.
If a recycled water pipeline point of connection exists at the intersection of Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue at the time of entitlement, the eight-inch recycled water main may need be installed in Merrill Avenue connecting to the eight-inch recycled water main in Campus Avenue and extended to Sultana Avenue.
Recycled water infrastructure improvements for the Project require the planning, design, and construction of the 930 PZ Recycled Water Master Plan mains. The Project also requires the planning, design, and construction of the adjacent recycled water system. Sizing and alignment of the recycled water lines would be consistent with the City recycled water system plan and/or a City approved hydraulic 652
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-21 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
analysis. All lines would be installed per City master plans, located in road rights-of-way that are already improved, and/or already addressed in prior CEQA documents as noted in Section 3.0, Project Description.
Wastewater Treatment
There are no existing sewer mains in the vicinity of the Project site that are within the jurisdiction of the City, and the Project would require the construction of both on- and off-site sewer mains. It would be financially infeasible for residential development to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements required to support a residential development. The City of Ontario’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan shows the existing infrastructure serving the Project area as well as the ultimate sewer system. The ultimate sewer collection system would include approximately 140,000 feet of additional trunk sewer to serve the OR.
The sewer master plan includes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure adequate long-range planning for implementing the City’s sewer infrastructure improvements in line with the City’s 2010 Policy Plan buildout scenario.
The Project includes a network of public sewer mains, consistent with the City’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan and supplemental studies. The Project proposes an 16-inch public sewer main which will be located along Sultana Avenue and Campus Avenue. Both sewer mains will connect to a 36-inch sewer main in Merrill Avenue, to be constructed, which connects to an existing IEUA interceptor trunk main sewer located in Kimball Avenue to the south, running north in Euclid Avenue to Merrill Avenue, then east to Grove Avenue. A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and development within the Specific Plan.
As shown in the WSA for the Project, the indoor water demand for the Project is less than the water demand anticipated in the 2010 Policy Plan buildout scenario for the Project site. Wastewater generation can be conservatively assumed to be equal to 100 percent of indoor water demand. Therefore, wastewater generation from the Project would be less than wastewater generation rates assumed for the Project site in the Policy Plan. Since the Sewer Master Plan is based on the Policy Plan buildout scenario, the Project would not require expansion of the wastewater infrastructure specified for the Project site in the sewer plan. Therefore, no additional off-site extensions or expansions to the planned sewer system serving the region would be required. On-site construction of the proposed sewer infrastructure would provide for connections throughout the site. Sewer laterals would connect buildings to sewer mains. Sizing and alignment of sewers would be within constructed in compliance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the Municipal Code. The necessary installation of on-site sewer lines and connections to the existing line is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in other sections of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Storm Drainage
The Projectsite storm drain improvements (Figure 3-26, Storm Drain Plan) are consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City of Ontario Storm Drain Master Plan. Any runoff would drain into 653
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-22 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
catch basins located throughout the Project site. Flows would then be conveyed via storm drains constructed as part of the Project into a Debris Separating Baffle Box (DSBB) for water pre-treatment, then to an underground perforated Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) system for water quality treatment. From there, higher flows at the catch basins would be conveyed away from the Project site via a larger on-site storm drain system. The proposed on-site storm drain system would be sufficiently sized to limit storm drain discharge after construction of the Project to less 25-year and 100-year existing condition peak flow rates. Flows beyond the allowable rate will be forced to temporarily detain above ground in the proposed truck yards throughout the site, and then slowly released via the proposed onsite storm drain at a rate below the existing condition 25-year discharge. With the proposed BMPs and on-site detention, the 100-year peak flow rate from the Project site would be approximately 49.9 cfs. This is comparable to the peak flow rate under existing conditions for the 25- year storm event (49.5 cfs). Storm drainpipe sizes and hydraulics would be determined during the final design phase to ensure that the postdevelopment 100-year flow rate is comparable to the existing condition 25-year flow rate. Storm drains would be constructed consistent with the Storm Drain Master Plan, the ultimate discharge location downstream, between Pine Avenue and Merrill Avenue in the City of Chino, is not fully improved at this time. Until this occurs, as discussed above, the Project would utilize on-site stormwater detention so that discharge from Project development remains comparable to peak flow rates prior to development.
Electricity
Project operation is expected to use approximately 14.1 million kilowatt hours (kWh) annually. Total midelectricity consumption in SCE’s service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 GWh between 2015 and 2027. SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area; and the electricity demand due to the Project is within the forecast increase in SCE’s electricity demands. Project development would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Project operation is estimated to use about 12.8 million kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per year.
SoCalGas’ residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’ service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035. SoCalGas forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet Project gas demands, and Project development would not require SoCalGas to obtain new or expanded gas supplies. Therefore, Project development would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas supplies, and impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the Project would comply with the requirements of the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11). All new appliances would comply with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609). 654
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-23 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Conclusion
The Project would not result in the construction of new expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be 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]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP W-1, PPP W-2, PPP W-3 Impact 4.16-2 would be Less Than Significant
Water Demand
Water use for the Project was calculated using domestic water demand rates and recycled water irrigation demand rates as specified in the UWMP. Table 4.16-4, Water Demand Estimate for the Project, shows the total water demand estimate for the Project.
Table 4.16-4: Water Demand Estimate for the Project
Land Use Acres
Domestic Water
Demand Rate
(gpd/ac)a
Total Domestic
Water Usage
(gpd)
Recycled Water
Demand Rate
(gpd/ac)b
Total Recycled
Water Usage
(gpd)
Planning Area
PA 3: Business Park 11.629 1,800 20,932 1,200 13,955
PA 4: Industrial 60.059 1,400 84,083 1,700 102,100
Total 71.688 - 105,015 - 116,055
Source: City of Ontario 2020 UWMP, 2021.
gpd = Gallons per day; gpd/ac = Gallons per day per acre a. Table 4-8 of the Potable Water Master Plan Update (Appendix E of the 2020 UWMP) was used to establish the domestic water demand rate. b. Table 5-3 of the Recycled Water Irrigation Unit Demand Factors (Appendix K of the 2020 UWMP) was used to establish the recycled water demand rate.
As shown in Table 4.16-4, the total domestic water demand for the Project is estimated to be 105,015 gpd (116.8 AFY). The total recycled water usage is estimated to be 116,055 gpd (131.4 AFY). The total water demand would be 221,070 gpd or 248.2 AFY.
The 2020 UWMP indicates that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2045. The 2020 UWMP projected water demands are based on the City’s measurement of its water use through meter data and billing records.
Projected water demand for the Project site is included in the 2020 UWMP projections but is based on the TOP and the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan. Table 4.16-5, Water Demand Estimate for the Project Site Based on Projected Future Land Use in 2020 UWMP, shows the total water demand estimate for the Project site based on the future land uses in the 2020 UWMP. 655
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-24 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Table 4.16-5: Water Demand Estimate for the Project Site Based on Projected Future Land Use in 2020 UWMP Land Use Acres
Domestic Water
Demand Rate
(gpd/ac)a
Total Domestic
Water Usage
(gpd)
Recycled Water
Demand Rate
(gpd/ac)b
Total Recycled
Water Usage
(gpd)
Business Park 18.10 1,800 32,580 1,200 21,720
Low Medium
Density Residential
56.34 3,960 223,106 700 39,438
Total 74.44 - 255,686 - 61,158
Source: City of Ontario 2020 UWMP.
gpd = Gallons per day; gpd/ac = Gallons per day per acre a. Table 4-8 of the Potable Water Master Plan Update (Appendix E of the 2020 UWMP) was used to establish the domestic water demand rate.
b. Table 5-3 of the Recycled Water Irrigation Unit Demand Factors (Appendix K of the 2020 UWMP) was used to establish the recycled water demand rate.
Comparing Project water demand in Table 4.16-4 with water demand in Table 4.16-5, the total domestic water demand within the Project site would decrease compared to planned land use as depicted in the 2020 UWMP. Water usage of existing land uses per the 2020 UWMP is estimated to be 255,686 gpd (286 AFY). The total recycled water demand is estimated to be 61,158 gpd (68.6 AFY). Therefore, the total water demand for existing land uses per the 2020 UWMP would be 316,844 gpd or 354 AFY, compared to a total water demand of the proposed Project (shown in Table 4.16-4) of 221,070 gpd or 248.2 AFY.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, because the Project would not use any additional water that was not accounted for in the previous 2015 UWMP. As shown in Table 4.16-7, Water Demand Summary, the Project would result in a net decrease in water demand compared to the 2020 UWMP.
Table 4.16-7: Water Demand Summary
Land Use Total Domestic Water
Usage (gpd)
Total Recycled Water
Usage (gpd)
Total Water Usage (gpd)
Existing Land Uses
Project Site 255,686 61,158 316,844
Proposed Project
Project Site 105,015 116,055 221,070
Net Difference
gpd 150,671 -54,897 95,774
(%) Decrease of 58.92% Increase of 89.76% Decrease of 30.2% Proposed Water Conservation Strategies
Landscaping within the Project area would be implemented in line with the City’s Landscape Development Guidelines. The guidelines include water conservation measures that need to be incorporated into landscape designs, the different elements that need to be incorporated into preliminary landscape plans, and the required landscape construction documents. Construction documents need to include a water efficient landscape worksheet, grading design, erosion control measures, and a maintenance schedule.
Furthermore, the Project includes key provisions for landscaping plans within the Project area which include:
656
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-25 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
• Selecting 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.
• Incorporating water conservation features in landscape and irrigation plans.
In addition to the City having adequate water supply to service the Project, these water conservation measures would decrease water demand and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and a less than significant impact will occur.
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]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP WW-1, PPP WW-2, and PP WW-3 Impact 4.16-3 would be Less Than Significant The Project site is located in the OR and is within IEUA’s wastewater service area boundary. The Project would be served by the RP-5 wastewater treatment plant.
Buildout of the Project would generate approximately 174,219 gpd of wastewater which is equal to the indoor water demand as shown in Table 4.16-4. As stated above, the current liquid treatment capacity of RP-5 is 15 mgd, and the plant treats an average of 9 mgd. Thus, RP-5 has a remaining wastewater treatment capacity of 6 mgd. The Project’s generated wastewater would represent less than three percent of the RP-5’s remaining treatment capacity. Therefore, wastewater generated by the Project would be adequately treated at the RP-5.
RP-5 is required by federal and State law to meet applicable standards of treatment plant discharge requirements subject to Order No. RS-2015-0036 NPDES No. CA8000409. The permit includes the conditions needed to meet minimum applicable technology-based requirements. The NPDES permit regulates the amount and type of pollutants that the system can discharge into receiving waters. RP-5 is operating in compliance with and would continue to operate subject to State waste discharge requirements and federal NPDES permit requirements, as set forth in the NPDES permit and order.
Furthermore, the Project would comply with IEUA’s Ordinance No. 97 ensuring that wastewater discharge into the sewer system is compliant with the NPDES permit conditions, bio-solid use, and disposal requirements, and any other federal or State laws.
The additional wastewater (quantity and type) that would be generated by the Project and treated by the RP-5 would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant as the wastewater treatment provider will have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
657
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-26 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
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]
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP SW-1, PPP SW-2, PPP SW-3, and PPP SW-4 Impact 4.16-4 would remain Less Than Significant
Construction and Operations
Prior to construction of the Project, on-site structures would need to be demolished and its debris moved off-site to appropriate landfills. The site contains single-family residential structures, a dairy barn, a storage structure, approximately 10 feed storage barns, and numerous livestock corrals. The demolition of the existing structures may cause a strain on existing landfill capacities if waste exceeds the daily permitted capacity for the landfills serving the City. Collectively, the two primary landfills, Badlands Sanitary and El Sobrante Landfill, have a daily permitted capacity of 20,854 tons per day (tpd), and average daily disposal of 12,994 tpd, as reported in 2019. Therefore, the two landfills have a residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The 3,041 tons of demolition waste that would be disposed of in landfills would occur over a period of approximately two and a half months and would not exceed the daily residual capacity of the landfills. Buildout of the Project is estimated to generate 21,429 ppd of solid waste, as shown in Table 4.16-8, Estimated Solid Waste Generation.
Table 4.16-8: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Buildout (sf) Solid Waste Generation
Rate (ppd)
Solid Waste Generation
(ppd)
Industrial Park 1,412,739 sf 1.42 per 100 sf 20,061
Business Park 227,951 sf 6 per 1,000 sf 1,368
Total 21,429
Source: CalRecycle 2019e.
Notes: sf = square feet; ppd = pounds per day
As detailed in Table 4.16-2, the two landfills serving the City have residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The estimated 21,429 ppd or 10.71 tpd generated by the Project would be adequately served by the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill.
Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the Project during operations, and Project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity.
Impacts would be less than significant for the operational phase.
Regulatory Compliance
Additionally, AB 341 requires all businesses in California that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week to implement one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal:
• Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities.
• Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler in the service area. 658
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-27 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
• Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multifamily complex). • Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.
Furthermore, the Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the MC would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable State and federal laws, including, but not limited to, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen Code. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur as the Project would not 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.
4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative water supply impacts is the City. Other projects in the service area would increase water demands. The City forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period (see “Water Demand” under Impact 4.16-3). Other projects of certain sizes and types that would meet the requirements of SB 610 would be required to have a WSA prepared to show reliability of water supplies for the project, considering normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year horizon. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, future projects would be served by existing and planned future water infrastructure and facilities, as planned within the City’s Water Master Plan and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required. Any future water infrastructure or facility would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the MC. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment is IEUA’s RP-5 service area. The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater conveyance systems is the OR area. Future growth in the OR, in accordance with TOP, would result in increases in wastewater flow. These include increases in residential, office space, and industrial effluent. Expansion and/or capacity upgrades to the existing sewer collection lines would be required due to the change in land use in the OR. The Sewer Master Plan projects daily wastewater generation in line with land use changes associated with TOP. The sewer master plan presents preliminary sizes, alignments and construction cost estimates needed to mitigate existing drainage deficiencies and support future build-out conditions. Sewer collection system expansions would be based on the Sewer Master Plan and would be constructed with development in the OR. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the IEUA is able to maintain and expand its wastewater collection system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs associated with increased demand. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater collection.
The City wastewater effluent in the OR is directed mainly to RP-5. The 2035 projected quantities of wastewater that need to be treated at RP-5 is 18.4 mgd, an increase of 9.4 mgd from current production 659
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-28 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
rates. The 20-year IEUA’s CIP includes expanding the capacity of RP-5 to 22.5 mgd. The CIP also developed a capacity fee charged to new development to fund the needed capacity. Furthermore, IEUA annually prepares a wastewater treatment master plan and flow projections for all its contracting agencies, including the City. The IEUA improvement plan is sequenced considering the rate of development to ensure adequate treatment capacity exists at time of building permits but is phased to eliminate premature construction of unneeded capacity. Assuming the proposed plant expansions would be completed prior to increased urban development and the treatment of water at these plants would continue to meet the water quality standards of the Santa Ana RWQCB, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to electricity supplies and facilities is SCE’s service area, and the area considered for natural gas is SoCalGas’ service area. Forecast total electricity and natural gas supplies for the respective service areas are identified above. Other projects would increase electricity and natural gas demands.
Electricity demand forecasts are based on climate zones; economic and demographic growth forecasts, and the California Department of Finance; forecast electricity rates; effects of reasonably foreseeable energy efficiency and energy conservation efforts; anticipated partial electrification of portions of the transportation sector, including increasing adoption of light-duty plug-in electric vehicles; demand response measures, such as electricity rates that increase during high-demand times of day; and effects of climate change.
Natural gas demand forecasts are based on economic outlook; California Public Utilities Commission– mandated energy efficiency standards and programs; renewable electricity goals; and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure.
It is anticipated that electricity and natural gas demands by most other projects would be accounted for in the above-referenced demand forecasts. Other projects would be subject to independent CEQA review, including analysis of impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would be required for any significant impacts identified. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the area serviced by the Badlands and the El Sobrante Landfills. Collectively, Badlands and El Sobrante Landfills have a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 160 million cubic yards and El Sobrante Landfill has a disposal capacity beyond the 15-year horizon, as required by AB 939. Thus, there is sufficient landfill capacity in the region for the cumulative increase in solid waste disposal. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.16.8 Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, Impacts 4.16-1 through 4.16-4 would be less than significant.
660
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-29 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.16.9 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.16.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures are required, and impacts would remain less than significant.
4.16.11 References
AKM. 2012a, April. City of Ontario Old Model Colony and New Model Colony Sewer Master Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/sect_1_executive_summary.pdf. ———. 2012b, April. City of Ontario Water Master Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/section_10_ultimate_system.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2015 Updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: Guidance for California Local Agencies. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-UseEfficiency/MWELO-Files/MWELO-Guidebook/1--Model-Water-Efficient-Landscape-OrdinanceGuidebook.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility: Ontario.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility. ———. 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail, Badlands Sanitary Landfill (33-AA-0006). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2367. ———. 2019c. SWIS Facility Detail, El Sobrante Landfill (33-AA-0217). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2402. ———. 2019d. Landfill Tonnage Reports. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/. ———. 2019d. Jurisdiction Review Reports.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports/PerCapitaDisposalTrends. ———. 2019e. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.
California Energy Commission (CEC). California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=214635.
California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2021. 2020 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.
CalRecycle, Disposal Rate Calculator. (2019). Retrieved from:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator 661
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-30 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
Hunsaker and Associates Irvine (Hunsaker). 2012, March. City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage. http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/master_plan_of_drainage_city_of_ontario.pdf.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2019a. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1., https://www.ieua.org/facilities__trashed/regional-water-recycling-plant-no1/#:~:text=Ontario%2C%20California%2091761- ,Regional%20Water%20Recycling%20Plant%20No.,44%20million%20gallons%20per%20day. ———. 2019b. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5. https://www.ieua.org/facilities__trashed/regionalwater-recycling-plant-no-5/. ———. 2020, May. Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan. https://18x37n2ovtbb3434n48jhbs1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/IEUA-Ten-Year-Forecast-2020-2021-Final.pdf.
Jones, Courtney (Senior Associate Civil Engineer). 2019, May 29. Correspondence with Dina El Chammas Gass, Associate Engineer at PlaceWorks. Ontario Municipal Utilities Company.
Ontario, City of. 2009. The Ontario Plan: Policy Plan. http://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/ ———. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/2015_urban_water_management_plan_update_9-18-2018_0.pdf. ———. 2021. Addendum to the 2015 Urban water Management Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20Addendum%20to%202015%20Ontario%20UWMP%20%28Appendix%20C%
29.pdf.
———. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf. ———. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Appendices. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP%20-%20Appendices.pdf. ———Mandatory Programs: AB 341 and AB 1826.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/omuc/integrated-waste.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2010, December. Status of Adoption of Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances, Pursuant to AB 1881 Section 65597. https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/wateruseefficiency/docs/LandscapOrdinanceReport_to_Leg-4-22- 2011.pdf.
San Bernardino County (San Bernardino). Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. 662
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 4.16-31 4.16 | Utilities and Service Systems
http://cms.sbcounty.gov/Portals/50/solidwaste/SWAT/Engineering/SB-County-Final-Draft-SummaryPlan-SP-for-SWAT-07-2018r.pdf?ver=2018-07-10-135812-593.
Thienes Engineering. Preliminary Hydrology Calculations for Ontario Ranch Commerce Center. ———. 2018, August 28. Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Ontario Ranch Commerce Center. 663
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.0 ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a discussion of additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact considerations, including Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-inducing Impacts.
5.1 Significant Irreversible Changes Due to the Proposed Project Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented.
Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
In the case of the proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Project (Project), its implementation would involve a land use, development, and implementation framework to support up to a maximum build-out of 1,640,690 square feet (sf) of business park, warehouse, and ancillary office space within the City of Ontario (City). Significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of the Project would be:
• Construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. • Operation that would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the operation of the Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project.
▪ Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic); ▪ Emissions of air pollutants associated with operations (see Section 4.2, Air Quality); and 664
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
▪ Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with operation of the Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating, and cooling systems, and appliances (see Section 4.5, Energy, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions). • An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.
• Employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s (SoCAB) nonattainment designations for ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the CAAQS.
Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. However, as discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies would be determined for each phase of the Project. Strategies include, but are not limited to:
5.2 Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
• Design and construct energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. • Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.
• Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies.
In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity. • Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible. • Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand. • Use energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) (or similar) products. • Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code.
• Use drought-tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.
• Employ high-performance dual-pane window glazing in office storefronts. 665
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.3 Water Quality
• Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins, or employ biotreatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit and Water Quality Management Plan. • Select native and drought-tolerant plants to reduce water demand. • Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the Project area as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration, and control runoff. • Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible. • Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydro zone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.
• Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City Recycled Water Master Plan.
The commitment of resources to the Project is not unusual or inconsistent with projects of this type and scope. However, once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the Project area would revert back to its current condition. Thus, the Project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of the structures.
5.4 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Table 1-2, Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, of this Draft Subsequent EIR summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures (MMs), and levels of significance before and after mitigation. The Project has implemented MMs to reduce the level of impact, but the following impacts would remain significant andunavoidable, after MMs are implemented:
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.1-2: The Project would convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. No feasible MMs have been identified that would mitigate agricultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1: Construction activities associated with the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with implementation of MM AQ-1. However, the Project’s emissions would exceed the operational standards for NOX. Implementation of MMs AQ-2 through AQ-6 are included to reduce operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, even with mitigation, operational NOX emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.2-2: Long-term operation of the Project would generate emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s thresholds for NOX. 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 666
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
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. MM AQ-6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.
Additionally, Standard Conditions (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. Nevertheless, mitigated operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 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 be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. Based on the previous statement, the Project would also create a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.7-1: The Project’s unmitigated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be approximately 24,929 metric tons of CO2 equivalents(MTCO2e) annually from both construction and operations. Project-related GHG 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 non-construction related mobile sources.
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 TDM program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure. MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays. MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.
SC GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, as required by the California Building Code, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of electric vehicle 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 the California Green Building Standards Code (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, thus no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3 and SC GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact 4.7-2: Implementation of the Project would conflict with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CAP). Implementation of MM GHG-3would require future individual projects accommodated under the Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. This measure would ensure that future Project development is consistent with the City’s Community CAP and 667
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
would reduce impacts 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, and it is therefore conservatively considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.10-1: While the Project is consistent with the current TOP goals and policies, the Project’sland uses are not consistent with current TOP land use designations of Low-Medium Density Residential and Business Park, which represents a significant and unavoidable impact. This land use inconsistency would be remedied upon the City’s approval of the proposed TOP 2050 Update planned for in August 2022.
Should the Project approval follow TOP 2050 Update approval, the Project’s land uses would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations as proposed in TOP 2050 Update.
Transportation and Traffic
Impact 4.14-2: The 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 MM GHG-1 identified above, the 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.
5.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
• Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
• Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
• Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct 668
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-6 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this Draft Subsequent EIR.
1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development?
The elimination of a physical obstacle to growth, such as the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that are not presently in the area, would be considered a growth inducing impact.
The growth-inducing potential of a project would also be considered significant if it fosters growth in excess of what is assumed in the local master plans and land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies.
As described in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would include a network of new public sewer mains, consistent with the City’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan. A 36-inch sewer main would connect to an existing Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) interceptor trunk main sewer located in Kimball Avenue to the south, run north in Euclid Avenue to Merrill Avenue, then east to Grove Avenue.
The IEUA interceptor trunk sewer main is 54-inches east of Euclid Avenue and 60-inches west of Euclid Avenue. A 21-inch sewer main would run from Merrill Avenue north within Euclid Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue. An eight-inch public sewer main would be located along Sultana Avenue.
As described in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, off-site construction of the water lines would be necessary for operation of the proposed Project. These facilities have been planned by the City in its Water Master Plan, and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required. Furthermore, any off-site construction of potable water infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the standards and specifications of the Municipal Code. Off-site water mains required to serve the Project 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 forfire service water will be installed. The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue and to the main in Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue. On-site construction of the proposed infrastructure would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the Municipal Code.
As described in Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed circulation plan would facilitate site access andmovement of vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists within the Project site.
Implementation of the Project would require the construction and improvement of roadways and extension of major infrastructure into areas off-site that will facilitate additional planned growth pursuant to The Ontario Plan (TOP). Although the infrastructure improvements are planned for in the City’s master plans, the improvements would allow further development to occur within the overall Project site.
Therefore, the Project would remove obstacles to growth to accommodate the demands of this Project at full buildout, which could allow for future development in the area once adequate infrastructure is in place and would be considered growth inducing.
669
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-7 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As the City continues to develop, it requires the further commitment of public services in the form of fire protection, police services, and other public facilities. As discussed in Section 4.13, Public Services, none of the public service agencies consulted during the preparation of this Draft Subsequent EIR indicated that the proposed Project would necessitate the immediate expansion of their existing resources in order to maintain desired levels of service. The proposed Project would not, therefore, have significant growthinducing consequences with respect to public services.
3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
During Project construction, a number of designing, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. However, construction-related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region and the construction phase would be temporary.
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the Project would result in the creation of up to 1,631 new long-term jobs. As the number of employees in the Project area grows, these employees would seek shopping, entertainment, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would facilitate economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs.
However, the increase in opportunities for employees would not create substantial growth inducement because it would improve the jobs-housing ratio, growth could be accommodated within regional and local projections, and jobs would be filled by the local workforce. As stated in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the proposed Project would result in an improvement in the jobs-household balance, which is currently in a housing-rich area. The majority of new jobs that would be created by implementation of the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City and surrounding areas. Thus, due to the availability of a workforce within the City, it is anticipated that new jobs would be filled by people within the City and the immediately surrounding communities and would not induce an unanticipated influx of new labor into the City. Although, the proposed Project would result in new permanent employment opportunities and stimulate economic activity, it would meet future employment demands anticipated in SCAG’s regional growth projections.
Overall, the Project would not result in increased levels of growth that would otherwise not occur.
Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate economic effects that could significantly affect the environment.
4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The Project consists of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to allow for the incorporation of the approximately 71.69 acres abutting the eastern boundary of the approved Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan area and the development of an industrial and business park on eight parcels. The Project 670
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 5-8 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
would allow for the development of six warehouse buildings totaling up to a maximum build-out of 1,640,690 sf for warehouse and office uses.
Pressures to develop other land in the surrounding area would derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial, and industrial land uses that are not directly or indirectly influenced by zoning actions on a particular property. Approval of the proposed Project would not, therefore, involve a precedent-setting action that could be applied to other properties and thereby encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur.
5.6 Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth
As described above, implementation of the proposed Project would provide development to accommodate City forecasted employment demands. All physical environmental effects from construction of development have been analyzed in all technical sections of this Draft Subsequent EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed industrial warehousing and office uses were analyzed in the Sections 4.2, Air Quality; 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
4.11, Noise; and 4.14, Transportation and Traffic. Therefore, construction of the Project has been analyzed in this Draft Subsequent EIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPPs) and/or mitigation measures contained in Section 4.1, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, through Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft Subsequent EIR. 671
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Introduction
Purpose and Scope
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this section identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the Project.
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alternative’s analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are:
• [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (Section 15126.6[b])
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (Section 15126.6[e][1])
• “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (Section 15126.6[e][2])
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (Section 15126.6[f])
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).
• “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]) • “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (Section 15126.6[f][3]) 672
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
For each development alternative, this analysis:
• Describes the alternative.
• Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Project. • Identifies the impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative. • Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic Project objectives. • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project.
According to Section 15126.6(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f an alternative would cause…significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the following objectives have been established for the Project and would aid decision makers in their review of the Project, the Project alternatives and associated environmental impacts.
• Objective 1: 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 2: Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million square feet (sf) of business park and light industrial uses. • Objective 3: Provide employment opportunities for community residents. • Objective 4: Facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Project area. • Objective 5: Expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
• Objective 6: Create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Project vision.
6.2 Alternatives Considered but Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft Subsequent EIR.
Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or 673
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.
There are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project Applicant. In the event land could be purchased of suitable size and developmental characteristics, based on the known general conditions in the southern portion of the City, an alternative site would likely have similar impacts after mitigation as the Project. Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be impractical and infeasible to propose the Project on an alternate site in the area with fewer environmental impacts.
Additionally, other land in the vicinity of the Project site or within the southern portion of the City are similarly used for agricultural purposes and include agricultural soils. The loss of Prime Farmland would still occur with an alternative site. Given the size and type of the Project, a similarly sizedproject and use elsewhere in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) would result in the same Project-level and cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not likely to be changed by a different location. Also, an alternative site would have similar traffic impacts in other jurisdictions that would be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee implementation of improvements outside of its jurisdiction. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed 1,640,690 sfof warehouse and office uses is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation.
6.3 Alternatives Selected for Further Analysis
Based on the Project objectives listed above, 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 which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. • No Project/No Build Alternative
• No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
• Reduced Intensity Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. Section 6.7, Environmentally-Superior Alternative, identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
6.4 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 674
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
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.
6.4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing dairy uses on the Project site.
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.2 Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction or demolition activities and related emissions would occur. In addition, by maintaining existing dairy and residential uses throughout the Project site, the increase in operational traffic-related air emissions would not occur. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced, and the significant and unavoidable construction-related and operational-related emission impacts would be eliminated. Further, this alternative would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts related to inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). No impacts related to air quality would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
6.4.3 Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds that may be present on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid all on- and off-site disturbances.
The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.4 Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No historical resources exist on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to historical resources or subsurface 675
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives
archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impact on historic resources and would avoid the Project’s less than significant with mitigation incorporated impacts on archaeological resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.5 Energy
Under this alternative, no demolition of existing structures or construction of new buildings would occur.
Therefore, energy demand for electricity, natural gas and fuel consumption would remain as is, and no impact would occur under this alternative. The Project would have a less than significant impact on energy. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts on energy would be reduced.
6.4.6 Geology and Soils
No new construction activities, including demolition and grading, would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, there would be no potential for additional workers, building and structures to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Project site. However, the buildings and structures that exist on the Project site were built before current seismic safety codes; therefore, by retaining older buildings and structures, this alternative could expose some people to greater hazards from strong seismic ground shaking than the proposed Project. The Project would have a less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation measures on geological hazards. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be greater than the Project for geological hazards.
Regarding paleontological resources, this alternative would not result in impacts to paleontological resources since no grading would occur. Therefore, the paleontological resources impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
6.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction, demolition, or operational activities would generate GHG emissions. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative the existing, minimal emissions would continue. These emissions would be incorporated and accounted for in the City’s long-range planning efforts and would therefore act as a baseline for the City’s air quality goals. Furthermore, this alternative would not increase GHG emissions by 19,268 MTCO2e, unlike the proposed Project and would avoid the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.
Therefore, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
6.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. The dairy farming uses, and contaminated soils would remain on-site. Although this alternative would avoid the Project’s potential effects related to hazards and hazardous materials, no cleanup of contaminated soils would occur as a result of the Project. While the Project would have a less than significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated, remediation of on-site contamination is a benefit of the proposed Project that would not 676
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
be realized under this alternative. Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be greater under the alternative than compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff water amounts would remain “as is” under this alternative because no new development would occur. This alternative would not introduce new sources of water pollutants from either the construction or operation phases of development to the Project site, because no new development would occur. Additionally, this alternative would not require off-site storm drain facility improvements required by the proposed Project. However, this alternative would not include installation of new low-impact development (LID), source control, site design, and treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff and water pollution, which would occur under the proposed Project. The stormwater leaving the site would not be filtered and would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants associated with the dairy, agricultural, and residential uses. The beneficial water quality improvements that would occur under the proposed Project would not occur, and hydrology and water quality impacts would be greater compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.10 Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses, and the City’s existing TOP land use and zoning designations for the Project site would remain consistent. The Project site is located within an Agricultural Overlay Zoning, which allows for agricultural uses within the City, until such time that urban development consistent with the Ontario Plan (TOP) occurs. Due to provisions of the Agricultural Overlay Zoning which would allow for the existing agricultural land uses to continue as-is, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be less than significant. The Project as proposed conflicts with the existing TOP land use designations and as such results in a significant and unavoidable impact. This land use inconsistency would be remedied upon the City’s approval of the proposed TOP 2050 Update planned for in August 2022. Should the Project approval follow TOP 2050 Update approval, the Project’s land uses would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations as proposed in TOP 2050 Update. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.11 Noise
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in construction;therefore, would not generate any noise or vibration associated with construction. Mobile-source and stationary noise volumes would be lower under this alternative compared to the proposed Project, given the lack of urban development, and associated vehicular traffic noise; noise from industrial warehousing uses; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and other noise sources. The Project would have a less than significant impact on noise with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
677
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
6.4.12 Population and Housing
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses.
Employment growth would not occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative because no new businesses or other infrastructure would be constructed. Employees on the Project site would remain as is under this alternative, and the alternative would have no impact to population and housing. However, the employment growth under the proposed Project was determined to be within the growth projections for the area and impacts to population and housing were determined to be less than significant.
Therefore, population and housing impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.13 Public Services
The existing number of residents and workers on the Project site would remain under the No Project/No Build Alternative. There would be no increase in demand for fire or police services, and the alternative would have no impact on public services. Although the proposed Project’s impacts related to fire and police services were determined to be less than significant, the public services impacts would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.14 Transportation and Traffic
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. Under this alternative, no new employees or industrial warehouse uses would be introduced on the Project site, and existing VMT would be maintained. Therefore, there would be no impacts under this alternative, and the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts that would occur from the proposed Project would be avoided. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid site disturbances on the Project site and the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.16 Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not demand any more utilities or services than those currently being expended to service the Project site. Because no new development and employee increases would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the existing on-site water well and septic systems would continue to be used, and no water or wastewater infrastructure would be constructed. No additional demand for regional water supplies would occur, and no additional wastewater would be conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment facilities. The alternative would have no impacts on utilities and service systems. Project operations would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater and solid waste 678
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
generation, but impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Therefore, the impacts related to water supplies and wastewater would be reduced compared to the Project.
Similarly, no additional drainage infrastructure would be developed by the No Project/No Build Alternative, and runoff in the Project site would remain in its current condition and would not connect to or require capacity in the regional stormwater system. Solid waste generation would remain the same as existing conditions and increases in solid waste generation would not occur with the No Project/No Build Alternative. Furthermore, the demand on dry utilities would remain the same as existing conditions and increases in dry utilities would not occur with the No Project/No Build Alternative. There would be no impacts under the alternative. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.4.17 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, 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 soilsin 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 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).
6.5 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 679
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
Plan and zoning would occur. The City’s TOPdesignates the Project site for development of Business Park (0.6 floor area ratio[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.1 However, as part of the forthcoming proposed TOP 2050 Update that will precede approval of 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.
6.5.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same development area as the proposed Project. The existing dairy farming uses would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
6.5.2 Air Quality
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment-generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of 4,099 employees. This alternative would result in 479 dwelling units, 1,914 residents, and 1,660 employees. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a decrease in vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, construction and operation related air quality emissions would decrease. Overall, impacts would be less than the proposed Project, but the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.5.3 Biological Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures from the Project would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Project.
1 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. 680
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
6.5.4 Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources on the Project site as the proposed Project. Grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Similar to the Project, a less than significant impact would occur to historical resources under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative. Further, under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, impacts to archeological resources could occur, as ground disturbing activities would occur. This No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to the Project’s potential for disturbing human remains. However, like the proposed Project mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar compared to the Project.
6.5.5 Energy
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment-generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of the number of 1,660 employees. However, this alternative would result in 479 dwelling units and 1,914 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, building energy and fuel consumption would be reduced under this alternative as compared to the Project and would result in a less than significant impact.
6.5.6 Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would still occur under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative. The new structures under this alternative would still result in additional persons and structures in the Project area that would be subject to risks associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic hazards. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. Impacts to geological hazards under the alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
This alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered paleontological resources on the Project site on the proposed Project. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
6.5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment-generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of 4,099 employees compared to the Project. This alternative would result in 479 dwelling units and 1,914 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, GHG emissions would decrease when 681
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
compared to the proposed Project. However, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would still implement similar mitigation to that of the proposed Project but would remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.
6.5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would develop the Project site for business park and residential uses andwould not have an industrial component. However, the use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, State, and local laws and permitting requirements as would be done by the proposed Project. In addition, this alternative would include cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the Project site during construction activities and would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures that would be implemented for the proposed Project.
However, this alternative would place residences within Safety Zone III, Traffic Pattern/Overflight Zone of the Chino Airport. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) review of all residential development exceeding two du/ac is required to determine consistency. Due to the increased risk of aircraft accident within this zone, restrictions on residential development may be imposed. Therefore, impacts with respect to Chino Airport’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) would be greater than impacts underthe proposed Project. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures butimpacts under the alternative would be greater than those of the Project.
6.5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the area of impervious surfaces would be similar compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the proposed Project.
6.5.10 Land Use and Planning
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would develop the Project site with business park and residential land uses. This alternative would be consistent with existing TOP and zoning designations and would result in a less than significant impact. However, the Project’s proposed land uses are inconsistent with current TOP land uses and zoning, and the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for land use consistency under the current TOP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) for the Project. As the Project SPA is planned for approval after approval of the City's TOP 2050 Update, the Project would be consistent with the land use designations as proposed in TOP 2050 Update. Therefore, unlike the proposed Project, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to land use, and impacts are reduced compared to the proposed Project.
682
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
6.5.11 Noise
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would reduce the amount of employment-generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of 4,099 employees. This alternative would result in 479 dwelling units and 1,914 residents. Overall, there would be a decrease in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a decrease in the number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Similarly, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would still implement similar mitigation to that of the proposed Project. Therefore, the alternative would result in a less than significant impact, and impacts would be reduced comparedto the Project.
6.5.12 Population and Housing
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would increase employees and residents on the Project site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The addition of housing under this alternative would be consistent with the current TOP. Growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections, but the Project would not provide housing that would be consistent with the current TOP. While impacts under the Project would be less than significant, impacts under the alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project due to the alternative’s consistency with current TOP land use designations and associated housing projections.
6.5.13 Public Services
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would introduce new residents at the Project site which would increase the demand for public services, including fire andpolice. The proposed Project would have less than significant impacts to fire and police services. Similar to the Project, this alternative would require payment of fees, and compliance with applicable plans and regulations, but due to the increase in residents on-site, the alternative result in greater impacts to public services compared to the proposed Project.
6.5.14 Transportation and Traffic
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, transportation and traffic impacts would be decreased when compared to the proposed Project due to the decrease in vehicle trips associated with business park, office spaces, and residential uses. This alternative would reduce the amount of employment-generating building square footage and would result in a decrease of 4,099 employees, as well asresult in an increase of 479 dwelling units and 1,914 residents. The alternative would be required to implement similar roadway improvements as the Project. The corresponding reduction in traffic would result in reduced traffic-related impacts as compared to the Project because the Project would result in a significant unavoidable impact. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be less than those associated with the proposed Project. 683
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
6.5.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect tribal cultural resources on the Project site as the proposed Project, as this alternative would require the same ground disturbing activities as the Project. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
6.5.16 Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in greater impacts to utilities and service systems due to the increase in water demand and sewer generation associated with development of business park, office uses, and residential development allowed by TOP. This No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would increase the demand for water and wastewater, solid waste services, and gas and electricity services. Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, similar improvements to water or wastewater infrastructure would be constructed to accommodate the residential and business park designations. Additional demand for regional water supplies would occur, and additional wastewater would be conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment facilities due to overall greater demand from land uses allowed under the current TOP. Therefore, the impacts related to utilities and services systems would be greater compared to the Project.
Similarly, additional drainage infrastructure would be developed by the No Project/ Existing General Plan Alternative, and runoff in the Project area site would increase and would connect to or require capacity in the regional stormwater system. Increases in solid waste generation would occur with the No Project/ Existing General Plan Alternative due to the mix of land uses allowed under the current TOP. Furthermore, increases in dry utilities impacts would occur with the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative due to the mix of land uses allowed under the current TOP. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be greater compared to the proposed Project.
6.5.17 Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in reduced impacts to air quality, energy, GHG 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, GHG 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 684
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
Update, this alternative will have similar impacts compared to the proposed Project related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards 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).
6.6 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 sfof 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. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. 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. 685
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
6.6.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses and have the same impact area to the proposed Project. The existing dairy farming uses would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the ReducedIntensity Alternative would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be similarto those of the proposed Project.
6.6.2 Air Quality
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, with similar mitigation incorporated, a reduced volume of construction activities and the related emissions would occur; however, the alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impact from the exceedance of NOX emissions. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site and less transportation-related air emissions than the proposed Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. However, the volume of NOX emissions from operational vehicular and truck trips generated by the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable due to the volume of vehicular and truck trips that would occur from operation of 1,230,517 sf industrial warehousing space and business park use. With mitigation implemented, the air quality emissions would be reduced to approximately 118 pounds per day of NOX generated for this alternative. The SCAQMD threshold for NOX is 55 pounds per day. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceedance of NOX emissions would continue to occur.
Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project but would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.6.3 Biological Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would continue to cover the same impact area as the Project site.
Impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
6.6.4 Cultural Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historical or archaeological resources on the Project site. Grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Similar to the Project, less than significant impacts would occur to historical resources under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. This Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Project’s potential for impacts to archaeological resources and disturbing human remains and would require similar mitigation. The Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural 686
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
resources with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be similar compared to the Project.
6.6.5 Energy
Under this alternative, allowable building square footage would be reduced, and the associated energy demand would also be reduced by approximately 25 percent. Additionally, the reduction in vehicle trips associated with this alternative would reduce fuel consumption. Impacts under the alternative would remain less than significant. Construction and operational activities associated with this alternative would have reduced energy demand compared to the proposed Project and impacts under the alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.6.6 Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would still occur under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative.
The new structures under this alternative would still result in additional persons and structures in the Project area that would be subject to risks associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic hazards.
Therefore, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. Impacts to geological hazards would be similar to those of the Project.
Regarding paleontological resources, the alternative would have similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered resources. This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources, and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources under the alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
6.6.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and associated GHG emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced square footage would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site, and less traffic relatedGHG emissions than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 19,268 MTCO2e per year, which would be reduced by approximately 25 percent to 14,451MTCO2e per year under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. This alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, since it would exceed the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, and mitigation measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the alternative would have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions, but would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for business park and industrial warehousing uses, and therefore the same type of hazardous materials typically used for construction and operation of the proposed Project would be used under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. Similarly, the 687
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, State, and local laws and permitting requirements as would be done by the proposed Project. In addition, this alternative would include cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the site during construction activities and would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures proposed for the Project. Therefore, like the proposed Project, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures, and impacts under the alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
6.6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would reduce the total building square footage; however, the area of impervious surfaces would be similar compared to the proposed Project as the area would be paved.
Therefore, this alternative would result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs.
Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the ReducedIntensity Alternative would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the proposed Project.
6.6.10 Land Use and Planning
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would require a SPA to implement the Project. This alternative would have similar levels of consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS policies, the City’s General Plan, the City’s Development Code, and consistency with airport plans. Similar to the Project, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be inconsistent with current TOP land use designations and would require a SPA, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact for land use consistency under the current TOP. However, the City is planning to adopt TOP 2050 Update in August 2022, which shows the Project site as Business Park and Industrial, consistent with the proposed SPA for the Project. As the Project SPA 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. Therefore, like the proposed Project, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use and would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
6.6.11 Noise
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Construction and operation noise impacts would be reduced under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the development area by 410,173 sf. Although construction of this alternative would generate the same peak noise volumes and similar type and volume of construction noise as the proposed Project, the duration of construction and the associated noise would be slightly reduced compared to the Project (due to less total building square footage). Operational noise would also be reduced under this alternative as traffic-generated and stationary noise sources would decrease in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing square footage. Noise impacts from the Reduced688 City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-18 6.0 | Alternatives
Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and reduced compared to the proposed Project.
6.6.12 Population and Housing
Under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in an approximate 25 percent reduction in employees on-site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would provide fewer employment opportunities. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and reduced to the proposed Project.
6.6.13 Public Services
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would reduce buildout of the industrial and business park portions of the Project area by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project site in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing and business park square footage. However, as with the proposed Project, this alternative is not anticipated to result in new residences that could demand new services and would include design features to lessen the need for services; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with compliance of other applicable plans and regulations, and payment of fees. Overall, the need for public services would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.
6.6.14 Transportation and Traffic
Construction and operation-related traffic and truck trips would be reduced under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the industrial and business park development area by 410,173 sfto 1,230,517 sf, in comparison to the proposed Project. The volume of traffic that would be generated by the industrial warehousing space and business park use that would be developed under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still require implementation of the mitigation measures that involve roadway improvements in locations that are (1) not within the jurisdiction of the City of Ontario, and thus, the City cannot guarantee implementation of the mitigation measure improvements, and (2) within the City of Ontario, but not accounted for in an adopted plan or program for improvements. Additionally, this alternative would not reduce total VMT/service population (SP) by at least 15 percent compared to the Citywide average. As a result, similar mitigation would apply, and transportation and traffic impacts based on VMT generated from this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project but would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.6.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts with a potentialto adversely affect any undiscovered tribal cultural resources on the Project site However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the alternative’s potential impacts on tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
689
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-19 6.0 | Alternatives
6.6.16 Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would reduce buildout of the Project site by 410,173 sf compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of employees on the Project site in relation to the reduction in industrial warehousing and business park square footage and would also reduce the demand for utilities and service systems.
The demand for regional water supplies and generation of wastewater and solid waste would be approximately 25 percent less than the proposed Project. Thus, the impacts related to water supplies, wastewater, and solid waste would result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.
6.6.17 Conclusion
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 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 and forestry 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 1.6million sf of business park and light industrial uses.
6.7 Environmentally-Superior Alternative
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally-superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the environmentally690 City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 6-20 6.0 | Alternatives
superior development alternative must be identified. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed Project.
Reduced-Intensity Alternative
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-superior alternative because it would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic. Impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.
CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally-superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally-superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).
691
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-1 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
7.1 Introduction
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the Project” and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft Subsequent EIR. This section briefly describes effects found to have no impact or a less than significant impact based on the analysis conducted during the Draft Subsequent EIR preparation process.
7.2 Aesthetics
Impact 7.2-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [Threshold AE-1]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the vista was screened from view, the access to a formerly available public viewing position was blocked, or visual resources were obstructed by view or access to them.
There are no scenic vistas within the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment project (Project) site, nor would the Project otherwise adversely affect a designated scenic vista. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains, located to the north of the City of Ontario (City), are the dominant scenic resource in the area. As described in The Ontario Plan (TOP) Draft Subsequent EIR, “... the scale and design of the City, including its land uses, would not deter views of the mountain backdrop.”1 Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 7.2-2 Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [Threshold AE-2]
Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The City is served by four freeways: Interstate 10 (I-10), I-15, State Route 83 (SR 83), and State Route 60 (SR 60). The Project site is located due east of SR 83 and approximately three miles west of SR 60. 1 The Ontario Plan (TOP), Draft EIR, pg. 5.1-8. (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31672.pdf. 692
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-2 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant These segments of I-10, I-15, SR 83, and SR 60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2 Thus, the Project would result in no adverse
impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Impact 7.2-3 Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas,substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? [Threshold AE-3]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The existing visual character of the Project site is defined primarily by agricultural uses and related structures. The site is designated as Business Park and Low-Medium Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Map.3 The Project area is dominated by agricultural uses to the north and east, and public uses for the Chino Airport to the south and approved Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (Approved SP) area with Business Park and Industrial designations to the west. The Project site itself is currently used primarily for agricultural uses, including dairies and field crops. The Project site also has single-family residences located along Eucalyptus Avenue, multiple farm structures, a water tank, and overhead powerlines.
The Project is located in an urbanizing area and is subject to those provisions of the City’s TOP and the City’s Development Code governing scenic quality. The City’s TOP Community Development Element4 establishes multiple policies that protect scenic resources and promote high quality, visually compatible development. For example, Community Design Element Policy CD 1-2 requires that “development in growth areas to be distinctive and unique places within which there are cohesive design themes”; Policy CD 1-5 requires that “all major north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation.
Such views should be free of visual clutter, including billboards and may be enhanced by framing with trees”; Policy CD 2-1 encourages “all development projects to convey visual interest and character. . .”; Policy CD 2-15 supports “excellence in design and construction quality through collaboration with trade and professional organizations that provide expertise, resources, and programs for developers, builders and the public.”
The City’s TOP measures governing scenic quality, including those noted above, ensure protection of scenic resources and promote visually compatible and appealing development. These policies are implemented through the City’s Development Code Chapter 6.0, Development and Subdivision Regulations, et al.5 The City would assure that the Project, as implemented, contains Development 2 California State Scenic Highway System Map. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983. 3 TOP. Land Use Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6._20210212.pdf. 4 TOP. Community Design Element. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/community-design-element/. 5 City of Ontario, Development Code Chapter 6.0 Development and Subdivision Regulations. Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Documents/chapter_6.0_- _development_and_subdivision_regulations_20151201.pdf.
693
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-3 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Regulations and Design Guidelines that would, at a minimum, conform to provisions of the City’s TOP and Development Code. All subsequent development within the Project area would be required to comply with the Specific Plan Development Regulations and Design Guidelines addressing visual and scenic qualities. Conformance with the Project Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) would minimize the potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 7.2-4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [Threshold AE-4] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. Spill light occurs when lighting fixtures such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location.
Glare is the result of improperly aimed or blocked lighting sources that are visible against a dark background such as the night sky. Glare may also refer to the sensation experienced looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see or causes discomfort. Glare generally does not result in illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Glare could also occur from building materials of the new structures, including glass and other reflective materials.
The Project would introduce new sources of light and glare compared to the current dairy and row crop agricultural uses on-site. However, the Project includes design guidelines and standards for lighting of onsite areas. The Project requires lighting fixtures to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the site boundaries, including lighting for parking areas, pedestrian walkways, graphics and signage, architectural and landscape features, shipping and loading areas, and any additional exterior areas. This would reduce the potential for spill light. All subsequent development within the Project area would be required to conform with the Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines addressing light, glare, and overspill from the Project SPA.
Additionally, the Project would be subject to the City’s Development Code, and Project lighting would be required to be shielded, diffused or indirect to avoid glare to both on- and off-site residents, pedestrians, and motorists. The City would assure that the proposed Project, as implemented, contains Development Regulations and Design Guidelines that would, at a minimum, conform to City regulations addressing lighting and light overspill (see: Development Code, Division 6.01 – District Standards and Guidelines, Lighting). Therefore, the potential for the Project to create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views is considered less than significant. 694
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-4 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant
7.3 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 7.3-1 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? [Threshold AG-3] Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. “Forest land” is defined as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” “Timberland” is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.” Pursuant to Sections 51112 and 51113 of the California Government Code,6 “Timberland Production Zone” (TPZ) is defined as “an area which has been zoned and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
The Project site is identified as having an Agricultural Overlay (SP-AG) and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or TPZ. TOP does not designate any forest land or timberland land uses within the City.
Therefore, the Project would have no adverse forest or timber land impacts.
Impact 7.3-2 Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? [Threshold AG-4] Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. As stated above in Impact 7.3-2, the Project site is not zoned as forest land and currently contains agricultural uses. There is no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). Consequently, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the Project would have no impact regarding loss of forest land.
7.4 Air Quality
Impact 7.4-1 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? [Threshold AQ-4] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not emit odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to South Coast AirQuality Management District (SCAQMD)Rule 402, Nuisance, which states:
6 California Government Code. (2021). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=51113. 695
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-5 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant A person 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. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
Emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and from volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors; however, these odors would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and not expected to affect a substantial number of people.
Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment.
By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of odor concern. Furthermore, short-term construction-related odors are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor-producing materials.
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Odors generated by the operation of the proposed office and industrial project are not expected to be significant or highly objectionable and would be required to be following SCAQMD Rule 402, which would prevent nuisances to sensitive land uses.
Compared to existing conditions, the Project would result in a positive impact through the elimination of current dairy and farming operations which produce odors in close proximity to residential uses along Eucalyptus Avenue.
Therefore, impacts associated with construction- and operation-generated odors would be less than significant.
7.5 Biological Resources
Impact 7.5-1 Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [Threshold B-5] Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The Project site contains some trees, particularly near the single-family residences on site. The Project would remove these trees as well as other ornamental trees. The City Development Code Section
6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures7 was established to further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of healthy heritage trees. The Project would be required to comply with the 7 City of Ontario Development Code Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures. (2010). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/Documents/chapter_6.0_- _development_and_subdivision_regulations_20151201.pdf
696
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-6 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Development Code requirements, which would ensure that the Project does not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Policy. As a result, there would be no impact.
Impact 7.5-2 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [Threshold B-6]
Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The Project site does not fall within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local or regional conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact related to conflicting with the provisions of any of the aforementioned plans.
7.6 Cultural Resources
Impact 7.6-1 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [Threshold C-3]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5,8 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, 9 and PRC Section 5097.9810 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California HSC Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered within the Project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of death, and made recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in PRC Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Subsequently, the NAHCshall identify the most likely descendant.
The most likely descendant shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains, as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Although soil-disturbing activities associated with the Project could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human remains would be reduced to a less than significant level. 8 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (1987). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=7050.5. 9 CEQA Section 15064.5. (2021). Retrieved from: https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-14-na turalresources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3-guidelines-for-implementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-5- preliminary-review-of-projects-and-conduct-of-initial-study/section-150645-determining-the-significance-of-impacts-to-archaeological-andhistorical-resources. 10 PRC Section 5097.98. (1939). Retrieved from;
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=5.&title=&part=&chapter=1.75.&a rticle=. 697
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-7 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant
7.7 Geology and Soils
Impact 7.7-1 Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: [Thresholds G-1i and -iv] i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. There are no active faults known on the site and the Project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The TOP Final EIR identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. 11 Additionally, the California Geologic Survey12 identified that the closest fault is the Chino Fault, located 3.3 miles from the Project site. All Project construction would also be developed in compliance with the Ontario Municipal Code (MC), the recommendations of a geotechnical investigation and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. The Ontario Building Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the building during construction, which would ensure that all required California Building Code (CBC) seismic safety measures are incorporated into the building. The Project would be required to be compliant with these regulations.
Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City where largely flat agricultural fields dominate the topography. According to the Southern California Geotechnical Report,13 the Project site gently falls to the south at an average gradient of one percent. The flat topography of the Project site does not present any potential risks related to landslides or other slope failure. The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 7.7-2 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [Threshold G-2]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently used for agricultural uses, mainly dairy and field crop operations, which has resulted in agriculture-related residues in on-site soils. Grading during Project construction would increase the potential for erosion by removing the protective vegetation, changing 11 TOP Final EIR, Section 5.7, Figure 5.7-2. Regional Faults Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32048.pdf. 12 California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zone. (2018). Retrieved from: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/. 13 Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). January 2020. Geotechnical Feasibility Study. Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development NEC Grove Avenue and Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California.
698
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-8 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant the natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading and development plans by the City Engineer would ensure no significant soil erosion impacts would occur. In addition, the City requires an erosion/dust control plan for Projects located within this area. The Project would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the previouslydisturbed and developed nature of the Project site and the limited size and scope of the Project.
During construction, the Project would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) per requirements of the General Construction Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP would specify best management practices (BMPs) for reducing or eliminating soil erosion from the site during Project construction and operation. Erosion control measures implemented as part of BMPs can include the placement of sandbags around basins; use of proper grading techniques; appropriate sloping, shoring, and bracing of the construction site; and covering topsoil stockpiles. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project’s mandated compliance with a City-approved SWPPP, that that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events.
For operational activities under the Project, landscaping would exist throughout the Project site; and areas of loose topsoil that could be eroded by wind or water, would not exist. In addition, the hydrologic features of the Project area have been designed to slow, filter, and retain stormwater within landscaping and the detention basins on the Project site, which would also reduce the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil. Furthermore, pursuant to Ontario MC Section 6-6.501, implementation of the Project requires a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). The SWQMP would be required to outline appropriate non-structural and structural BMPs, including stormwater infiltration and treatment devices that would be implemented and installed to prevent pollutants from being discharged into the City's stormwater drainage system after construction. The SWQMP describes the operational BMPs that would be implemented pursuant to MC Section 6-6.505 to minimize or eliminate the potential for soil erosion or loss of topsoil during operation of the Project. As a result of implementation of these existing requirements, potential impacts related to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Impact 7.7-3 Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? [Threshold G-4]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is not located on expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) National Cooperative Soil Survey identifies the site soils as Chino series, described as silt loam and somewhat poorly drained with moderate infiltration rates. 14 Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact as the Project site is not located on expansive soils. 14 Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. 699
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-9 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Impact 7.7-4 Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater [Threshold G-5]
Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The Project would be served by the City sewer utilities and would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There is no impact related to these systems.
7.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 7.8-1: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [Threshold H-3]
Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Edwin Rhodes Elementary in the City of Chino, approximately one mile northwest of the Project site. Edwin Rhodes Elementary is not located along a construction or operational truck route for the Project. Therefore, there would be no impact related to handling or hazardous materials in close proximity of a school.
Impact 7.8-2: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [Threshold H-6] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The City's Safety Element15 includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. The TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan16 prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the OFD in 2018. Because the Project site has been historically used for agricultural uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.
Furthermore, Project construction would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the OFD. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, any emergency evacuation or emergency response plan, impacts would less than significant. 15 TOP. Safety Element. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/safety-element/. 16 City of Ontario, Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf. 700
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-10 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Impact 7.8-3: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? [Threshold H-7] Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. According to the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer Map17 for the City, the Project site is not within a Very High FHSZ. Additionally, when using wildland-urban interface (WUI) as a measure of proximity, the Project site is also not near a FHSZ. WUI is defined as any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in effect but is within a half mile of the boundary of an “at risk community.” An “at risk community” is defined as a community where conditions are conducive to a largescale wildland fire disturbance event, thereby posing a significant threat to human fire or property. 18 Adjacent areas to the Project site are also urbanized; therefore, there are no wildlands adjacent to the site that may expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards and no impact would occur.
7.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 7.9-1: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? [Threshold HYD-2] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is currently used for agricultural uses, including dairy operations and field crops. The Project site utilizes groundwater for irrigation of crops and other agricultural-related uses, which would cease with Project buildout. There is also one water well on-site which is used to supply drinking water for the cattle.19 In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/ agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be destroyed/ abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from the County Health Department. A copy of such permit and Form Department of Water Resources (DWR) 188 Well Completion Form shall be provided to the DWR Development Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. If the Project Applicant proposes temporary use of an existing agricultural well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc., the Project Applicantshall make a formal request to the City for such use prior to issuance of permits for any construction activity. Upon approval, the Project Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City and pay any applicable fees as set forth by the agreement.
Upon development, the Project site would be served by domestic water provided by the City; direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. As described in TOP Final EIR, 17 California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Map. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414?fullScreen=true. 18 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. What is Wildland Urban Interface. Retrieved from:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_053107.pdf. 19 Citadel Environmental Services Inc. (Citadel). 2020, January 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. 701
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-11 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant the City’s water demand is accommodated through potable and non-potable water supplies managed by the City’s Public Works Agency. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin for domestic demands do not exceed the safe yield for the basin, consistent with and in support of implementation of the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program, commonly called the “OBMP Peace Agreement.” Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City, as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to the Department’s policies and programs. The Project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas. The potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less than significant.
Impact 7.9-2: 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-3i] i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than SignificantImpact. Refer to Impact 7.9-1, above.
7.10 Land Use and Planning
Impact 7.10-1 Would the project physically divide an established community? [Threshold LU-1] Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. The Project site is bound by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Sultana Avenue to the west, Campus Avenue to the east, and Merrill Avenue to the south that follows the Ontario-Chino city boundaries. The Project would change the current land uses located on the approximately 71.69-acre Project site from agricultural uses including dairies and field crops into a business and industrial park with up to approximately 1.6 million square feet (sf) of total building space.
7.11 Mineral Resources
Impact 7.11-1: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? and; [Threshold MR-1]
Impact 7.11-2: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans? [Threshold MR-2]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. There are no known mineral resources either on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the site that would be impacted by the Project. TOP does not identify any known or suspected mineral resources in the Project site that could be impacted. The Project is located in Mineral 702
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-12 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Resource Zone (MRZ) MRZ-3 as identified in the TOP Final EIR Mineral Resources Zones Map.20 Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. Since there are no known mineral resources present that are of value to the State in the Project site, the Project would not impact mineral resources.
Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource and no impact would occur. Furthermore, the Project site has no known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the City according to the TOP. Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource and no impact would occur.
7.12 Population and Housing
Impact 7.12-1 Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [Threshold PH-2] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than SignificantImpact. There are currently single-family residences on the Project site that would be displaced upon development of the Project. However, due to the low number of residents that would be displaced compared to the existing larger housing stock in the region, the Project would not displace a substantial number of people or houses and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact on displacing existing people or housing.
7.13 Public Services
Impact 7.13-1 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 PS -1]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
i) Schools?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would be located in the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). While the need for additional facilities has been identified for overall development within the City, as defined by TOP, if or when new schools are needed and proposed, the project-specific details for those facilities would be analyzed for the potential impacts pursuant to CEQA at that time. Therefore, through application of TOP and conformance to its goals and policies related to the provision of schools and associated infrastructure, it is anticipated that adequate services would be provided.
Project development would require Development Impact Fee (DIF)payments, in accordance with TOP and SB 50, to the corresponding school district for the construction of new schools. Each school district that 20 TOP Final EIR, Mineral Resources Zones Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32084.pdf. 703
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-13 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant serves the City charges a different amount for development impact fees, which is usually dependent on the student generation rates for that district. These payments would accommodate the need for new facilities based on the increase in student population in each district.
Furthermore, developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of California Senate Bill (SB) 50.21 This funding program has been found by the Legislature to constitute “full and complete mitigation of the impacts” on the provision of adequate school facilities (CGC Section 65995[h]). SB 50 establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. The school districts serving the City qualify for Level 1 fees, in which each district justifies their development fees for each land use and cannot request payment of development fees for school facility construction exceeding the amount of the statutory fees expressed in Education Code Section 17620. If school districts conduct a school facility needs assessment and qualify for participation in the State Funding Program by the State Allocation Board, among meeting other requirements, they can be eligible for Level 2 and Level 3 Fees. SB 50 also relieves jurisdictions from having the authority of denying approval of a legislative or adjudicative action under CEQA in reference to real estate development based upon the inadequacy of school facilities.
Although the increased demand for school facilities would result in substantial impact, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. TOP is meant to guide development until buildout year 2035 but it is not a development project. The City overall may reach a significant increase of students, but the number of students that would be generated within the enrollment area of each school cannot be determined specifically at this point. The population buildout of TOP gives an estimate for the City’s future student population. The development impact fees charged by each district would be used to accommodate the construction of new facilities. Schools would need to expand their services, but payment of SB 50 fees would make these impacts less than significant.
Lastly, the development of the Project does not include modifications to existing school facilities or the development of new school facilities. As stated earlier in this section, the nearest school is located half a mile to the west of the Project site. The development or operation of the Project would not create a physical impact to that school facility or any other school facilities. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
ii) Parks?
Less than SignificantImpact. The City provides over 30 parks for its residents. There are numerous parks in proximity to Project site that could be used by existing local residents and future employees of the Project site. Unplanned new residents would not be generated as part of the Project and rezoning the existing dwelling units would not result in a net increase of planned City population. Furthermore, the nearest parks to the Project are Centennial Park, Constellation Park, and Cypress Trails Park. These parks are approximately threemiles north, less than one mile west, and twomiles northwest of the Project site.
Lastly, the Project would pay applicable development impact fees including Quimby Act park fees. These fees, along with additional funding accruing to the City’s general fund through direct and indirect 21 Senate Bill 50. (2020). Retrieved from: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50. 704
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-14 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant economic benefit, would offset any additional demand caused by the Project’s business park and industrial uses. The Project would not 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. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. iii) Other Public Facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact.Other public facilities generally refers to libraries and government buildings that serve the population within the jurisdiction. Project construction and operation would not require the physical modification of any of the City’s public facilities. Specifically, the development of the warehousing and office buildings would not conflict with any library facilities. The City’s libraries are managed by the Community Life and Culture Department. The Community Life and Culture Department manages the City’s two public libraries, neither of which are near the Project site. The South Ontario Lewis Family Branch Library (South Ontario Library) is approximately 5 miles northeast of the Project site, and the Ovitt Family Community Library is located 5.4 miles north of Project site. Project construction and operation would not result in a substantial increase in demand for these services such that a significant deterioration of the existing facilities would occur, or such that new facilities would be required.
Regardless of any added level of use to existing libraries or other public facilities, the Project Applicant would be required to pay its fair share of DIF’s to help offset incremental impacts to libraries by helping fund capital improvements and expenditures. Because of the lack of substantial population growth, a less than significant impact is expected to occur on surrounding public facilities. Overall, a less than significant impact would occur to nearby public facilities.
7.14 Recreation
Impact 7.14-1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [Threshold R-1] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Project would result in the conversion of an agricultural site into a business and industrial park. Development of the Project would not directly increase housing or population, which typically cause an increase in the demand for and use of existing neighborhood parks and other citywide recreational facilities. Although new employees may occasionally increase the use of existing local parks, neighborhood and regionals parks, employees’ limited use would not result in deterioration to facilities such that the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be necessary. Therefore, impacts related to the physical deterioration of existing recreation parks or facilities would be less than significant.
Impact 7.14-2: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [Threshold R-2]
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
705
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-15 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves industrial and business park development and would not include any recreational facilities, nor result in the expansion of any existing recreational facilities.
Therefore, impacts associated with recreational facilities would be less than significant.
7.15 Transportation
Impact 7.15-1 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? [Threshold T-4] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than SignificantImpact. Buildout of the Project would not result in any significant emergency access impacts. The Project’s site conditions, during and after the workday, would be regulated by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition that may affect construction staff and emergency responders. In case of an emergency, the Project construction manager or assigned safety personnel would flag emergency response vehicles and direct them to the emergency location. Unimpeded access throughout the Project site would be maintained by ensuring that vehicles would not impede access for emergency response vehicles. In addition, access roads would be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be adequately maintained to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles. Further, the Project would implement both on- and off-site improvements, consistent with Recommendations 1 through 28 of the Traffic Analysis Study (see Appendix I) to ensure the safe and efficient access to the Project site.
Consequently, implementation of the proposed roadway circulation pursuant to the City’s transportation/ traffic standards and implementation of Recommendations 1 through 28 would ensure the adequacy of emergency access during the Project’s operational phase and discussions with City Fire and Police Departments. Therefore, the Project’s impact concerning emergency access would be less than significant.
7.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 7.16-1 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [Threshold U-5] Level of Significance: Less Than Significant Impact
Less than Significant Impact. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (U.S. Code Title 42, Section 6901 et seq.) governs the creation, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous wastes and operators of hazardous waste disposal sites.
Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California PRC Section 40000 et seq.) requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling. Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Actual disposal amounts at or below target amounts comply with AB 939. As required by Title 6, Chapter 3 of the Ontario MC, the City must comply with State law to reduce solid waste generation, promote reuse, and require solid waste collection for recycling and composting. The City would require the Project to reduce solid waste generation and 706
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-16 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant recycle materials as much as feasible to reduce solid waste. Since the proposed Project would be required by the City to recycle, the Project would have a less than significant impact to any federal, State, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste.
7.17 Wildfire
Impact 7.17-1 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [Threshold W-1]
Impact 7.17-2 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? [Threshold W-2]
Impact 7.17-3 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? [Threshold W-3]
Impact 7.17-4 If located in or near SRA or lands classified as Very High FHSZ, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? [Threshold W-4]
Level of Significance: No Impact
No Impact. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the City, the Project site is not within a Very High FHSZ. 22 Additionally, when using WUI as a measure of
proximity, the Project site is also not near a FHSZ. WUI is defined as any area for which a Community Wildfire Protection Plan is not in effect but is within half mile of the boundary of an “at risk community.” An “at risk community” is defined as a community where conditions are conducive to a largescale wildland fire disturbance event, thereby posing a significant threat to human fire or property.23 The City's Safety Element, as contained within TOP, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. The TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the OFD. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts.
The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the OFD in 2018. Because the Project site has been historically used for agricultural uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.
22 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s FHSZ Viewer Map. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. 23 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. What is Wildland Urban Interface. Retrieved from:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_053107.pdf. 707
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-17 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Furthermore, construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the OFD. Because the Project is required to comply with all applicable City codes and is not located in a Very High FHSZ, any emergency evacuation or emergency response plan, no impacts would occur.
7.18 References
California Education Code Chapter 6, Development Fees, Charges, and Dedications. (1996). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=EDC&division=1.&title=1.&par t=10.5.&chapter=6.&article=.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s FHSZ Viewer Map. (2020). Retrieved from:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/?surl=joahc.
California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zone. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. (1987). Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum =7050.
California State Scenic Highway System Map. (2019). Retrieved from:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa CEQA Section 15064.5. (2021). Retrieved from: https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-ofregulations/title-14-natural-resources/division-6-resources-agency/chapter-3-guidelines-forimplementation-of-the-california-environmental-quality-act/article-5-preliminary-review-ofprojects-and-conduct-of-initial-study/section-150645-determining-the-significance-of-impactsto-archaeological-and-historical-resources.
Citadel Environmental Services, Inc. 2017, March 15. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. City of Ontario. (2008). Ontario Plan Draft EIR; Figure 5.11-1 Mineral Resource Zones. Available at:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploa ds/sites/4/2016/05/32084.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2021.
City of Ontario, Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/EmergencyManagement/ReadyOntario/city_of_ontario_2018_hmp.pdf. 708
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-18 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Earthquake Fault Zoning. (1993)/ Retrieved from:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=2.&chapter=7.5.&law Code=PRC.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2019. Regional Water Recycling Plant No.5 (RP-5). https://www.ieua.org/facilities__trashed/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-5/.
Ontario, City of. 2018, November. Status of Williamson Act Contracts. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/williamson_act_status_map_november_2018.pdf.
Ontario, City of. 2010, January 27. The Ontario Plan. http://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.
Ontario, City of. 2009, July. The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. http://www.ontarioplan.org/environmental-impact-report/.
Ontario, City of. Development Code Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/chapter_6.0_- _development_and_subdivision_regulations_20151201.pdf.
Ontario, City of. Development Code Chapter 6.0 Development and Subdivision Regulations. Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/chapter_6.0_- _development_and_subdivision_regulations_20151201.pdf.
PRC Section 5097.98. (1939). Retrieved from;
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=5.&titl e=&part=&chapter=1.75.&article=.
San Bernardino County Airport Land Use Commission. 1991, November. Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Chino Airport. http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/Airports/Chino.pdf.
Southern California Geotechnical (SCG). January 2020. Geotechnical Feasibility Study. Proposed Commercial/Industrial Development NEC Grove Avenue and Merrill Avenue, Ontario, California.
TOP. Community Design Element. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policyplan/community-design-element/ TOP, Draft EIR, pg. 5.1-8. (2009). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/31672.pdf.
TOP Final EIR, Mineral Resources Zones Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32084.pdf. 709
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 7-19 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant TOP. Flood Hazards. (2006). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/flood-hazards.pdf.
TOP. Land Use Map. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2021/02/TOPLUP_Map24x3610_6._20210212.pdf.
TOP. Safety Element. (2010). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/safety-element/.
TOP. Seismic Hazards. (2006). Retrieved from: https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/seismic-hazards.pdf.
TOP Final EIR, Section 5.7, Figure 5.7-2. Regional Faults Map. (2010). Retrieved from:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/05/32048.pdf.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. What is Wildland Urban Interface. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_053107.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2018. National Wetlands Inventory. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. 710
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 8-1 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21153 and Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation, for a summary of public notification and consultation.
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation & Public Scoping Meeting, of this Draft EIR. The City of Ontario (City) provided multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and as part of Project scoping. In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the City has engaged in extensive consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB)52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, as discussed further in Section 4.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, and provided in Appendix D of this Draft EIR.
8.1 EIR Consultation
Lead Agency
City of Ontario (CEQA Lead Agency)
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Contacts: Alexis Vaughn, Assistant Planner (Project Planner) Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director
Charles Mercier, Principal Planner
Scott Murphy, Executive Director of Community Development Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner
Michael Bhatanawin, Senior Associate Engineer
Raymond Lee, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
Project Applicant
Real Estate Development Associates (Project Applicant)
Bill Goltermann, Principal
Jason Krotts, Principal
Jeffery G. Johnston, Senior Vice President
711
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 8-2 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Public Agencies/Organizations
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Dennis Mejia, Utilities EngineeringManager
Thom Lambertson, PE, PMP, Senior Associate Engineer
EPD Solutions, Inc. (Specific Plan/Development Advisor) Jeremy Krout, AICP, President
Norah Jaffan, Senior Project Manager
Interested Parties
As noted above, the City engaged in public and agency consultation through the NOP and public scoping process. The following entities provided comments on the NOP, which have been considered as part of this EIR preparation process.
California Department of Transportation Jacob Mathew, D-8 Planning City of Chino Warren Morelion, AICP, City Planner
City of Eastvale Gustavo N. Gonzalez, AICP, Planning Manager South Coast Air Quality Management District Lijin Sun, J.D, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Chino Hills Ferrari Club Chuck Stuewe, ATP
8.2 List of Preparers
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3880 Lemon Street, Suite 420
Riverside, California 92501
Contacts: Kevin Thomas, CEP, ENV SP, Vice President (Project Manager) Jessie Barkley, Senior Environmental Analyst
Meghan D. Karadimos, Senior Environmental Analyst
Achilles Malisos, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment/Noise/Energy Sam McWhorter, PE, Water Supply Assessment
Jessie Fan, Environmental Analyst
Aldo Perez, Environmental Analyst, Graphics Designer
Alex Pohlman, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment/Noise/Energy Amanda McCallum, Document Production
John Fyne-Nsofor, Environmental Analyst
Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst, Graphics Designer 712
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 8-3 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Technical Subconsultants
Citadel EHS
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report)
7475 Eucalyptus Avenue
Ontario, California 91762
Contacts: Mark Drollinger M.Eng., SCP, CHMM, EIT, Principal, Engineering and Environmental Sciences
Ecological Sciences, Inc.
(General Habitat Assessment)
(Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys)
24307 Magic Mountain Parkway #538
Valencia, CA 91355
Contacts: Scott D. Cameron, Principal Biologist
Material Culture Consulting
(Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment) 2701 B N. Towne Avenue
Pomona, California 91767
Contacts: Tria Belcourt, M.A., RPA, President and Principal Archaeologist Jennifer Kelly, M.Sc., Geology, Professional Paleontologist Sonia Sifuentes, M.Sc, Registered Professional Archaeologist Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D.
Southern California Geotechnical
(Geotechnical Feasibility Study)
22885 Savi Ranch Parkway, Suite E
Yorba Linda, California 92887
Contacts: Daniel W. Nielsen, Senior Engineer
Robert G. Trazo, Principal Engineer
Thienes Engineering
(Preliminary Hydrology Calculations)
(Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan)
14349 Firestone Boulevard
La Mirada, California 90638
Contacts: Reinhard Stenzel, R.C.E
Ricky Hwa
Luis Prado
713
City of Ontario
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report June 2022 8-4 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
Urban Crossroads
(Traffic Analysis)
(Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis)
1133 Camelback Street
Newport Beach, California 92658
Contacts: Aric Evatt, PTP
Charlene So, PE, Associate Principal
Robert Vu, PE
714
RESOLUTION NO. PC22-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PSPA21-002, AN AMENDMENT TO THE ONTARIO
RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN, INCORPORATING
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND
ESTABLISHING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS, AND GUIDELINES WHICH WILL GOVERN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 71.69 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY BORDERED
BY CAMPUS, SULTANA, MERRILL, AND EUCALYPTUS AVENUES, 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, on September 15, 2020, the City Council approved the original Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (File No. PSP18-002), which established a comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character, and ensure that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. The Specific Plan also established the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the project site to ensure The Ontario Plan (“TOP”) goals and policies are achieved; and WHEREAS, Euclid Land Venture LLC ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of an amendment to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan, File No.
PSPA21-002, 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 Application applies to 71.69 acres of land immediately adjacent to the existing Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan area, generally located north of Merrill Avenue, south of Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Campus Avenue, and east of Sultana Avenue, currently within the SP(AG) (Agricultural Overlay) zoning district, and is predominantly improved with agricultural and dairy land uses; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Project site are within the SP(AG) (Agricultural Overlay) zoning district and predominantly developed with agricultural and 715
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022