dairy land uses. The properties to the west are within the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan and under construction with industrial and business park developments.
The property to the south is within the City of Chino and is developed with the Chino Airport. The properties to the east are within the South Ontario Logistics Center Specific Plan and predominantly developed with agricultural and dairy land uses; and WHEREAS, the Project will establish Planning Areas (“PAs”) 3 and 4. PA 3 will be designated Business Park (maximum 0.45 FAR), sited to the north of the Project area along Eucalyptus Avenue, and will allow for the potential development of up to 227,951 square feet of business park and office uses on 11.63 acres of land. PA 4 will be designated Industrial – General (maximum 0.54 FAR), sited to the south of the Project area along Merrill Avenue, and will allow for the potential development of up to 1,412,739 square feet of industrial land uses on 60.06 acres of land. The land use and development intensity of PA 3 and PA 4 will complement the existing PA 1 and PA 2, respectively. The proposed maximum FARs are consistent with the original Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan, and are lower than the maximum allowable thresholds listed in the Policy Plan Land Use designations for Business Park and Industrial; and WHEREAS, the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan).
Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan, “General Plan Consistency”, describes the manner in which the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Consideration have been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
716
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as “ALUCP”), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, the project site is also located within the Airport Influence of Chino Airport and must be consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, which addresses the safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing and continued the Project to the August 30, 2022, Special Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a special hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR (SCH# 2019050018) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
717
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
(2) The EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment, and finds that, if the Specific Plan Amendment is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Air Quality – Impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
(b) Agricultural Resources – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and
(c) Transportation – Impacts related to intersections are projected to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable; and
(d) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Available Land Inventory contained in Table A-3 (Available Land by Planning Area) of the Housing Element Technical Report Appendix.
SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”) Compliance and Chino Airport Influence Area. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State and rely upon the 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California 718
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP; and (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport Overlay Zoning District (“OZD”) and Reference L, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”).
The Chino OZD and ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The Chino ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.
The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION, therefore, finds and determines that the Project will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
719
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project site is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The business park and industrial land uses in the proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment districts are appropriate for the area and will be in harmony in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area. The Project site is located within an industrial corridor and the Chino Airport Influence Area and is subject to the policies and criteria of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The proposed Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment is consistent the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which places additional restrictions on land use, building/structure heights and limits the concentration of people. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed amendment to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The Project proposes to designate a piece of land so as to be consistent with the greater industrial corridor that flanks it on the west and east, with business park land uses located along the northerly portion of the Project site to act as a buffer between the industrial uses and airport to the south of the Project site and the future residential, commercial, and mixed-use developments to the north of the Project site.
General industrial land uses have been sited toward the south of the Project site, adjacent to the Chino Airport, so as to limit potential airport-related hazards from impacting land uses that generate greater concentrations of people.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed amendment to the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan will bring the properties into compatibility and harmony with the larger industrial corridor, located south of Eucalyptus Avenue and generally stretching from Euclid Avenue on the west to the Cucamonga Creek Channel on the east. The Project site is the last remaining piece of land without an industrial designation in the corridor, which includes the approved original Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan to the west and the approved South Ontario Logistics Center, Merrill Commerce Center, and West Ontario Commerce Center Specific Plans to the east. All of the approved specific plans contain industrial development in varying stages.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. 720
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
The 71.69-acre Project site is physically suitable by means of parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities to serve the anticipated development. Future maps and development plans will be required to meet all design standards and regulations. The Project will be part of a larger industrial corridor which has a shared and vested interest in development of utilities to serve the corridor, and the Project site would be tying into existing development plans and, subsequently, reimbursing other developers for their fair share of the cost burden. Further, the substantial investment made by the surrounding industrial development to install infrastructure to serve the area will enable future residential, recreational, commercial, and mixed-use projects to occur that would not have been economically feasible without the industrial corridor.
SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application.
SECTION 7: Final Specific Plan Amendment Documents. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan document shall be updated and revised to reflect TOP 2050 Update land use changes for the Project Site. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, (1) five bound copies of the final Specific Plan document, (2) one complete, unbound copy of the final Specific Plan document; (3) One CD or flash drive containing a complete Microsoft Word copy of the final Specific Plan document, including all required revisions, as well as a complete PDF copy of the final Specific Plan document and an electronic website version (reduced file size, broken down by chapters), and (4) five CDs, each containing a complete PDF copy of the final Specific Plan document, including all required revisions.
SECTION 8: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 9: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 10: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
721
722
723
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA21-002
August 30, 2022
ATTACHMENT A:
Amended Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan
Document (Redline)
(Amended Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Document to follow this page) 724
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (this “Specific Plan”) is one of the initial industrial specific plans implementing the vision outlined by the City of Ontario for the Ontario Ranch area (formerly New Model Colony). The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the former 14,000- acre San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was historically used for dairy or cattle farming by descendants of Dutch, French Basque, Portuguese, and Mexican families.
The Agricultural Preserve was divided in 1999, with portions incorporated into the three adjacent cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario. The City of Ontario named its portion the New Model Colony after the original Model Colony of Ontario established by the Chaffey Brothers, William and George Jr., in 1882. The original Model Colony was founded on innovative land development principles that included the distribution of water rights with land purchases (Mutual Water Company), a grand boulevard (Euclid Avenue), and an agricultural college (Chaffey College, established 1885).
Within Ontario Ranch the City of Ontario promotes innovative land development principles to continue the legacy of the Model Colony. The land use plan for Ontario Ranch provides for housing, commercial and industrial areas, parks, a lake, a golf course, and trail and bike links.
Specific plans are required to guide development in Ontario Ranch to ensure the City objectives are achieved.
On January 26, 2010, the City of Ontario adopted The Ontario Plan, which serves as its new business plan and includes a long-term vision and principle-based policy plan, essentially functioning as the General Plan for the city, including Ontario Ranch.
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan (ORBP SP) was approved in October of 2020 and consisted of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Specific Plan, Development Plan Review, Tentative Parcel Maps, and a Development Agreement to allow for development of an industrial and business park on eleven parcels covering 85 acres in the City. The ORBP SP project included eight warehouse buildings ranging from 46,900 square feet (sf) to 618,353 sf, totaling a maximum development of 1,905,027 sf of warehouse and office uses. The proposed Project would incorporate the abutting approximately 72 acres to the east of the approved ORBP SP site into the overall ORBP SP area. This document has been revised to allow for the expansion.
1.1 Purpose and Intent of the Specific Plan
The Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan provides zoning regulations for development of the project site by establishing permitted land use, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, architectural character, and landscape within the community, ensuring that excellence in Formatted: Don't add space between paragraphs of the
same style
725
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-2
community design is achieved during project development. The Specific Plan establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the project site.
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to:
1. Provide a planning framework that responds to the physical and market driven aspects of future development opportunities;
2. Specify adequate and coordinated infrastructure, utilities, and public services for this area of the Ontario Ranch;
3. Promote compatible uses and interfaces with adjacent properties;
4. Ensure the appropriate location and intensity of uses through new development parameters; and
5. Conform with State laws and local ordinances and policies for the preparation of the Specific Plan.
The objectives of the Specific Plan are to:
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.
2. Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately
1.9 million square feet (sf) of business park and light industrial uses.
3. Provide employment opportunities for community residents.
4. Facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Specific Plan area.
5. Expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
6. Create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area and implement the Specific Plan vision.
1.2 Project Description
This Specific Plan is the regulatory document for the Ontario Ranch Business Park, accommodating up to 3,545,717 square feet (sf) of business park and light industrial uses on approximately 157 acres of land. The Specific Plan addresses consistency with The Ontario Plan; provides a development plan identifying land uses, circulation, infrastructure, streetscape, and landscape plans; establishes allowable uses and development standards for reviewing individual Deleted: 1,905,027
Deleted: 85
726
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-3
Deleted: <object>¶
projects; presents design guidelines to create a visually attractive environment; summarizes the development review process; and specifies provisions for administration and implementation of the Specific Plan.
Location and Specific Plan Boundary
The Specific Plan area is located along the western and southern boundaries of the city of Ontario, adjacent to the City of Chino (Figure 1.1), within Ontario Ranch (Figure 1.2). The Specific Plan area is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Campus Avenue on the east, Merrill Avenue on the south, and Euclid Avenue on the west. Figure 1.3, Specific Plan Boundary, illustrates the limits of the Specific Plan area and identifies the nineteen parcels that it encompasses.
Deleted: Sultana
Deleted: eleven
727
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-4
Deleted: ¶
Figure 1.1¶
728
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-5
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank.
729
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page Page 1-6 Introduction
Deleted: Figure 1.2¶
Page Break
¶
¶
730
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-7
This page intentionally left blank.
731
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-8
Deleted: Figure 1.3 ¶
732
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-9
This page intentionally left blank.
733
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-10
Employment Generation
At build-out, the Ontario Ranch Business Park is anticipated to create hundreds of jobs in warehousing, logistics, light manufacturing, and administration. Actual job creation depends on the type of land uses ultimately developed, as a wide range of office, business park, and industrial uses are permitted. For example, e-commerce uses such as internet merchant fulfillment would yield more jobs than a distribution warehouse since many e-commerce companies employ laborintensive picking and packing operations. Employment opportunities will range from entry level to highly skilled labor, adding to Ontario’s competitive advantage in the region. Ontario Ranch Business Park will also provide expanded opportunities for start-up businesses.
Infrastructure Framework
In cooperation with adjacent property owners and developers, the Specific Plan will help establish the necessary framework to enable the continued growth and development of Ontario Ranch. The Specific Plan identifies master planned water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure. The extent of infrastructure to be provided by Ontario Ranch Business Park will be established as part of the development agreement.
Community Compatibility
The Specific Plan is sensitive to the existing residential use located across the street on the west side of Euclid Avenue. Its land use plan designates the northern frontage and the western frontage across from the residential use as Business Park, which provides for smaller scale buildings with less intense uses. The Industrial designation is applied to the remainder of the Specific Plan area where there are no existing sensitive uses.
1.3 Specific Plan Requirements
The range of issues contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of the decision-making body. However, all specific plans must, at a minimum, address the following:
1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
734
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-11
4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the above identified items.
1.4 Authority and Scope
The Ontario Plan requires approval of a Specific Plan for development within Ontario Ranch to guide development of the project site, ensure unified districts and neighborhoods, and implement the City’s goals and policies. The City of Ontario has zoned the project site SP (Specific Plan) Zoning District with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay District. This Specific Plan provides zoning regulations to govern development of the project site and shall take precedence over the City of Ontario Development Code. However, in instances where the Specific Plan is silent, the Development Code shall prevail.
The California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457) grants the City the authority to adopt a specific plan by ordinance (a regulatory plan) or resolution (a policy driven plan). This Specific Plan is a regulatory document, providing land use and design guidance adopted by ordinance.
As a regulatory plan, this document serves as zoning law for the land within the Specific Plan area.
Development plans, site plans, and tentative tract and parcel maps must be consistent with this Specific Plan and The Ontario Plan. The topics covered in this Specific Plan include land use, infrastructure, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation measures. The minimum requirements of a specific plan are established by California Government Code Sections 65450 through 65457 and City of Ontario Code Sections 9-1.2100 to 9-1.2125.
No local public works project may be approved, no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not required may be approved, and no zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan (California Government Code Section 65455). The California Government Code also requires compatibility with local, regional and other planning measures. For example, the Specific Plan must be consistent with any applicable comprehensive airport land use plan (ALUP) (California Government Code Section 65302.3). After adoption, any identification of inconsistency must be followed by the amendment of either existing plans and regulations or the specific plan itself.
Failure to correct inconsistencies can result in the inability to enforce specific plan regulations and policies.
1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The Specific Plan is a discretionary project and is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to State and local CEQA guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report addressing the impacts associated with the development of the project must be considered and certified by the City prior to approval of the Specific Plan. 735
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-12
To address potential environmental impacts, it is anticipated that an environmental impact report (EIR) will be prepared. The EIR will analyze the potential environmental impacts of the adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan and any concurrently processed permits. The EIR for the Specific Plan will be most helpful in dealing with concurrently processed implementing projects (such as development within the Specific Plan and/or related infrastructure provision) and subsequent activities within the Specific Plan area. With a detailed analysis of the Specific Plan and development, many subsequent activities, such as grading permits or other development permits, could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.
1.6 Organization of this Specific Plan
The Specific Plan is organized by chapter as follows:
1. Introduction. This chapter states the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan, introduces the proposed project, summarizes specific plan requirements, and explains the scope and authority of the Specific Plan and its compliance with CEQA.
2. Existing Conditions. This chapter explains the baseline conditions for the project site including current and surrounding land uses, airport influence, circulation, utilities, and environmental conditions.
3. Development Plan. This chapter establishes the overall development concept for the Specific Plan including the land use plan, infrastructure plans for water, sewer, utilities, and circulation, and the provision of public services such as fire, police, and solid waste disposal.
4. Land Use and Development Regulations. This chapter establishes the land use designations and regulations for the Specific Plan. Upon adoption of this Specific Plan, the land use and development standards within this chapter serve as the legal zoning for the Specific Plan area.
5. Design Guidelines. This chapter identifies the conceptual themes for site planning, architecture, and landscape design in the Specific Plan area.
6. Administration and Implementation. This chapter provides requirements for the development review and administration of the Specific Plan including amendment procedures and implementation priorities.
7. The Ontario Plan Consistency. This chapter describes the Specific Plan’s conformance with The Ontario Plan.
736
Introduction
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 1-13
This page intentionally left blank.
737
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-1
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following sections document the conditions prior to the adoption of this Specific Plan, including land uses, airport influence areas, Williamson Act contracts, land use designations, circulation, and environmental conditions.
2.1 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses
The Specific Plan area is occupied by agricultural uses, including a dairy farm, row crops, and vacant land. Dairy farming and agriculture have been the primary uses of the property since the 1930s or earlier.
Figure 2.1 shows the existing uses in the vicinity, which include:
• North across Eucalyptus Avenue: plant nursery, dairy farm • South across Merrill Avenue (City of Chino): Chino Airport • East across Campus Avenue: dairy farms, row crops, and vacant land • West across Euclid Avenue (City of Chino): residential uses, vacant land, and the former Stark Youth Correctional Facility
The Ontario Plan designates the surrounding areas in Ontario Ranch for business park, industrial, and residential uses.
2.2 Airport Influence Areas
Ontario International Airport Influence Area
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The intent of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. The Specific Plan area is not within the safety, noise impact, or airspace protection zones of the ONT ALUCP; however, it is within the Airport Influence Area, as is the entire City of Ontario. While a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure policy is not required for non-residential land, developers or tenants may purchase a Natural Hazard Disclosure report that would indicate that the property is in an Airport Influence Area.
Chino Airport Overlay Zone
The Specific Plan area is within Safety Zone 6 of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook). Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit people-intensive uses such as stadiums, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.
Style Definition: Heading 2: Justified, Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0", Outline numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Tab after: 0.4" + Indent at: 0.4", Tab stops: Not at 0.4" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Left: 1", Right: 1"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
Formatted: Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" +
Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
738
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-2
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
This page intentionally left blank.
739
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-3
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: Figure 2.1¶
740
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-4
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 741
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-5
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
The Specific Plan’s land uses are compatible with these guidelines. The Handbook guidelines suggest the provision of approximately 10 percent usable open land in projects within Safety Zone
6. The Handbook further indicates that ideal emergency landing sites are ones that are long, level, free of obstacles and with minimum dimensions of 300 feet long by 75 feet wide, much like a runway. In the Specific Plan area, surrounding roads (Euclid, Eucalyptus, Sultana and Merrill Avenues), drive aisles, and truck parking lots can be considered as acceptable open lands in urbanized settings.
2.3 Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The motivation for the Williamson Act is to promote voluntary land conservation, particularly farmland conservation. There are no active Williamson Act contracts located within the Specific Plan area.
2.4 Existing Ontario Plan and Zoning Designations
The Ontario Plan existing land use designations and existing zoning map designations for the Specific Plan area (prior to adoption of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan) are shown in Figure 2.2
The Ontario Plan existing land use designations are:
• General Commercial (0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR))
Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 1054-271-01, 1054-271-02, 1054-271-03, 1054-281-01, 1054-281-02 and 1054-281-03
• Office Commercial (0.75 FAR)
APN: 1054-011-01, 1054-011-02, 1054-021-01 and 1054-021-02 • Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 dwelling units per acre) APN: 1054-011-04, 1054-041-02, 1054-031-02, 1054-261-02, 1054-261-01, 1054-031-01, 1054-041-01
• Light Industrial (0.55 FAR)
APN: 1054-291-01, 1054-291-02
The project includes an application for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations to Industrial and Business Park, as discussed in Chapter 3, Development Plan.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
742
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-6
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
743
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-7
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 744
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-8
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: Figure 2.2¶
745
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-9
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" 746
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-10
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
The existing zoning designation is SP (Specific Plan) Zoning District with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay District. The AG Overlay indicates that the land can continue to be used for agricultural uses, but the SP District designation requires approval of a specific plan by the City for urban development of the project site.
2.5 Existing Circulation
The Specific Plan area is located approximately three miles south of State Route 60 via State Route 83 (Euclid Avenue), which is located on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, as shown in Figure 2.3.
Vehicular circulation in the Specific Plan area is provided by Eucalyptus Avenue on the north, Merrill Avenue on the south, and Euclid Avenue on the west and Campus Avenue on the East.
Existing improvements for Euclid Avenue include interim pavement and an unimproved dirt center median. Euclid Avenue has a fully dedicated right-of-way as specified in The Ontario Plan.
Eucalyptus and Merrill Avenues are substandard, requiring right-of-way dedication and major street and parkway improvements.
Campus Avenue is a partially dedicated yet unimproved street that exists only on paper.
Sultana Avenue is a fully dedicated yet unimproved street that exists only on paper.
Along Euclid Avenue traffic signals are located at the Eucalyptus Avenue and Merrill Avenue intersections.
Access to the site is currently provided via five driveway entrances located on Eucalyptus Avenue.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: both
Formatted: Not Highlight
Deleted: On the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area, Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: , requiring major street and parkway improvements. 747
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-11
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank.
748
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-12
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: Figure 2.3¶
749
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-13
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank.
750
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-14
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
2.6 Existing Environmental Conditions
Topography
The overall project site is moderately flat, sloping from north to south with approximately a 30- foot drop in elevation.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
The Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) included boring to depths of 10 to 30± feet and trenching to depths of 4 to 12± feet. Soils encountered through boring and trenching consist of highly organic soils to depths of 1 to 1½± feet. The near-surface soils possess low to medium expansion potentials. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the soil borings conducted as part of the assessment
The near-surface soils are considered corrosive to ferrous metals, including ductile iron pipe.
Additionally, the near surface soils encountered at a boring located in the cattle pen area possessed chloride concentrations that can be deleterious to steel in reinforced concrete. A methane gas survey determined on-site levels are below the threshold.
A geotechnical feasibility study on the Specific Plan site indicated that the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The subject site is located in an area that is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. Research of available maps indicates that the Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, a geotechnical feasibility study did not identify any evidence of faulting during the geotechnical investigation. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered low.
The potential for other geologic hazards such as seismically induced settlement, lateral spreading, tsunamis, inundation, seiches, flooding, and subsidence affecting the site is considered low.
Research of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services website indicates that the subject site is not located within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility. Based on the mapping performed by San Bernardino County and the conditions encountered at the boring locations, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for development within the Specific Plan area.
Hydrology
Storm runoff from the project site generally drains from north to south. There are two detention areas onsite, one located in the center of the site and the other at the southerly portion of the site adjacent to Merrill Avenue.
The southeast portion of the Specific Plan area surface drains southerly to a dirt swale located adjacent to Merrill Avenue, then westerly to a set of four corrugated steel pipes, then southerly to an earthen channel adjacent to Euclid Avenue.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted:
Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted:
Deleted:
Deleted:
751
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-15
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
The remainder of the Specific Plan area surface drains southerly to an onsite detention basin, then southerly via a concrete spillway to the dirt swale adjacent to Merrill Avenue, the corrugated steel pipes, and finally the earthen channel adjacent to Euclid Avenue.
Areas north of the project site drain southerly towards Eucalyptus Avenue and then westerly towards Euclid Avenue. Eucalyptus Avenue is not fully improved, so it is possible that offsite flows from the north enter the project site.
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.
Biological Resources
The Specific Plan area generally represents low biological resource value due to highly disturbed site conditions and historic dairy/agricultural use, resulting in low biological diversity. There is limited vegetation on the majority of the site; the vegetation that exists is generally non-native grasses and weeds.
2.7 Existing Ground Water Wells
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 of Ontario 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 County Health Department. The locations of existing wells are shown in Exhibit 2.4, “Existing Wells”. A copy of such permit and Form DWR 188 Well Completion Form shall be provided to the Development Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. If the Developer proposes temporary use of an existing agricultural well for purposes other than agriculture, such as grading, dust control, etc., the developer shall make a formal request to the City of Ontario for such use prior to issuance of permits for any construction activity. Upon approval, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Ontario and pay any applicable fees as set forth by the agreement.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.06"
752
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-16
Existing Conditions Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: Figure 2.4
753
Existing Conditions
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 2-17
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.06" 754
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-1
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This chapter provides the framework to guide development of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan. The chapter presents the proposed planning areas, infrastructure plans, and public services to support the project.
3.1 Land Use Plan
The Specific Plan consists of four Planning Areas accommodating a variety of industrial-serving commercial, low-intensity office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses that are compatible with the site’s location within Safety Zone 3 of the Chino Airport. The Land Use Plan implements the vision of the Ontario Plan by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, and research and development at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. A list of allowable uses by Planning Area is presented in Chapter 4 (Land Use and Development Standards).
Figure 3.1 (Land Use Plan) identifies the location of the Planning Areas. The two Zoning Districts are described below:
BP (Business Park) Zoning District: The BP zoning district accommodates industrial-serving commercial, low intensity office uses, and certain light industrial uses. Development within this district is typically multi-tenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded.
IG (Industrial - General) Zoning District: The IG zoning district accommodates storage and warehousing uses located in larger buildings on larger sites. Uses may include e-commerce, high cube warehouses, or distribution. A wide range of manufacturing and assembly uses are also permitted in this district.
Table 3.1 provides the maximum allowable gross building area for each Planning Area at its associated floor area ratio. Development standards (found in Chapter 4), such as setback requirements, parking, landscaping, infrastructure, and site design, may reduce the maximum gross square footage.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06", Hanging: 0.3", Tab stops:
0.36", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops: 0.4", List tab + Not at -0.63"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: two
Deleted: Planning Areas
Formatted: Tab stops: -0.19", Left
755
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-2
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Table 3.1 Maximum Specific Plan Build-Out
Planning Area Maximum Floor
Area Ratio1,2 Site Acreage3 Maximum Building Square Footage Planning Area 1:
Business Park 0.45 23.4 457,904
Planning Area 2:
Industrial - General 0.54 61.5 1,447,123
Planning Area 3:
Business Park 0.45 11.63 227,951
Planning Area 4:
Industrial - General 0.54 60.06 1,412,739
TOTAL 156.59 3,545,717 SF
Note:
1. 1. Provided the General Plan Amendment application submitted in conjunction with this Specific Plan to designate PA 1 and 3 as Business Park and PA 2 and 4 as Industrial - General is approved.
2. 2. The project EIR as proposed is reviewing square footages below the maximum TOP thresholds. The FAR may be increased to the TOP max levels of 0.60 and 0.55 for BP and IG respectively with a Specific Plan Amendment and appropriate CEQA analysis.
3. 3. PA 1 is rounded from 23.3601, PA is rounded from 61.521 PA 3 is rounded from 11.629 and PA 4 is rounded from 60.0593
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Deleted: Acreage
Deleted: 560
Deleted: 8
Deleted: 55
Deleted: 8
Deleted: 85.6
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.03"
Deleted: 1,905,027
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.25"
Deleted: Figure 3.1¶
756
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-3
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
757
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-4
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
758
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-5
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
3.2 Conceptual Site Plan
The conceptual site plan for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan is presented in Figure
3.2. Under this conceptual plan, Planning Area 1 (Business Park Zoning District) is developed with five buildings totaling 457,904 square feet (SF) and Planning Area 2 (Industrial – General Zoning District) is developed with three buildings totaling 1,447,123 SF (Table 3.2). Planning Area 3 (Business Park Zoning District) is developed with three buildings totaling 211,790 square feet (SF) and Planning Area 4 (Industrial – General Zoning District) is developed with three buildings totaling 1,310,450 SF (Table 3.2). Cumulatively, the fourteen buildings depicted in the conceptual site plan provide 3,427,267 SF of development.
The conceptual site plan reflects current market trends, site conditions, and planned infrastructure.
However, the conceptual site plan may be modified provided it does not exceed the maximum building area presented in Table 3.1 and complies with this Specific Plan and applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code.
Table 3.2 Conceptual Site Plan
Planning Area SP
Zoning District Site Acreage Proposed Conceptual Building Square Footage 1 BP 23.4 457,904
2 IG 61.5 1,447,123
3 BP 11.63 211,790
4 IG 60.06 1,310,450
TOTAL 156.59 3,427,267 SF
3.3 Circulation Plan
The Circulation Plan (Figure 3.3) facilitates movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists within the Specific Plan area, consistent with the City of Ontario’s Roadway Classification System, shown in Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5 presents typical street cross sections for Campus, Euclid, Eucalyptus, Sultana, and Merrill Avenues. Conceptual streetscape design is presented in Chapter 5 (Design Guidelines). Road surface, sidewalk, and trail improvements within the Specific Plan area must be approved by the City’s Engineering Department.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Deleted:
Deleted: eight
Deleted: 1,905,027
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -2.81", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: 8
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: 8
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: 85.6
Deleted: 1,905,027
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
759
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-6
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Deleted: ¶
Figure 3.2¶
<object>
Page Break
¶
¶
Figure 3.3¶
<object>
Page Break
¶
Figure 3.4¶
<object>
Page Break
¶
Figure 3.5¶
¶
¶
760
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-7
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Note: This Site Plan is for conceptual purposes only. This site plan is subject to change based on future development
proposals within the Specific Plan Area, and/or results of a roadway alignment study.
761
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-8
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
762
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-9
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Note: The driveway locations are for conceptual purposes only.
Locations are subject to change based on future development proposals within the Specific Plan Area, and/or results of a roadway alignment study.
763
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-10
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
764
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-11
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
765
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-12
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
Commented [SM1]: Please use updated sections here
766
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-13
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Formatted: Left
Commented [NJ2]: Need to change
767
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-14
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: Page Break
¶ ... [1]
768
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-15
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
769
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-16
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
770
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-17
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
771
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-18
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Euclid Avenue (Route 83)
Euclid Avenue is an expressway under Caltrans’ jurisdiction that is designated as an eight-lane Principal Arterial in The Ontario Plan’s Functional Roadway Classification Plan. The centerline of this street forms the boundary between the City of Ontario to the east and the City of Chino to the west. Euclid Avenue is designed with a 200-foot wide right-of-way, a 66-foot wide center median, and 52-feet of pavement including curbs and gutter. The existing half-width street rightof-way is 100 feet; therefore, no dedication is required.
The Euclid Avenue streetscape design illustrated in Chapter 5, Design Guidelines, for the east side of the street adjacent to the project site specifies a 15-foot wide parkway including a five-foot wide sidewalk and an eight-foot wide on-site multipurpose trail within a 35-foot wide landscape buffer, creating a 50-foot wide neighborhood edge as specified in the Ontario Ranch Colony Streetscape Master Plan.
Eucalyptus Avenue
Eucalyptus Avenue is located along the northern boundary of the Specific Plan area, providing east/west access to the site. Eucalyptus Avenue is designated by the Functional Roadway Classification Plan as a four-lane Collector Street. The Specific Plan specifies an 108-foot wide right-of-way with 84 feet of pavement including curb/gutter.
The Eucalyptus Avenue streetscape design presented in Chapter 5, Design Guidelines, specifies a 12-foot wide parkway including a seven-foot wide curb-adjacent landscaped area and a five-foot wide sidewalk. The north side also provides an eight-foot wide on-site multipurpose trail within a 23-foot wide landscape buffer setback. Together, the parkway and landscape buffer setback create a 35-foot wide neighborhood edge, as described in the Ontario Ranch Colony Streetscape Master Plan. A 21-foot dedication will be required for Eucalyptus Avenue.
Sultana Avenue
Sultana Avenue is designated as a Collector Street with a 66-foot wide right-of-way and 48 feet of pavement including curb and gutter. The Sultana Avenue streetscape presented in Chapter 5, Design Guidelines, specifies a 9-foot-wide parkway including a 4 foot landscape and a five-foot wide sidewalk. The west side of the street adjacent to the project site provides a 10-foot wide landscape buffer setback. Sultana Avenue is not yet developed adjacent to the Specific Plan area.
However, the right-of-way exists, and no dedication is required.
Merrill Avenue
Merrill Avenue is designated as a four-lane Collector Street in the Functional Roadway Classification Plan and provides east-west access to the project’s southern boundary. The centerline of this street forms the boundary between the City of Ontario to the north and the City Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Deleted: for the north side of the street adjacent to the project site …
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Right: 0"
772
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-19
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
of Chino to the south. The Specific Plan specifies an 98-foot wide right-of-way and 74 feet of pavement including curb and gutter for Merrill Avenue.
The Merrill Avenue streetscape design presented in Chapter 5, Design Guidelines, for the north side of the street adjacent to the project site includes an eight-foot wide Class II on-street bike lane at the edge of the street, a seven-foot wide curb-adjacent landscaped area, and a five-foot wide sidewalk. An eight-foot wide multipurpose trail is located within a 23-foot wide landscape buffer setback. Together, these improvements establish a 35-foot wide neighborhood edge, as specified in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan. A 21-foot street dedication will be required for Merrill Avenue.
Campus Avenue
Campus Avenue is located along the eastern boundary of the Specific Plan area, providing northsouth access to the site. Campus Avenue is designated as a Minor Arterial Street per the Functional Roadway Classification Plan. The Specific Plan specifies a 108-foot wide right-of-way and will require a 25-foot half-width dedication and a 12-foot parkway including the sidewalk. An additional 23ft dedication for the neighborhood edge is required.
Local Circulation
Final site planning and off-site design shall be subject to City approval. In addition to the typical street sections described and depicted, additional geometric enhancements, including but not limited to those at intersections, may be required to adequately mitigate impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis/Specific Plan EIR. Local roadway circulation shall accommodate trucks with a double trailer combination wheelbase of 67 feet (known as the WB-67 design vehicle).
Driveways shall conform to access requirements of the Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines. Driveway locations, specifically those that are in proximity to master-planned or future traffic signals, shall be located so as not to interfere with queues as projected in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Specific Plan. The use of surrounding roads, drive aisles and truck parking lots to address the open land requirement for the Chino Airport Overlay zone is discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2: Airport Influence Areas).
Fair share responsibilities for street improvements will be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City.
Traffic Control Devices
All traffic signs regulating, warning, and/or guiding traffic on public roads will conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), latest edition. All traffic-control signs, whether on public or private property, shall conform to the California MUTCD.
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Heading 3
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
773
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-20
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Truck Routes
The City of Ontario designates and maintains a network of truck routes that provide for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noisesensitive land uses (Figure 3.6). Euclid Avenue, located at the western perimeter of the Specific Plan area, is a designated truck route. Merrill Avenue, which runs along the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area, is a designated truck route from Euclid Avenue to Archibald Avenue.
Pedestrian Circulation
To improve safety and the pedestrian experience, connect the various parts of the Specific Plan area, and expand access to nearby land uses, sidewalks will be provided along all streets abutting the Specific Plan area. Sidewalks will be five-feet wide, constructed of concrete, and installed in conjunction with adjacent roadway improvements.
Trails and Bike Paths
Trails and bicycle paths will provide an additional mode of circulation in and around the Specific Plan area. Multipurpose trails will be provided on the east side of Euclid Avenue, and the north side of Merrill Avenue, north side of Eucalyptus Avenue and east side of Campus Avenue (Figure
3.7).
The Ontario Plan Mobility Element specifies a Class II bikeway on the north side of Merrill Avenue, 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 (Figure 3.8).
The trail and bikeway improvements will be installed along the project frontages in conjunction with street improvements. The city reserves the right to implement bike lanes on Eucalyptus at the discretion of the Traffic and Transportation Division.
Transit
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area.
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: the south side of Eucalyptus Avenue,
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: .
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: ¶ ... [2]
774
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-21
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
775
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-22
Development Plan Development Plan Deleted: <object><object>¶ Deleted: <object>¶
¶
776
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-23
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
777
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-24
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Formatted: Left: 1", Section start: Continuous
778
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-25
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
779
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-26
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
780
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-27
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
781
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-28
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
3.4 Potable Water Plan
Water service to the Specific Plan area will be provided by the City of Ontario. Potable water is provided by imported water from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA), Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) and groundwater from the Chino Basin, extracted via the City’s wells. The WFA was formed in 1980 as a Joint Powers Authority by the Cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario and Upland, and the Monte Vista Water District. It was formed to construct and operate water treatment facilities that provide a supplemental supply of potable water to its member agencies.
Currently there are no City potable water mains or City potable water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. The project site lies within the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) (Figure 3.10).
Providing potable water service to the Specific Plan Area requires extending the Phase 2 West Backbone 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue from Carpenter Avenue to Grove Avenue; extending this potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue with a 16-inch potable water main from Grove Avenue to Euclid Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Euclid Avenue from Eucalyptus Avenue to Merrill Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue from Euclid Avenue to Walker Avenue; installing a 16-inch potable water main in Walker Avenue from Merrill Avenue to the 24-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue. This will provide the primary potable water loop for the Specific Plan Area (Figure 3.9).
In addition to extending the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone, the Specific Plan area requires a connection between the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone and the 1010 Pressure Zone (PZ). This will supply a second source of potable water to the Specific Plan Area. The connection to the 1010 Pressure Zone (PZ) will require extending the Phase 2 West Backbone at Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue by installing a 30-inch to 42-inch potable water main north on Grove Avenue to Chino Avenue. The connection to the 1010 Pressure Zone will require installing an 18-inch potable water main in Chino Avenue easterly to the existing 18-inch potable water main located on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek channel and installing a Pressure Reducing Station between the 1010 PZ and 925 PZ near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Chino Avenue. Other elements of the Phase 2 Water System are shown on Figure 3.9. The elements shown north of Chino Avenue will be constructed by others. The balance of Phase 2 Water System will be completed as required by future development of Ontario Ranch. The Project will be required to participate in the future Phase 2 Water System improvements, as detailed in the development agreement with the City.
The Specific Plan area also requires the planning, design, and construction of the Adjacent Potable Water System, which includes: installing a 12-inch potable water main in Sultana Avenue connecting to the 16- inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue and installing a 12-inch potable water main in Campus Avenue connecting to the 16-inch potable water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and extending to connect to the 16-inch potable water main in Merrill Avenue.
Water mains required to serve the 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 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: Myriad Pro
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: -1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: Myriad Pro
Deleted: .
Formatted: Font: Myriad Pro
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
782
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-29
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
for domestic water service and 10- to 12-inch water lines for fire service water will be installed.
The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue to serve PA-1 and PA-3 and to the main in Merrill Avenue and Sultana Avenue to serve PA-2 and PA 4.
Until the ultimate pipeline network for Ontario Ranch has been completed, there may be instances where construction of improvements to serve a project may not meet the required fire flow demands.
Therefore, projects within the Specific Plan area may be required to construct additional pipelines not indicated in the Master Plan or upsize master planned pipelines to meet Fire Department fire flow requirements and/or Water Master Plan criteria. The developer will submit a hydraulic analysis to the City for review and approval to demonstrate adequate fire flow and adherence to Potable Water Master Plan criteria.
The overall water infrastructure plan to serve the City of Ontario is shown on Figure 3.10. The City’s ultimate domestic water system will consist of five pressure zones. Most of Ontario Ranch (including the Specific Plan area) is in the 925 Pressure Zone. The sizing and alignment of potable water lines will follow the most current approved City of Ontario water system plan. Required Potable Water Infrastructure is subject to change based upon findings of approved hydraulic study and master plan updates; and, Potable Water main locations are also subject to change based upon the developer conducted and City approved Conceptual Design Report.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
783
Development Plan Delete
Delete
Size and location of the waterlines are subject to change based on the current approved Master Plan as well as a City conducted and approved hydraulic analysis.
Delete
Forma
784
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Commerce Center West Specific Plan Page 3-31 Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" Deleted: ¶ ... [4]
785
Development Plan Deleted: <object>
Deleted: <object>¶
786
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Commerce Center West Specific Plan Page 3-33 Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" 787
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-34
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Phase 2 transmission line locations are subject to change based on the current approved Master Plan as well as a City conducted and approved hydraulic analysis.
Deleted: <object>Figure 3.10¶ ... [5]
Formatted: Left: 1", Section start: Continuous
788
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan 3-35
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Hanging: 0.19" 789
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-36
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
3.5 Recycled Water Plan
The City of Ontario Ordinance 2689 requires all new development in Ontario Ranch to connect to and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation.
Prior to use of recycled water, approval from the City of Ontario and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is required. Interim connection to potable water is not allowed.
Currently there are no City owned recycled water mains or City recycled water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area. There is an existing 30-inch Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. Recycled Water is provided to the City of Ontario by the IEUA from its four wastewater reclamation plants. The entire Specific Plan area is within the City’s master planned 930 Pressure Zone. Recycled water infrastructure improvements requiring the planning, design, and construction of new 930 Pressure Zone (PZ) Recycled Water Master Plan main lines area will be required (Figure 3.11). New recycled water infrastructure is planned to include installing an 8-inch recycled water main in Euclid Avenue connecting the existing IEUA 30-inch 930 Pressure Zone Recycled Water main in Eucalyptus Avenue to an 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue. The 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue will extend from Euclid Avenue easterly to Campus Avenue. An 8-inch recycled water main will be installed in Sultana Avenue connecting the recycled water main in Merrill Avenue to the existing IEUA 30-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue and an 8-inch recycled water main will be installed in Campus Avenue that also connects the 8-inch recycled water main in Merrill Avenue to the existing 30-inch recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue.
The existing 30-inch IEUA recycled water main in Eucalyptus between Euclid and Bon View may need to be relocated as part of the infrastructure improvements in order to meet minimum Division of Drinking Water (DDW) separations and/or City of Ontario/IEUA standards & requirements.
Sizing and alignment of the recycled water lines will be consistent with the City of Ontario recycled water system plan and a City approved hydraulic analysis.
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops: 0.4", List tab + Not at -0.75"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: Sultana
Deleted: .
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
790
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan 3-37
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Deleted: ¶
791
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Note: This Site Plan is for conceptual purposes only. This site plan is subject to change based on future development proposals within thSifiPlAd/ltf dlit td
Deleted: <object>Figure 3.11¶ ... [6]
Formatted: Top: 1", Section start: Continuous
792
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-39
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" 793
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: Figure 3.12¶ ... [7]
794
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-41
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Hanging: 0.19" 795
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
3.6 Sewer Plan
Regional wastewater treatment services are provided to the City of Ontario and its neighboring agencies by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Several regional trunk sewers collect sewage generated in the City and transport it to IEUA’s Regional Plant No.1 and Regional Plant No.5 for treatment. The City of Ontario’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. Ontario Ranch is located in Sewershed 8.
There are no sewer mains located within the broader vicinity of the Specific Plan area; therefore, the Specific Plan includes a network of new public sewer mains (Figure 3.13), consistent with the 2012 City of Ontario’s ultimate sewer system plan (Figure 3.14). A 36-inch sewer main will connect to an existing IEUA interceptor trunk main sewer located in Kimball Avenue to the south, run north in Euclid Avenue to Merrill Avenue, then east to Campus Avenue. The IEUA interceptor trunk sewer main is 54-inches east of Euclid and 60-inches west of Euclid Avenue. The final point of connection to the existing IEUA interceptor trunk sewer at Euclid Avenue and Kimball Avenue will be determined at the time of final design subject to the approval of the City and IEUA. A 21-inch sewer main will run from Merrill Avenue north within Euclid Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue. A 16- inch public sewer main will be located along Sultana Avenue and Campus Avenue. Both sewer mains will connect to the 36-inch sewer main in Merrill Avenue and extend north, through the Eucalyptus Avenue intersection (Figure 3.13). An 8-inch private main will also be installed in an on-site easement to provide for connections at the northeast portion of the site. 6-inch sewer laterals will connect buildings to sewer mains.
The ultimate sizing and alignment of the sewer shall be consistent with the City of Ontario ultimate sewer system plan and/or a City conducted and approved hydraulic analysis.
A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and Development within the Specific Plan
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: Myriad Pro
Deleted: reduces to a 30-inch sewer main
Deleted: Sultana
Deleted: An eight
Deleted: . An eight
Deleted: Six
796
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-43
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Hanging: 0.19" 797
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: Figure 3.13¶ ... [8]
798
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-45
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19", Hanging: 0.19" 799
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
Note: This is not the current exhibit. At the time of preparing this document the City of Ontario was undergoing an update to this plan.
Deleted: Figure 3.14¶
800
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-47
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19" 801
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
3.7 Conceptual Grading Plan
Site topography is moderately flat, sloping from the north to the south. There is an approximately 30-foot change in elevation across the Specific Plan area.
The grading activities for the Specific Plan area will generally consist of clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing structures, and moving surface soils to construct building pads, driveways and streets.
The Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 3.15) provides a balance of cut and fill for the Specific Plan area. Grading and earthwork analysis indicate the project can balance without the use of retaining walls. Earthwork will include approximately 242,079 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 242,079 CY of fill with 292,457 CY of over-excavation. Geotechnical and/or environmental conditions encountered during grading operations may impact final earthwork calculations. Grading plans for each development project within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading plans and activities will conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.
All landscaped areas within the Specific Plan area shall be graded as shallow swales and designed to accept runoff water from impervious surfaces. Water quality retention basins, trenches, etc., (the exact location of which will be determined at the time of Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approval for individual implementing projects) will have a maximum side slope of 3:1.
3.8 Dry Utilities Plan
Utility services provided to the site will be installed underground in accordance with City of Ontario guidelines.
Communication System
Developments in Ontario Ranch are required to install and provide fiber conduit to all improved lots. Proposed on-site facilities will be placed underground within a duct and structure system that will be installed by the developer. Pursuant to the City of Ontario 2013 Fiber Optic Master Plan, the fiber optic network will be owned and operated by the City of Ontario and as such maintenance of the installed system will be the responsibility of the City and/or Special District fiber optic entity and not the developer. According to the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan, the proposed fiber optic infrastructure, including approximately 23 miles of backbone fiber south of Riverside Drive, is an investment into a long term capital asset using newly constructed and existing conduit to provide high speed communication links to key locations throughout the City.
The Specific Plan area will be connected to the City’s system as shown on Figure 3.16.
Natural Gas
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the Specific Plan area. Gas mains will be installed to the individual development projects by the Gas Company, as necessary.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab + Not at -0.63"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: Page Break
802
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-49
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" 803
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
Note: This Site Plan is for conceptual purposes only. This site plan is subject to change based on future development proposals within the Specific Plan Area, and/or results of a roadway alignment study.
Deleted: Figure 3.15¶ ... [9]
804
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-51
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" Deleted: ¶ ... [10]
805
Development Plan
Deleted: <object>¶
806
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-53
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.19" Formatted: Left: 1"
807
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Electricity
Southern California Edison will provide electricity to the Specific Plan area from existing facilities in the vicinity. All new lines within the Specific Plan area shall be installed according to City of Ontario requirements.
3.9 Storm Drainage Plan
The Specific Plan area storm drain improvements (Figure 3.17) are consistent with the facilities specified in Drainage Area XIV of the City of Ontario Storm Drain Master Plan (Figure 3.18).
Catch basins located throughout the site will collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems will convey runoff southerly to a reinforced concrete box facility in Merrill Avenue. Landscaped areas adjacent to Euclid Avenue will continue to drain to the street. The Specific Plan will also construct storm drains in Eucalyptus Avenue and Euclid Avenue north of Merrill Avenue. The reinforced concrete box facility in Merrill Avenue will end just north of the existing earthen channel, located between the paved portions of Euclid Avenue and the existing easterly right-of-way. The storm water will then bubble up in the structure and spill out into the existing channel where it will continue to flow south to eventually discharge south of Pine Avenue in the City of Chino.
Though the Specific Plan will construct several storm drains 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, the project will utilize on-site storm water detention so that discharge from Specific Plan development remains less than peak flow rates prior to development.
Each storm drain in Euclid Avenue and Merrill Avenue will be equipped with a hydrodynamic separator or equivalent alternative approved devices to satisfy the statewide trash mandate. Each device will be approved by and listed on the Certified Full Capture System List of Trash Treatment Control Devices of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
NPDES Compliance
The grading and drainage of the Specific Plan area will be designed to retain/infilter, harvest, and re-use or biotreat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County NPDES Stormwater Program's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for significant new development projects. The objective of the WQMP for this project is to minimize the detrimental effects of urbanization on the beneficial uses of receiving waters, including effects caused by increased pollutants and changes in hydrology. These effects may be minimized through the implementation of site designs that reduce runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizing on-site infiltration, employing Source Control Best Management Practices (BMP’s), or using on-site structural Treatment Control BMP’s where the infeasibility of installing Low Impact Development BMP’s is demonstrated.
Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Hanging: 0.4", Tab stops:
0.4", List tab
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06", Hanging: 0.5"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
808
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-55
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
New development within the Specific Plan area will utilize a variety of Low Impact Development site drainage designs to manage stormwater, including but not limited to retention/infiltration basins, trenches and swales, and above ground bio-treatment systems. Development projects within the Specific Plan area will comply with the latest Low Impact Development guidelines and incorporate features including but not limited to:
• Landscape designs that promote water retention and incorporation of water conservation elements such as use of native plants and drip irrigation systems; • Stormwater basins and swales shall be no greater than 40% of the landscape area width to allow for ornamental landscape;
• Permeable surface designs in areas with low traffic;
• Parking lots that drain to landscaped areas to provide retention and infiltration, or bio-treatment where infiltration is infeasible;
• Limit soil compaction during grading operations within landscaped storm water infiltration areas to no more than 80 percent compaction.
Prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Erosion & Sediment Control Plan sheets, and a WQMP will be prepared and approved.
The SWPPP and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Sheets will identify and detail all appropriate BMP’s to be implemented or installed during construction of the project, and the WQMP will describe all post-construction BMP’s designed to address water quality and quantity of runoff for the life of the project.
All Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit.
3.10 Public Services
This sub-section addresses public services within the Specific Plan area, including police, fire and solid waste disposal services.
Police
The City of Ontario will provide police services to the Specific Plan area. The closest police station is located approximately five miles north of the Specific Plan area at 2500 S. Archibald Avenue, just south of SR-60. This station is also the City of Ontario Police Department headquarters.
Fire
The City of Ontario will provide fire protection services to the Specific Plan area. The Ontario Fire Department currently has eight stations, which are staffed with eight four-man paramedic engine companies and two four-man truck companies. The closest operational fire station, Station 2, is located at 544 W Francis Street, approximately four miles north of the Specific Plan area.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.25"
Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.25"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
809
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Solid Waste Disposal
The City of Ontario will provide solid waste services to the Specific Plan area. The City offers a full array of commercial and industrial services designed to meet the business community’s needs.
Solid waste facilities will follow the “Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.” The Manual establishes the City of Ontario’s requirements for refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addresses the City’s recycling goals. The Mid-Valley Landfill is the nearest County of San Bernardino landfill located at 2390 N. Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto, approximately 20 miles northeast of the Specific Plan area.
Formatted: Right: 0"
810
Development Plan
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-57
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" 811
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>Figure 3.17¶
Formatted: Top: 1", Section start: Continuous, Width: 8.5", Height: 11"
812
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-59
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
This page intentionally left blank. Formatted: Indent: Left: -0.19" 813
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-60
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>Figure 3.18¶ ... [11]
Formatted: Left: 1", Section start: Continuous
814
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-61
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
Formatted: Font color: Auto
815
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-62
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
3.11 Phasing Plan
Development phasing of the project site will be determined by the landowner and/or developer based upon real estate market conditions. Phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure are provided. Phasing sequencing is subject to change over time to respond to various market and local factors and as such, individual phases may overlap or develop concurrently.
Infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support the development, will be installed by the developer. Figure 3.19, Conceptual Phasing Plan, describes three general phases of development for Ontario Ranch Business Park.
Specific Plan backbone infrastructure will be installed by the project developer, in accordance with the applicable City-adopted infrastructure plan for the area, as well as the provisions of this Specific Plan and an approved Development Agreement. Fair share responsibilities for improvements will be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City of Ontario. The timing for installation of infrastructure and utilities within the Specific Plan area will be determined as part of the City’s approval of parcel maps. Infrastructure will be constructed and made available in a timely manner as development progresses. All of the Specific Plan required infrastructure can be found in Section 3.3 (Figures 3.3 and 3.5) for Streets, Section 3.4 (Figure 3.9) for Potable Water, Section 3.5 (Figure 3.11) for Recycled Water, Section 3.6 (Figure 3.13) for Sewer, Section 3.8 (Figure
3.16) for Fiber Optics, and Section 3.9 (Figure 3.17) for Storm Drain. Phasing will be determined per separate Development Agreement.
Phase 1: Phase 1 consists of the construction of the storage, warehousing, and industrial development in Planning Area 2. This phase may be developed in two or more sub-phases, based on development plans.
Phase 2: Phase 2 consists of the construction of the business park development in Planning Area
1. This phase may be developed in several sub-phases in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly completion of infrastructure improvements.
Phase 3: Phase 3 consists of the construction of the business park development in Planning Area 3 and the construction of the storage, warehousing, and industrial development in Planning Area
4. This phase may be developed in two or more sub-phases, based on development plans.
Final grading and infrastructure improvements will be completed in accordance with the approved Development Agreement and City Engineer approval.
Deleted: ¶
Formatted: Right: 0"
Deleted: two
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Right: 0"
Formatted: Left, Right: 0"
Deleted: Page Break
¶
816
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-63
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
817
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-64
Development Plan Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>¶
Figure 3.19
Note: This Site Plan is for conceptual purposes only. This site plan is subject to change based on future development proposals within the Specific Plan Area, and/or results of a roadway alignment study.
Deleted: <object>
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Deleted: Page Break
¶ ... [12]
818
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-65
Deleted: <object>¶
¶
Deleted: <object>¶
This page is intentionally left blank.
819
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 3-1
Development Plan
820
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-1
4.0 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
This chapter identifies the allowable uses and the standards for building heights, setbacks, parking, coverage, landscape, signage, and all other development standards within the Specific Plan area.
The application of these regulations is intended to create a harmonious relationship within the Specific Plan area and with the surrounding land uses as well as to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
4.1 General Provisions
Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the development standards and procedures established within the Specific Plan become the governing zoning standards for any new construction, addition, or remodel within the Specific Plan area. However, in reviewing individual projects requiring discretionary approval, additional conditions may be applied by the approving body to accomplish the goals and objectives of this Specific Plan.
4.2 Allowable Uses
Table 4.1 (Land Use Matrix) shows the allowable land use, activity, or facility permitted within the Specific Plan’s BP (Business Park) and IG (Industrial - General) Zoning Districts, as discussed in Chapter 3. These uses include a variety of industrial-serving commercial, low-intensity office, technology, light manufacturing, and warehouse/distribution uses that are compatible with the site’s location within Safety Zone 3 of the Chino Airport. The letters/symbols used in Table 4.1 shall have the following meanings:
“P” - Permitted Land Uses
A Permitted Use (P) is permitted by right and may be established as the primary use of a building without the need for discretionary approval. Permitted Uses are subject to the development standards and guidelines applicable to the zoning district in which the use is located. “C” - Conditionally Permitted Land Uses
A Conditionally Permitted Use (C) is permitted upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) pursuant to Section 4.02.015 of the Ontario Development Code and City processing procedures. “A” - Administratively Permitted Uses
An Administratively Permitted Use (A) is permitted upon issuance of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) pursuant to Section 4.03.015 of the Ontario Development Code and City processing procedures.
821
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-2
“--“ - Prohibited Land Uses
A land use indicated with a “ --“ symbol is prohibited within the zoning district.
Land Uses Not Listed
A land use not listed in Table 4.1 shall be considered a prohibited land use. For land uses similar to those listed in Table 4.1, but not expressly stated in this Specific Plan, the Planning Director or his/her designee has the authority to make a determination of the applicability of similar land uses.
Table 4.1: Allowable Uses
Land Use
BP
District
IG
District
AGRICULTURAL USES
Commercial Crop Production and Farming (excluding
marijuana) C P
Community Gardens, Urban Farms, and Related Uses A A
Kennels and Catteries -- P
RESIDENTIAL USES
Caretaker’s Unit (not to exceed 1,000 square feet) A A
CONSTRUCTION
Contractors (e.g., building construction, site preparation, capital improvement projects)
• Completely within a building P P
• With outdoor storage -- P
MANUFACTURING
Apparel Manufacturing P P
Artisan Crafts (made by hand) such as glassworks, jewelry, and pottery P P
Beverage Manufacturing -- C
Chemical Manufacturing (excludes pesticides and fertilizers) -- C Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing P P
Electrical Equipment, Appliance and Component
Manufacturing P P
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing -- P
• Ammunition and Arms C C
Food Manufacturing, General (but excluding animal
slaughtering and processing and seafood product preparation and packaging)
-- C
Food Manufacturing, Limited (bread, tortilla, snack foods, roasted nuts and peanut butter, coffee, tea, flavoring syrup, seasoning and dressing, spice extract)
C C
Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing P P
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing -- C
Deleted: P
822
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-3
Table 4.1: Allowable Uses
Land Use
BP
District
IG
District
Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing (excluding leather and hide tanning and finishing) P P
Machinery Manufacturing -- P
Miscellaneous Manufacturing (medical equipment and
supplies, jewelry, sporting goods, toys, office supplies, signs, etc.)
P P
Paper Manufacturing -- C
Pharmaceutical and Medicine Manufacturing (excludes
biological product manufacturing) C C
Printing and Related Support Activities P P
Primary Metal Manufacturing -- C
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing -- C
Plastics Product Manufacturing -- C
Rubber Product Manufacturing -- C
Textile Mills -- C
Textile Product Mills -- C
Transportation Equipment Manufacturing -- P
Wood Product Manufacturing -- C
WHOLESALE TRADE
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods - General (includes motor vehicles and parts, lumber and construction materials, metals and minerals other than petroleum, and machinery equipment and supplies)
-- P
Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods - Limited (includes furniture and home furnishings, professional and commercial equipment and supplies, hardware, plumbing, and heating equipment and supplies)
P P
Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (excludes industrial gases, petroleum bulk stations and terminals, and fireworks and explosives merchant wholesalers)
-- P
Wholesale Electronic Markets, Agents and Brokers (excludes automobile auctions) P --
HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Ambulatory Health Care Services P --
Child Day Care Services (Commercial Facilities) -- --
Child Day Care Services (Employer Provided Services) -- -- Medical Office P --
Vocational Rehabilitation Services C --
COMMERCIAL USES
Information
Broadcasting P P
Data Processing, Health, and Related Services P P
Publishing Industries P P
Deleted: P
823
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-4
Table 4.1: Allowable Uses
Land Use
BP
District
IG
District
Motion Picture and Sound Recording Facilities (excludes movie theaters) P P
Recording and sound studios P --
Telecommunication Facilities P P
Eating and Drinking Places, and Food Services
Alcoholic beverage sales for consumption on the premises (includes all retailer’s on-sale licenses issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control)
C --
Food Bank or Meal Delivery Services C C
Restaurant
• Without drive-thru P --
• With drive-thru C --
Motor Vehicle Mechanical and Electrical Repair and
Maintenance
Servicing Facilities (limited to retail-oriented services, such as emissions testing, battery replacement and other similar retail activities that involves the limited use of pneumatic tools or equipment that create noise impacts)
P --
General Repair Facilities (includes general motor vehicle mechanical and electrical repair and maintenance of air conditioning, brake, cooling, electric, exhaust, fuel, suspension system, engine, transmission, and drive train)
• General Repair Facilities - Automobile, Light Truck and Van Repair and Maintenance C C
• General Repair Facilities- Large Truck, Bus and Similarly Large Motor Vehicle Repair and Maintenance -- C
Automotive Body, Paint, Interior and Glass Repair
• Automobile, Light Truck and Van Body, Paint, and
Interior Repair and Customization C C
• Minor Customization Work (limited to the "bolt-on"
replacement or addition of parts only -- no body or
paint work is allowed)
C C
• Large Truck and Bus Body, Paint, and Interior Repair
and Maintenance -- C
Personal Services
Couriers and Messengers P P
Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Repair and Maintenance (except automotive and electronic) -- P Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance P P Fitness and Recreational Sports Center
• Gross Floor Area less than 10,000 square feet P --
• Gross Floor Area 10,000 square feet or more C --
Industrial Laundry and Linen Supply C C
824
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-5
Table 4.1: Allowable Uses
Land Use
BP
District
IG
District
Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance P P Pet Boarding and Kennels
• Day only (e.g. Doggie Daycare) C --
• Overnight Stays C --
Postal Services P P
Passenger Car Rental and Leasing C --
Truck, Utility Trailer, and Recreational Vehicle Rental and Leasing C P
Offices
Administrative and Support Services P --
Finance and Insurance Offices P --
Management of Companies and Enterprises P --
Office Ancillary to a Primary Industrial Use (less than 10% of
GFA) P P
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (e.g. accounting, tax preparation, architecture, bookkeeping, legal, engineering, consulting)
P --
Real Estate Offices P --
Retail
Alcoholic beverage sales for consumption off the premises (includes all retailer’s off-sale licenses issued by the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control)
C --
Auction Houses C --
Automotive Parts and Accessories (including tires) P -- Convenience stores (without alcoholic beverage sales) P -- Gasoline Fueling Station with or without Convenience Store (without alcoholic beverage sales) C --
Internet Fulfillment/Warehousing/Distribution (E-Commerce) P P Industrial Retail Sales (retail sales of goods and/or products either manufactured, warehoused or wholesaled on-site)
• Maximum 15% of building floor area or 8,000 square
feet, whichever is less A A
• Over 15% of building floor area or 8,000 square feet C C Non-Store Retailers (includes electronic shopping and mailorder houses, vending machine operators, and other direct selling establishments (excluding fuel/petroleum dealers) P P
WAREHOUSING
Warehousing and Storage (General and Other)
• Completely within a building P P
• Outdoor Storage Accessory to an Allowed Use A A
• Outdoor Storage as the Primary Use -- C
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage P P
825
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-6
Table 4.1: Allowable Uses
Land Use
BP
District
IG
District
OTHER
Religious Assembly C --
Parking Facilities P --
Vocational/Trade Schools C C
Notes:
1. P=Permitted, C= Conditionally Permitted, A=Administratively Permitted, -- = Prohibited
2. Refer to the Specific Plan EIR and Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) for additional development criteria and policies that may affect allowable land uses.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.3", No bullets or numbering
826
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-7
4.3 Development Standards
Table 4.2 (Development Standards) provides a summary of the development standards applicable to the land uses, structures, and related improvements located within the Specific Plan area. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for any standard not addressed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Development Standards
Development Standard Zoning District
BP IG
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq ft 20,000 sq ft
Minimum Lot Dimensions
1. Lot Width 100 ft 100 ft
2. Lot Depth 100 ft 100 ft
Maximum Floor Area Ratio1,2 0.45 0.54
Maximum Building Footprint 3 125,000 sq ft N/A
Minimum Landscape Setback
1. Euclid Avenue 35 ft 35 ft
2. Eucalyptus Avenue 23 ft N/A
3. Merrill Avenue N/A 23 ft
4. Sultana Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
5. Campus Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
6. Interior Side N/A N/A
7. Interior Rear N/A N/A
Minimum Building Setback 4
1. Euclid Avenue 35 ft 35 ft
2. Eucalyptus Avenue 23 ft N/A
3. Merrill Avenue N/A 23 ft
4. Sultana Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
5. Campus Avenue 10 ft 10 ft
6. Interior Side 10 ft 10 ft
7. Interior Rear 10 ft 10 ft
Minimum Parking Space and Drive Aisle Separations5,6,9
1. Parking Space or Drive Aisle
to Street Property Line 20 ft 10 ft
2. Parking Space or Drive Aisle
to Interior Property Line 5 ft 5 ft
3. Parking Space to Buildings,
Walls, and Fences
Areas adjacent to public entries and office
areas: 10 ft
Areas adjacent to other building areas: 5 ft
Within screened loading and storage yard
areas: 0 ft
4. Drive Aisles to Buildings,
Walls, and Fences 5 ft 5ft
827
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-8
Table 4.2 Development Standards
Development Standard Zoning District
BP IG
5. Drive Aisles within Screened
Loading and Storage Yard
Areas
0 ft 0 ft
Maximum Building Height 7,8 45 ft 55 ft
Minimum Landscape Coverage9 15% 10%
Walls, Fences, and Hedges: Per Ontario Development Code Division 6.02 (Walls, Fences, and Obstructions) and Section 5.5 (Buffering and Screening) in the Design Guidelines.
Notes:
1. The max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Planning Area 1 and 3, Business Park, may exceed an FAR of 0.45 up to an FAR of 0.60, provided that the total average FAR for the entire Planning Area 1 does not exceed 0.45 FAR and the total combined building square footage does not exceed 457,904 square feet.
2. The max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Planning Area 2 and 4, Industrial General, may exceed an FAR of 0.54 up to an FAR of 0.55, provided that the total average FAR for the entire Planning Area 2 does not exceed 0.54 FAR and the total combined building square footage does not exceed 1,447,123 square feet.
3. The maximum building footprint limit is applicable only to buildings that front onto a public right-of-way. All setback areas shall be measured from the property line and shall be landscaped.
4. Within yard areas fully screened by a decorative wall, there shall be no minimum drive aisle or parking space setback required, unless adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
5. The minimum separation area between a building, wall, or fence, and a parking space or drive aisle shall be fully landscaped. The separation area may include pedestrian walkways, as necessary; however, a minimum 5-foot wide planter area shall be maintained between a building wall and a pedestrian walkway. The minimum separation dimension does not include any area devoted to vehicle overhang.
6. Architectural projections, mechanical equipment, and focal elements may be allowed to exceed maximum height up to 25 percent above the prescribed height limit.
7. The maximum building height and floor area ratio may be restricted pursuant to the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). Refer to the ALUCP for properties affected by airport safety zones for additional development criteria and policies that may affect allowable land uses.
8. The use of surrounding roads, drive aisles and truck parking lots to address the open land requirement for the Chino Airport Overlay zone is discussed in Chapter 2 (Section 2.2: Airport Influence Areas).
9. The total landscape coverage for Building 1 may be less than the required percent, so long as the deficiency in landscaping square footage is distributed across Buildings 2 through 13, to be maintained in perpetuity
Table 4.3 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Design Standards) establishes the design standards for off-street parking in the Specific Plan area. Refer to the Ontario Development Code for any standard not addressed in Table 4.3.
Deleted: Coverage
Formatted: Superscript
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25", No bullets or numbering 828
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-9
829
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-10
Table 4.3: Off-Street Parking and Loading Design Standards Development Standard Requirement
Parking space dimensions
1. Standard parking 9 feet wide by 18 feet long
2. Tractor trailer parking 12 feet wide by 45 feet long
3. At grade loading space 12 feet wide by 18 feet long
Minimum aisle width with 90-degree parking angle 24 feet Maximum gradient at parking space 5 percent measured in any direction Dock-high loading facilities
1. Dock high loading door loading space
12 feet wide by 45 feet long with 14-
foot minimum vertical clearance
measured from finished surface of
loading dock.
2. Truck maneuvering area
Designed to accommodate the
minimum practical turning radius of a
53-foot semi-trailer and tractor
combination.
Table 4.4 (Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces) specifies the number of parking spaces that must be provided according to land use. For a use not specified in the table, refer to the Ontario Development Code, Table 6.03-1: Off-Street Parking Requirements.
Table 4.4: Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces Land Use Number of Required Spaces
Multi-tenant business park 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet plus required parking for “general business offices” when exceeding 10
percent of gross floor area; plus one tractor trailer
parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors
General office when office use
exceeds 10 percent of building
gross floor area
4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of
office use
Industrial speculative buildings Per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area:
• Up to 50,000 sq ft: 1.85 spaces
• 50,001 – 100,000 sq ft: 1 space
• 100,001 sq ft and over: 0.5 space
• One tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high
loading doors.
Plus required parking for “general business offices” and other associated uses, when those uses exceed 10
percent of the building gross floor area.
Manufacturing 1.85 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, plus one tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high
loading doors, plus required parking for “general
business offices” and other associated uses, when
830
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-11
Sufficient off-street loading and unloading spaces shall be provided on each development site, and adequate provisions and space shall be made for maneuvering freight vehicles and handling freight. Loading activity, including turnaround and maneuvering, shall be made on site. Buildings, structures, and loading facilities shall be designed and placed on the site so that vehicles, whether rear loading or side loading, may be loaded or unloaded at any loading dock, door, or area without extending beyond the property line.
Table 4.4: Required Number of Parking and Loading Spaces Land Use Number of Required Spaces
those uses exceed 10 percent of the building gross
floor area.
Restaurants (includes outdoor
seating area up to 25 percent of
gross floor area)
• Under 2,000 square feet: 5 spaces per 1,000 square
feet of gross floor area
• More than 2,000 square feet:10 spaces per 1,000
square feet of gross floor area
Warehousing and distribution
(includes office uses if less than 10
percent of building gross floor area)
1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for
first 20,000 square feet; 0.5 space per 1,000 square feet of additional gross floor area, plus one tractor trailer parking space per 4 dock-high loading doors plus
required parking for “general business offices” and
other associated uses, when those uses exceed 10
percent of the building gross floor area.
831
Land Use and Development Standards
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 4-12
This page intentionally left blank.
832
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-1
5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES
This chapter identifies conceptual themes for site planning, architecture, and landscape design within the Specific Plan area. The guidelines are intended to ensure a cohesive and attractive development that meets the following objectives:
1. Demonstrates high quality development that complements and integrates into the community and adds value to the City.
2. Creates a functional and sustainable place that ensures Ontario Ranch Business Park is competitive regionally and appropriate in the Ontario Ranch community.
3. Illustrates the distinctive characteristics of the two land use plan zoning districts: Business Park District (Planning Area 1 and 3) and Industrial - General District (Planning Area 2 and 4).
4. Establishes criteria for building design and materials, landscape design, and site design that provide guidance to developers, builders, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals preparing plans for construction.
5. Provides guidance to City staff and the Planning Commission in the review and evaluation of future development projects in the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan area.
6. Incorporates construction and landscape design standards that promote energy and water conservation strategies.
7. Implements the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan and the intent of the Ontario Development Code.
5.1 Site Design
As discussed in Chapter 3, Planning Area 1 and 3 is sited along the northern portion of the site to buffer the existing residential uses located on the west side of Euclid Avenue within the City of Chino from the industrial and/or warehouse and distribution uses of Planning Area 2 and 4. Site design within Planning Area 1 and 3 (Business Park District) and Planning Area 2 and 4 (Industrial - General District) shall incorporate the following design features.
Key provisions include:
1. Provide a well-organized site plan that emphasizes pedestrian connectivity and attractive landscape areas for the public through the location and arrangement of buildings, circulation, and parking areas.
2. Orient buildings towards street frontages to create an inviting public perimeter. Enhanced elevations shall be provided for buildings that front Euclid Ave.
3. Provide visible pedestrian access to buildings from the street, parking areas, and perimeter sidewalks through signage, prominent architectural features, and landscape design. 833
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-2
4. Employ enhanced paving, accent trees, and other landscape features that highlight major building entries.
5. Design drive aisles to minimize impact to pedestrians, provide adequate stacking space, and prevent queuing of vehicles onto public streets.
6. Locate visitor and short-term parking areas at the front and sides of buildings near primary building entrances.
7. Organize landscaped areas, drive entrances, and/or buildings to create separate parking areas to prevent the parking lot from being the dominant visual element.
8. Locate loading and storage areas away from streets when feasible, ensure adequate space for vehicle backing and maneuvering on-site, and provide adequate parking for loading vehicles so normal traffic flow is not impeded.
9. Screen parking areas and loading docks facing the street using landscape buffers planted with screen trees and drought tolerant vegetation.
10. Orient and screen elements such as trash enclosures, loading bay doors, and service docks to minimize their visibility.
11. Locate service entrance to prevent conflict with front entry.
12. Place electrical rooms and transformers away from front entries and street views. 834
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-3
5.2 Architectural Design
The building design, materials, colors, and textures establish its theme and character. Architecture shall be compatible and complementary with other buildings within the Specific Plan area; however, design diversity is encouraged to provide visual interest. Although development within Planning Area 1 and Planning Area 2 differ in building height and scale, similar design concepts apply as follows.
Key provisions include:
1. Ensure scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Specific Plan area.
2. Avoid blank walls by providing articulation on building elevations visible from a public rightof-way through elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors.
3. Provide the greatest level of articulation on the front facades that are visible from the public rights-of-way and at the main entrances.
4. Design entry features as a significant aspect of a building’s overall composition through massing, detailing, architectural treatments, and/or special materials and colors.
5. Employ recessed or covered building entrances to provide shade and visual relief.
6. Design office buildings, business parks, and office areas of industrial or warehouse buildings with an emphasis on the use of windows, architectural details, and building articulation.
7. Integrate the design of industrial/warehouse office areas into the overall building composition so they create powerful architectural statements and not visually disjointed “add-ons”.
8. Employ a minimum of four different colors, materials, and/or textures on each building.
9. Avoid terminating a change in material or color at a building edge; instead, select a logical termination point in relation to the architectural features or massing.
10. Paint exposed downspouts, service doors, and mechanical screens the same color as the adjacent wall. Exposed downspouts are not permitted on elevations that front onto a street. 835
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-4
Planning Area 2 and 4 Architectural Design Examples
Planning Area 1 and 3 Architectural Design
Examples
Deleted: <object><object> ¶
<object><object><object><object>
836
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-5
5.3 Landscape Design
Conceptual landscape plans encourage durable landscape materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits. The following guidelines ensure that intersection sight lines and pedestrian safety are preserved. Landscaping plans within the Specific Plan area to comply with City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines and the Standard Drawings and Traffic and Transportation Guidelines for sight-distance.
Key provisions include:
1. Landscape and irrigate all areas of the site not covered by buildings, structures, paving, or impervious surfaces.
2. Design and grade projects to direct storm runoff from building roofs and paved areas into swaled landscape areas for retention/infiltration. Landscape areas may be used for storm water basins and swales at no greater than 50% of the available landscape area and may not obstruct the mature root zone of required tree locations
3. Provide shade for expanses of paving, building walls, roofs, and windows with irrigated shade trees located in appropriate areas where space permits to reduce the impacts of heat gain.
4. Design parking lot landscaping to reduce associated heat buildup, improve aesthetics, and integrate with on-site landscape and adjacent streetscape.
5. Use landscaping to aid in the screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, trash collection areas, loading docks and outside storage areas from public view.
6. Show utilities on plan and keep utilities clear of required tree locations. Coordinate with the landscape plans. Utilities such as backflow devices and transformers shall be screened using landscaping that provides at least 75 percent coverage. Backflow devices and transformers shall be located at least five feet from hardscape to ensure space for landscape screening.
7. Prepare landscape plans that meet the requirements of the Landscape Development Guidelines and provide for the efficient use of water. Plants shall be selected and planted based upon their adaptability to the climate and topographical conditions of the project site.
8. Select drought-tolerant plants such as colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to Southern California or naturalized to the arid Southern California climate.
9. Incorporate water conservation features in landscape and irrigation plans.
10. Place a landscape planter island every ten parking spaces within parking lots. Planter islands shall be at least five feet in width exclusive of curbs and the length of the abutting parking space. Planter islands shall include at least one tree, appropriate shrubs, and groundcover.
Parking areas located behind screen walls shall not be subject to this provision. 837
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-6
11. Provide a minimum dimension of five feet exclusive of curbs for all landscape areas, except for vine pockets.
12. Space living plant materials less than or equal to the mature plant diameter. Non-living ornamental landscape materials may comprise a maximum of five percent of the landscape area requirements and shall be permeable.
5.3.1 Streetscapes
Streetscape design creates an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and integrates the development into the surrounding community. The streetscape designs presented are conceptual only; final grading, plantings, and tree locations will be determined on a project-by-project basis.
5.3.1.1 Euclid Avenue Streetscape
Euclid Avenue features a wide raised landscaped median planted with trees, a 15-foot wide parkway and a 35-foot wide landscape setback with an eight-foot multi-purpose trail. The parkway will include a 10-foot wide curb-adjacent landscape strip generally planted with trees and groundcover and a five-foot wide sidewalk. Tree species along the perimeter of Euclid Avenue will include a double row of Quercus agrifolia, Schinus molle will be used as accents. Groups of Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’ and Schinus molle will be used in the median. Combined, the parkway and landscape setback create a 50-foot “Neighborhood Edge” as established in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan, which is intended to provide a buffer at the Specific Plan boundary as well as a pleasing visual statement along the major City thoroughfare (Figure 5.1).
5.3.1.2 Eucalyptus Avenue Streetscape
The typical Eucalyptus Avenue section will feature a 12-foot wide parkway and 23-foot wide landscape setback to create a 35-foot Neighborhood Edge. The parkway will include a sevenfoot wide curb-adjacent landscape strip generally planted with trees and groundcover and a fiveFIGURE 5.1: EUCLID AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE Deleted: <object>
Formatted: Left
Deleted: .
Deleted: Grevillea robusta in the parkway, Cedrus deodara groups behind the sidewalk alternating with groups
Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt
Deleted: <object><object>¶
Deleted: <object>
838
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-7
foot wide sidewalk. Tree species along Eucalyptus Avenue will include Pistache trees in the parkway and behind the sidewalk alternating with groups of Podocarpus gracilior trees. The Neighborhood Edge creates a buffer along the Specific Plan boundary as well as a visual statement (Figure 5.2).
5.3.1.3 Merrill Avenue Streetscape
The typical Merrill Avenue section will feature an eight-foot wide multi-purpose trail, 12-foot wide parkway and 23-foot wide landscape setback. The parkway will include a seven-foot wide curbadjacent landscape strip and a five-foot wide sidewalk. Tree species along Merrill Avenue will include Quercus agrifolia in the parkway and behind the sidewalk alternating with Cercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy.’ The parkway and landscape setback will combine to form the 35-foot Neighborhood Edge buffer (Figure 5.3).
FIGURE 5.2: EUCALYPTUS AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: on-street Class II bike lane
839
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-8
5.3.1.4 Sultana Avenue Streetscape
The typical Sultana Avenue section will feature a nine-foot wide parkway and 10-foot wide landscape setback. The parkway will include a four-foot wide curb-adjacent landscape strip and a five-foot wide sidewalk. Tree species along Sultana Avenue will include Koelreuteria paniculata and behind the sidewalk will include Quercus ilex (Figure 5.4).
FIGURE 5.3: MERRILL AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE
FIGURE 5.4: SULTANA AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE
Deleted: <object>
Deleted: <object>¶
Formatted: Centered
840
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-9
5.3.1.5 Campus Avenue Streetscape
The Campus Avenue section features a 7-foot wide landscape setback to create a 35-foot Neighborhood Edge (Figure 5.5). The east side of Campus Avenue includes a 12-foot parkway with a 5’ sidewalk and an 8’ multipurpose trail as part of the 35-foot Neighborhood Edge, while the western side includes a five-foot wide Class II on-street bike lane at the edge of the street. The Neighborhood Edges include a 7-foot wide curb-adjacent landscape strip that will be planted with trees and groundcover. Tree species along Campus Avenue include Ulmus parvifolia ‘Drake’ in the parkways with clusters of Tabebuia chrysotricha and Celtis sinensis behind the sidewalk.
5.3.2 Project Entries
The Specific Plan area includes multiple shared vehicular driveways accessible from Euclid, Eucalyptus, Sultana, Campus and Merrill Avenues. Figure 5.5 presents a typical conceptual entry design featuring enhanced paving; a landscaped setback with flowering accent trees, canopy trees, and drought-tolerant landscaping; a multipurpose trail; sidewalk; and landscaped parkway with street trees.
FIGURE 5.5: CAMPUS AVENUE CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE
Deleted: <object>¶
<object>¶
841
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-10
The conceptual site plan provides truck access via Sultana Avenue. Figure 5.6 illustrates the conceptual design featuring dedicated entry and exit driveways separated by a landscaped island planted with Coast Live Oak and California Sycamore.
5.3.3 Plant Palette
The Plant Palette shown in Table 5.1 establishes a base palette for the Specific Plan area and includes a variety of groundcovers, shrubs, ornamental grasses, and evergreen and deciduous trees. The selection complements the design theme of the Specific Plan area and features waterefficient, drought-tolerant species native to the region. Similar plant materials may be substituted for the species listed in Table 5.1 if the alternative plants are climate appropriate and enhance the thematic setting.
FIGURE 5.6: CONCEPTUAL VEHICULAR ENTRY
FIGURE 5.7: CONCEPTUAL TRUCK ENTRY
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>
842
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-11
Table 5.1: Plant Palette
Botanical Name Common Name Use
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Tree
Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa Tree
Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree Tree
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress Tree
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Tree
Juniperus s. 'Skyrocket' Skyrocket Juniper Tree
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Tree
Lagerstroemia i 'Muskogee' Crape Myrtle Tree
Olea europaea Olive Tree
Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Tree
Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine Tree
Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Tree
Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree
Platanus racemosa California Sycamore Tree
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Tree
Schinus molle California Pepper Tree
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Tree
Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm Tree
Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm Tree
Acca sellowiana Pineapple Guava Shrub
Buxus j. 'Green Beauty' Japanese Boxwood Hedge
Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Bottle Brush Shrub
Carissa macrocarpa 'Tuttle' Natal Plum Shrub
Cistus 'Sunset Pink' Sunset Pink Rockrose Shrub
Dianella 'Little Rev' Dwarf Dianella Shrub
Dianella tasmanica Dianella Shrub
Dodonaea viscosa 'Purpurea' Hopseed Bush Shrub
Eleagnus pungens Silverberry Shrub
Leucophyllum f. 'Green
Cloud'
Texas Ranger Shrub
Ligustrum j. texanum Texas Privet Shrub
Pittosporum tobira
'Variegata'
Variegated Mock Orange Hedge
Pittosporum t. 'Wheeleri' Wheeler's Dwarf Shrub
Rhaphiolepis i. 'Clara' Indian Hawthorn Hedge
Rhaphiolepis i. 'Springtime' Indian Hawthorn Hedge
Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry Shrub
Rhamnus c. 'Mound San
Bruno'
Dwarf Coffeeberry Shrub
Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary Shrub
Salvia c. 'Allen Chickering' Allen Chickering Sage Shrub Salvia greggii Autumn Sage Shrub
Salvia leucantha Mexican Sage Shrub
Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary Shrub
843
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-12
Table 5.1: Plant Palette
Botanical Name Common Name Use
Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma Hedge
Agave 'Blue Flame' Blue Flame Agave Accent
Aloe maculata Soap Aloe Accent
Aloe petricola Stone Aloe Accent
Aloe polyphylla Spiral Aloe Accent
Aloe striata Coral Aloe Accent
Echeveria 'Ruffles' Ruffles Echeveria Accent
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Accent
Acacia redolens 'Low Boy' Dwarf Acacia Groundcover
Baccharis p. 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Bush Groundcover Baccharis p. 'Centenial' Coyote Bush Groundcover
Carex pansa California Meadow Sedge Grass
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge Grass
Festuca mairei Altas Fescue Grass
Festuca o. 'Glauca' Blue Fescue Grass
Lonicera j. 'Halliana' Hall's Honeysuckle Groundcover
Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass
Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum Groundcover
Rosa 'Flower Carpet' - Red Red Flower Carpet Rose Groundcover Rosmarinus o. 'Huntington
Carpet'
Prostrate Rosemary Groundcover
Salvia 'Bee's Bliss' Bee's Bliss Sage Groundcover
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Fingers Groundcover
Sesleria autumnali Moor Gras Grass
Trachelopspermum
jasminiode
Star Jasmin Groundcover
Distictus buccinatoria Blood-red Trumpet Vine Vine
5.4 Walls and Fences
Walls and fences are an important design feature intended to both complement building and landscape architecture and provide functional elements. Any proposed entry gates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Division prior to installation and will be permitted only if approved.
Key provisions include:
1. Provide attractive, durable, and complementary wall and fencing materials consistent with the building design.
2. Offset and architecturally treat long expanses of wall surfaces every 100 feet with material changes, pilasters and posts, staggered walls, or landscape treatments to prevent visual monotony.
844
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-13
3. Soften the appearance of fencing with plants that reach the height of the wall or fence at maturity.
4. Construct sliding gates visible from a public street with tubular steel, vertical steel pickets, or high-density perforated metal screening painted to match or complement adjacent walls.
Interior gates not visible to public view may be galvanized steel or chain link.
5. Prohibit chain link fencing visible to the public.
5.5 Buffering and Screening
To alleviate the unsightly appearance of parking, loading and service areas, buffering and screening design features should be used to enhance the overall development. Any proposed entry gates shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Division prior to installation.
5.5.1 Parking Lots
1. Buffer parking lots adjacent to and visible from public streets using a combination of architectural wing walls, buildings, decorative screen walls, evergreen hedges, and landscape buffers.
2. Use plants for screening that are a minimum of 3 feet tall at the time of installation.
Wall and Fence Examples
Examples of Parking Lot Buffering
Deleted: <object>¶
Deleted: <object>
845
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-14
5.5.2 Loading and Service Areas (Truck Courts)
1. Screen loading docks and truck parking areas visible from Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Sultana Avenue. Screening may include portions of buildings and/or decorative walls.
Landscaping and evergreen hedges shall be provided to soften screen walls.
2. Incorporate gated/screened entrances to loading areas into the overall architectural design of the development.
3. Design walls and fencing a minimum of eight-feet high and a maximum of 14-feet high, as measured from finished grade, to screen truck courts and hide views of the top of loading bays or trailers.
4. Utilize portions of a building, architectural wing walls, and/or landscaping to screen service areas.
5. Screen ground- and roof-mounted mechanical equipment from public view. Ground-mounted equipment shall be screened with decorative walls or landscaping. Building architecture shall be designed to screen roof-mounted equipment.
6. Ensure refuse containers are easily accessible by service vehicles yet screened from public view within the building’s façade or within a walled enclosure.
7. Obtain a use permit for outdoor storage, which shall be limited to predefined areas. Storage areas shall be screened from public view by decorative walls or with a minimum height of eight feet and a maximum height of 14 feet. The height of outdoor storage shall not-exceed the height of screening.
Deleted: <object>¶
846
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-15
Loading and Service Area Example
Deleted: <object>¶
847
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-16
5.6 Lighting
Site lighting provides illumination for operations, safety, security, and ambiance in parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features.
Key provisions include:
1. Choose lighting fixtures that complement the building architecture and promote consistency throughout the Planning Areas.
2. Install ground or low mounted fixtures to provide safety and convenience along pedestrian walkways, entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features.
3. Allow building-mounted accent lighting for general illumination provided there is no light spill or distraction onto roadways or adjacent property. Plain shoebox or unshielded wall packs are not permitted.
4. Direct exterior lighting fixtures downward to avoid unnecessary light spill and glare.
5. Limit pole-mounted, building-mounted, or tree-mounted lighting fixtures to no more than 30 feet in height to minimize light spill and glare.
6. Shield and direct pole-mounted lights away from public streets.
7. Ensure exterior lighting is consistent with the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
8. Design parking lot lighting to avoid placing fixtures in required tree locations.
5.7 Signage
Approval of a comprehensive sign program shall be required for development within the Specific Plan area. A sign program facilitates integration of signs with the overall site and building design to create a unified visual statement and provide for flexible application of sign regulations in the design and display of multiple signs.
Key provisions include:
1. Install an entry monument at the northeast corner of Euclid and Merrill Avenues to identify the Ontario Ranch area and/or the Ontario Ranch Business Park. Entry monuments shall be designed in accordance with City of Ontario Traffic and Transportation Guidelines for monument placement.
2. Employ signage to identify a center and tenants within a center, direct vehicular traffic, and provide on-site way-finding for pedestrians.
3. Employ signage within industrial sites to give direction to loading and receiving, visitor parking, and other special uses.
848
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-17
4. Provide a unifying sign theme in developments with multiple users.
5. Coordinate signage with the building design, materials, color, size, and placement.
6. Select signage with backlit or internally illuminated individual channel letters. Can-type box signs with translucent backlit panels are discouraged.
7. Avoid covering significant architectural elements with signage.
8. Position flush-mounted signs with respect to architectural features and align with signs on other buildings to maintain a pattern.
9. Place street address signs perpendicular to approaching vehicular traffic.
10. Ensure signage located within a landscaped planter is not blocked or damaged by plant materials.
11. Conserve energy by utilizing an automatic illumination shut-off mechanism when businesses are closed.
12. Construct signs from high quality materials and avoid exposed wiring, ballasts, conduits, fasteners, raceways, or similar hardware.
Signage Examples
Deleted: <object>
Deleted: <object>
Page Break
¶
<object><object>¶
<object>¶
849
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-18
Signage Examples Continued
850
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-19
5.8 Sustainable Design Strategies
Ontario Ranch Business Park is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies will be determined for each project within the Specific Plan area. Strategies include, but are not limited to:
5.8.1 Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
1. Design and construct energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
2. Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.
3. Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies. In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity (cool roofs).
4. Use recycled and other environmentally friendly building materials wherever possible.
5. Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand.
6. Use energy efficient LED (or similar) products.
7. Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code.
8. Use drought tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.
9. Employ high performance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts.
5.8.2 Water Quality
1. Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins or bio-treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.
2. Select native and drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand.
3. Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the project area as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration and control runoff.
4. Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible. 851
Design Guidelines
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 5-20
5. Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydrozone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.
6. Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.
Sustainable Design Examples
Deleted: <object>
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.06"
Deleted: <object>¶
852
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-1
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter summarizes the development process for implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan and provides for the orderly development of the Specific Plan area.
6.1 Applicability
The provisions, guidelines, and regulations contained within this Specific Plan provide the standards for land uses and development within Ontario Ranch Business Park. The Specific Plan supersedes the development standards and regulations of the Ontario Development Code unless stated otherwise in this document. Whenever the provisions and development standards of the Specific Plan conflict with those of the Ontario Development Code, the Specific Plan shall take precedence. Where the Specific Plan is silent, the Ontario Development Code shall apply.
6.1.1 Definition of Terms
The terms used within the Specific Plan shall mean the same as defined in the Ontario Development Code, unless otherwise noted.
6.2 Severability
The Specific Plan serves as the implementation tool for the City’s Policy Plan (General Plan). In the event that any provision of this Specific Plan or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed separate, distinct and independent, and shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Specific Plan or applications thereof, which can be implemented without the invalid provision or application.
6.3 Interpretation
If an issue, condition, or situation occurs that is not sufficiently covered or provided for in this Specific Plan, those that are applicable for the most similar issue, condition, or situation shall be used. Unless otherwise provided, any ambiguity concerning the content or application of the Specific Plan shall be resolved by the City Planning Director in a manner consistent with the goals, policies, objectives, and intent established in the Specific Plan.
6.4 Consistency with Other Plans and Regulations
This sub-section discusses consistency of the Specific Plan with The Ontario Plan, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans, the California Building Code, and CEQA.
6.4.1 Consistency with The Ontario Plan
No land use, activity, or facility shall be permitted that is inconsistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of The Ontario Plan, as amended. 853
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-2
The Ontario Ranch Business Park entitlement application includes a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designations to Business Park and General Industrial to be consistent with this Specific Plan.
6.4.2 Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Projects located within the Specific Plan area are subject to the restrictions and provisions of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans prepared for Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport.
6.4.3 Consistency with California Building Code
Projects located within the Specific Plan area must comply with the State of California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City of Ontario.
6.4.4 Consistency with CEQA
The City of Ontario is defined as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based upon its authority to approve this Specific Plan. Concurrent with approval of this Specific Plan, the City Council will be required to certify the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that all approved EIR mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Director shall be responsible for confirming that mitigation measures have been implemented through each project’s approved plans.
6.5 Specific Plan Revisions
It is recognized that modifications to the text or exhibits of this Specific Plan may be warranted in the future to accommodate unforeseen conditions or events. Revisions shall be processed in a manner prescribed by the City of Ontario Planning Department pursuant to the provisions in this section.
6.5.1 Minor Modifications to the Specific Plan
Minor modifications to the Specific Plan will be processed administratively without the submission of a formal Specific Plan Amendment application and will not require a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director shall have the authority to review and make a determination of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a request for minor modification to the Specific Plan. The Planning Director may, at his/her discretion, refer any such request to the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Minor modifications are defined as:
1. Expansions or reductions to a Planning Area boundary or acreage, provided that the total acreage within each affected Planning Area is not modified by more than 20 percent. 854
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-3
2. An increase in maximum building area for single- and multi-tenant buildings of up to 20 percent, provided that the maximum square footage for the Planning Area established by this Specific Plan is not exceeded.
3. A modification of up to 20 percent of a project’s required minimum lot area, minimum lot dimensions, or setback if compatible with the surrounding land uses and consistent with the overall design character of the Ontario Ranch Business Park.
4. Additions, deletions, or modifications to Table 4.1, Allowable Uses, which lists the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Specific Plan area, provided the Planning Director determines the changes to be consistent with the objectives and intent of the Specific Plan.
5. Minor modification of conceptual design criteria for architectural features and materials, landscape treatments, lighting, signage, and sustainable design strategies.
6. Revisions to roadway alignment when the change results in centerline shift of less than 250 feet.
7. Revisions to infrastructure facility sizing and precise location for dry utilities, water, sewer, and storm drainage improvements subject to approval of the City Engineer.
8. Changes to the Phasing Plan, provided infrastructure is available to serve the phase as determined by the City Engineer.
9. Revisions to exhibits in the Specific Plan that do not substantially change its intent or character.
10. Modifications of a similar nature to those listed above, which are deemed minor by the Planning Director and conform to the purpose and intent of this Specific Plan and The Ontario Plan.
6.5.2 Specific Plan Amendments
Proposed changes to this Specific Plan that do not meet the criteria for a Minor Modification will be subject to a formal Specific Plan Amendment application process pursuant to Section 4.01.035 of the Ontario Development Code and California Government Code Section 65450, et seq.
If the proposed amendment requires supplemental environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA, the applicant will adhere to the City’s adopted procedures and CEQA Guidelines.
6.6 Subdivision Maps
Development within the Specific Plan area may require the processing of tentative and final tract or parcel maps and/or lot line adjustments or mergers. Subdivision maps and lot changes shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to Section 4.02.085 of the Ontario Development Code and other applicable City codes and regulations, California Government Code Section 66410 et seq. (Subdivision Map Act), as well as the provisions of this Specific Plan. 855
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-4
6.7 Development and Land Use Review Procedures
Review procedures for development and land use within the Specific Plan area shall be as provided in this Specific Plan and in accordance with the Ontario Development Code.
6.7.1 Development Plan Review
Development proposed within the Specific Plan area will be subject to Development Plan review pursuant to Section 4.02.025 of the Ontario Development Code. The review is intended to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Specific Plan, protect the integrity and character of the physical composition of the City, and encourage high quality development.
6.7.2 Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is required for uses deemed “conditionally permitted” in Table 4.1 (Allowable Uses). Applications for a Conditional Use Permit will be processed pursuant to Section
4.02.015 of the Ontario Development Code.
6.7.3 Administrative Use Permit
An Administrative Use Permit is required for uses deemed “administratively permitted” in Table
4.1 (Allowable Uses). Applications for an Administrative Use Permit will be processed pursuant to Section 4.03.015 of the Ontario Development Code.
6.7.4 Appeals
Appeals of decisions of the Development Advisory Board, Zoning Administrator, Planning Director or the Planning Commission regarding implementation of this Specific Plan may be made by the applicant or other aggrieved party pursuant to Division 2.04 of the Ontario Development Code.
6.8 Development Agreement
Approval of a statutory development agreement authorized pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. is required by this Specific Plan. The Development Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, methods for financing, acquisition, and construction of necessary infrastructure. The Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to recordation of the first Final Map.
6.9 Specific Plan Phasing
Implementation of this Specific Plan is anticipated to occur in three phases, as discussed in Chapter 3.11, Phasing Plan (Figure 3.19):
• Phase 1: Construction of the storage, warehousing, and/or industrial uses in Planning Area
2. Deleted: two
Deleted: :
856
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-5
• Phase 2: Construction of the business park uses in Planning Area 1. • Phase 3: Construction of the storage, warehousing, and/or industrial uses in Planning Area 4 and construction of the business park uses in Planning Area 3.
These phases may be developed as sub-phases and may occur either sequentially or concurrently with one another.
All of the Specific Plan required infrastructure by Section 3.4 (Figure 3.9) for Potable Water, Section 3.5 (Figure 3.11) for Recycled Water, and Section 3.6 (Figure 3.13) for Sewer phasing will be determined per separate Development Agreement.
6.9.1 Phasing Objectives
Development phasing shall meet the following objectives:
1. The orderly build-out of the project based upon market and economic conditions;
2. The provision of adequate parking, infrastructure, and public facilities concurrent with the development of each phase; and
3. The protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
6.9.2 Findings for Modification of the Phasing Plan
The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve modification of the Phasing Plan, subject to the following findings:
1. The modification is consistent with the Policy Plan (General Plan);
2. The modification will not adversely affect the implementation of the Specific Plan;
3. The modification will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and general welfare; and
4. The modification will not delay the construction of infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the development.
6.10 Financing of Public Improvements
The financing of the construction, operation, and maintenance of public infrastructure improvements, facilities, and services within the Specific Plan area shall be provided through a combination of mechanisms. Final determination of the scope of improvements, maintenance responsibilities, and funding sources shall be specified in the approved Development Agreement, executed prior to recordation of the first Final Map.
Financing options may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Deleted: and c
857
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-6
1. Private capital investment by the project developer, the property owner(s), or a Property Owners Association.
2. Private capital investment by a consortium of property owners and/or developers of the project and/or surrounding area.
3. Community Facilities District (CFD) established pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982, or other special district, to provide funding for the construction of public facilities or the provision of public services. City Council approval is a prerequisite for use of special district financing mechanisms.
4. Development Impact Fee (DIF) credits to be applied for infrastructure completed by the project developer. The City does not issue DIF credits unless the developer has entered into a separate DIF credit agreement after approval of the Development Agreement.
5. Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District to fund infrastructure development through tax increment financing pursuant to Senate Bill 628.
6. Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIA) to fund infrastructure development through tax increment financing pursuant to Assembly Bill 2.
6.11 Maintenance Plan
Final determination of maintenance responsibilities for the public and private improvements constructed in association with this Specific Plan shall be specified in the approved Development Agreement, which shall be executed prior to recordation of the first Final Map. However, it is anticipated that maintenance shall be generally shared by three entities as described below and outlined in Table 6.1, Maintenance Responsibilities.
6.11.1 City of Ontario, Community Facilities District & other Special District The establishment of a community facilities district, landscape and lighting district, or other special district to fund the maintenance of public facilities shall be at the City’s discretion. It is anticipated that public maintenance shall include the following:
1. Right-of-way for public streets within the Specific Plan area (Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, Campus Avenue and Sultana Avenue) shall be dedicated to the City of Ontario per the provisions of this Specific Plan (Chapter 3, Development Plan) and as approved by the City Engineer.
2. Landscape improvements and public streetlights within the public right-of-way and neighborhood edge shall be maintained through a landscape and lighting district or other special maintenance district established by the City.
3. The City shall maintain off-site infrastructure improvements, including water, recycled water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities after they are accepted by the City. 858
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-7
4. The City shall maintain NPDES facilities located within the curb-to-curb area of public streets after they are accepted by the City. Operation and maintenance requirements for NPDES stormwater runoff source control and treatment control Best Management Practices shall be identified in the approved Water Quality Management Plan for the project.
6.11.2 Property Owners Association
A Property Owners Association (POA) shall be established for the maintenance of common areas, including such improvements as on-site landscape areas and parking and drive aisles within Ontario Ranch Business Park. It is anticipated that improvements maintained by the POA will include the following:
1. Driveways;
2. On-site open spaces, on-site landscape areas, common areas, parking lots, and walkways;
3. Landscaping within setback/landscape buffer areas along Sultana Ave;
4. NPDES facilities within landscape setbacks and on-site common areas;
5. Property identification signage and architectural elements located within the landscaped buffer; and
6. Fencing and walls, including graffiti removal.
7. Water, sewer, recycled water facilities and storm drainage facilities located on-site shall be constructed by the developer are considered privately owned and maintained by property owners or Property Owners Association however the Property Owners Association shall maintain permanent on-site water quality basins, trenches, swales and biotreatment filters required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.
859
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-8
Table 6.1: Maintenance Responsibilities
Area of Responsibility
City or
Special
District
Property
Owners
Association
Utility
Master Planned Roadways: Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, Sultana Avenue and Campus Avenue
Curb-to-curb improvements t
Behind the curb improvements - landscaping within the
public right-of-way (parkways), sidewalks and
neighborhood edge
t
Other Improvements
Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Signs on public streets t Streetlights in the public right-of-way t
Drive aisles t
On-site parking areas t
Common open space t
Landscaping within setback/landscape buffer areas
(Sultana Ave) t
Monument signage t
Walls and fences t
Stormwater drainage/water quality control facilities within the curb-to-curb area of public streets t
Stormwater drainage/water quality control facilities
behind the curb t
Water, recycled water, and sewer infrastructure in the
public right-of-way
t
Dry utilities: electricity, natural gas, communication
systems
t
6.12Additional Entitlement Requirements
Currently, there are no existing City utilities, nor any improvement plans for City Utilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. Several miles of new infrastructure are required to provide City utility services to the Specific Plan area. In order to ensure orderly expansion of the City Utility Systems and other City Infrastructure, the following Additional Entitlement Requirements are imposed upon all Subdivision Maps and Developments within the Specific Plan area.
6.12.1 Conceptual Design Report
Prior to approval of any entitlement application (subdivision maps, Development Plan Reviews, etc.), a conceptual design report shall be prepared and submitted to the Development Agency Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department for review and approval for Deleted: and
860
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-9
the established extent of all public improvements required for the project. The study shall identify existing and future rights-of-ways (ROW) and infrastructure improvements and establish all vertical and horizontal alignments for each utility. The report shall include cross-sections, profiles, and any supporting details needed to demonstrate that utilities can be adequately accommodated in the public ROW. The study shall account for all utility conflicts, right-of-way variations, existing obstructions, and the timing of utility installation. Utilities cannot be located along an alignment that conflicts with existing conditions (e.g. electrical poles, private property, etc.) unless that applicant is accepting the responsibility of modifying the existing conditions (e.g. undergrounding, relocation, ROW acquisition, etc.).
Western Trunk Sewershed Scope: In order to assure that the Western Trunk Sewer (WTS) is designed to serve its entire Sewer Master Plan Tributary Area, all the Master Plan Trunk Sewers connecting to the WTS and the WTS shall be included in the Conceptual Design Report. This shall include: the Western Trunk Sewer from the Inland Empire Utility Agency’s Kimball Interceptor to the Whispering Lakes Pump Station Riverside Drive and Carpenter Avenue; the Euclid Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Bon View Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Grove Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Walker Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Schaeffer Avenue to Chino Avenue.
6.12.2 Preliminary Design Report
As a condition of entitlements (subdivision maps, Development Plan Reviews, etc.) within the Specific Plan and prior to submittal of Infrastructure Improvements Plans, a Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for all public infrastructure shall be submitted and approved by the Development Agency Engineering Department and the Utilities Engineering Department. The PDR shall include the following:
Conceptual Design Compliance: A discussion modifying or confirming the conceptual design established with the Project’s Conceptual Design Report. The study shall confirm all rights-ofways (ROW), infrastructure improvements, and vertical and horizontal alignments for each utility.
Street Cross Sections and Profiles:
Street Cross Sections and Profiles shall be provided for each public street, private street and Public Utility Easement (PUE) containing a public utility and at any points along the alignments where the ROW varies. The cross sections shall show the location and size of each utility and shall annotate the property/ROW lines, the type of finished surface material, the distance of each utility from centerline, the depth from finished surface to top of pipe, and the distance between utilities (outside wall to outside wall).
Constructability Review: The report shall include a discussion of the constructability issues along the proposed alignment and identify the recommended construction methods that may be utilized. The study shall perform field investigation (field survey and potholing) in order to identify 861
Implementation
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 6-10
potential utility conflicts, right-of-way variations, existing obstructions, and constructability issues created by the timing of utility installation.
Supporting Details: The PDR shall include any supporting details needed to demonstrate that utilities can be adequately accommodated in the public ROW, including the placement of large appurtenances, clearance from existing obstructions, etc. 30% Design Drawings: The PDR findings shall be incorporated into a 30% design plan set and included in the PDR.
Western Trunk Sewershed Scope: In order to qualify for Development Impact Fees (DIF) and to assure that the Western Trunk Sewer (WTS) is designed to serve its entire Sewer Master Plan Tributary Area, the PDR shall include all the Master Plan Trunk Sewers connecting to the WTS and the WTS. The PDR shall include: the Western Trunk Sewer from the Kimball Interceptor to the Whispering Lakes Pump Station Riverside Drive and Carpenter Avenue; the Euclid Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Bon View Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Grove Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Merrill Avenue to Chino Avenue; the Walker Trunk Sewer from the Western Trunk Sewer in Schaeffer Avenue to Chino Avenue. At minimum, the PDRs shall include:
Horizontal and vertical alignment studies assuring that the entire sewershed and subsewersheds can be sewered.
Sewer sizing hydraulic calculations assuring the Trunk Sewer, with the proposed designs, can accommodate the Master Plan Flows meeting Master Plan Design Criteria.
As it relates to Ontario Ranch Business Park, this requirement has already been completed by the developer and no additional reports are required.
Deleted: ;
Deleted: ;
862
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-1
7.0 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65440-65457) permits the adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within a jurisdiction’s local General Plan. Approval of this Specific Plan is based on the finding that the regulations, guidelines, and programs contained within this Specific Plan are consistent with The Ontario Plan. The Ontario Plan establishes the direction and vision for the City of Ontario and provides a single comprehensive document to shape its future. The Ontario Plan provides for policies to accommodate change over its 30-year lifespan. The Ontario Plan consists of a six-part Component Framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan, 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The following sections demonstrate the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City’s Policy Plan (General Plan).
7.1 Land Use Element
GOAL LU1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
Policy LU1-2 Sustainable Community Strategy
We integrate state, regional, and local Sustainable Community/Smart Growth principles into the development and entitlement process.
The Specific Plan encourages the efficient use of energy resources in design, product selection, and operational techniques. The Design Guidelines in Chapter 5 address lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable landscaping, and sustainable design strategies. Landscape provisions require the use of native drought-resistant vegetation and shade trees to conserve water and reduce heat islands. The sustainable design strategies include design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. Protecting water quality, reducing runoff, and reducing water demand for landscaping are promoted in the Development Plan in Chapter 3 through the recycled water plan and storm drainage facilities source control and treatment practices. 863
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-2
Policy LU1-3 Adequate Capacity
We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
The Specific Plan establishes a Phasing Plan that has been coordinated with affected infrastructure providers and ensures that uses on the project site will be adequately served. The Specific Plan requires infrastructure development to occur in a timely manner. Potable and recycled water, sewer, fiber optic communications, and storm drain infrastructure improvements that will ultimately serve the Specific Plan area are addressed in Chapter 3, Development Plan. Infrastructure and services will be consistent with City of Ontario infrastructure master plans and the approved development agreement.
GOAL LU2: Compatibility between a wide-range of uses.
Policy LU2-3 Hazardous Uses
We regulate the development of industrial and similar uses that use, store, produce or transport toxic substances, air emissions, other pollutants or hazardous materials.
Uses within the Specific Plan are required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the use, storage, disposal, and transportation of hazardous materials, toxic substances, and other pollutants.
Policy LU2-5 Regulation of Uses
We regulate the location, concentration and operations of uses that have impacts on surrounding uses.
The Specific Plan land use plan contained in Chapter 3, Development Plan, utilizes the Business Park designation (Planning Area 1) to buffer the Industrial-General (IG) land use designation (Planning Area 2) from the existing residential uses located across Euclid Avenue within the City of Chino. Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, restricts Planning Area 1 to less intense business park uses and requires the building height to be lower. Furthermore, the conceptual site design places truck traffic ingress and egress and visible loading docks away from the existing residential uses.
Policy LU2-6 Infrastructure Compatibility
We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.
The Specific Plan design guidelines (Chapter 5) are intended to support high-quality development that complements the surrounding community. Landscaped areas and drive entrances will be 864
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-3
planned to separate parking areas and keep the parking lot from being the dominant visual element of the site. The Specific Plan also establishes landscape setback requirements (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) and conceptual streetscape design (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines) along all roadways within the Specific Plan area to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists and ensure cohesive patterns of development.
Policy LU2-9 Methane Gas Sites
We require sensitive land uses and new uses on former dairy farms or other methane-producing sites to be designed to minimize health risks.
The Specific Plan incorporates into its Implementation Plan (Chapter 6) requirements for the project to comply with any mitigation measures identified in the project environmental impact report, including those for soil remediation and proper venting to address the potential existence of methane gases within the Specific Plan area.
GOAL LU5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.
Policy LU5-7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations We comply with state law that requires policy plan/general plans, specific plans, and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use airport.
The Specific Plan area is within the Ontario International Airport Influence Area and the Chino Airport Influence Area. The Specific Plan discusses compliance with the ALUCP requirements for the Ontario Airport and the Chino Airport in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Airport Influence Areas.
7.2 Community Design Element
GOAL CD1: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct neighborhoods and commercial districts that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
Policy CD1-2 Growth Areas
We require development in growth areas to be distinctive and unique places within which there are cohesive design themes.
The Specific Plan design guidelines (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines) and development standards (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) ensure high quality, cohesive, attractive, and 865
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-4
appropriately-scaled development that complements and integrates into the Ontario Ranch community and adds value to the City.
GOAL CD2: A high level of design quality resulting in public spaces, streetscapes, and developments that are attractive, safe, functional, and distinct.
Policy CD2-1 Quality Architecture
We encourage all developments to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide appropriate scale and proportion; • A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; • Exterior building materials that are visually interesting, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
The Specific Plan design guidelines (Chapter 5) ensure that: 1) scale, massing, fenestration, materials, and colors are consistent with the building’s architectural style and compatible with the overall design in the Specific Plan area, 2) articulation is provided through elements such as cornices, parapets, expression lines, and changes in materials and/or colors, 3) use of a variety of colors, materials, and/or textures on each building is appropriate to the architectural features or massing.
Policy CD2-5 Streetscapes
We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identify through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting, and street furniture.
Chapter 3.3, Circulation Plan, addresses connectivity, street improvements, pedestrian and bicycle plans, and transit. In Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design, the Specific Plan identifies street improvements and streetscape including parkways, street trees, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and street lighting for Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue within the Specific Plan area, which are consistent with the Circulation Element of The Ontario Plan. The Specific Plan streetscape design creates an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and visually integrates the development into the surrounding Ontario Ranch community.
Policy CD2-6 Connectivity
866
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-5
We promote development of local street patterns and pedestrian networks that create and unify neighborhoods, rather than divide them, and create cohesive and continuous corridors, rather than independent “islands”.
The Specific Plan creates an efficient street system by providing convenient connections with adjacent land uses in compliance with the vision of The Ontario Plan Circulation Element. Roads will be improved with sidewalks, trails and bikeways to supplement vehicular transportation through the design of Specific Plan street sections (Chapter 3.3: Circulation Plan) and streetscape (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design).
Policy CD2-7 Sustainability
We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials and construction techniques.
The Specific Plan is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design, construction and operation process. The Specific Plan incorporates sustainability principles into its design guidelines (Chapter 5.8, Sustainable Design Strategies), such as drought tolerant landscaping, skylights in warehouse/distribution buildings to provide natural light and reduce lighting demand, high performance dual pane glazing in office storefronts, and LED products for energy efficient site lighting. Design strategies include the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape is required by the Specific Plan’s Recycled Water Plan (Chapter 3.5), consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.
Policy CD2-9 Landscape Design
We encourage durable landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structure, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
Consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch as outlined in the Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan, the Specific Plan (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design) provides for landscaped setbacks and landscaped parkways adjacent to bike lanes and sidewalks, defining these public spaces. The landscaped setbacks and parkways will include drought-tolerant plants featuring 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 to promote durable plant materials. The plant selection will complement the design theme of the Specific Plan area. Parking lot landscaping will reduce associated heat buildup, improve aesthetics, and integrate into onsite landscape design and adjacent streetscapes. Swaled landscape areas will retain/infiltrate stormwater run-off to improve water quality and promote groundwater recharge. 867
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-6
Shade trees thoughtfully located near expanses of paving, building walls, roofs, and windows will reduce the impacts of heat gain.
868
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-7
Policy CD2-11 Entry Statements
We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
The Specific Plan establishes design guidelines to ensure high-quality development and a sense of place. As discussed in Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design, Euclid, Eucalyptus, Merrill and Sultana Avenues will feature landscaped setbacks adjacent to the Specific Plan area that will provide attractive entries to the site. An entry monument will be located at the northeast corner of Euclid and Merrill Avenues to identify the Ontario Ranch area and/or the Ontario Ranch Business Park.
Policy CD2-12 Site and Building Signage
We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structure.
The Specific Plan (Chapter 5.7, Signage) requires approval of a comprehensive sign program to address parcel identification, building identification and directional signage within the Specific Plan area. A comprehensive sign program will integrate project signage with the overall design of the site and structures to create a unified visual statement. A comprehensive sign program provides a means for flexible application of sign regulations to provide incentive and latitude in the design and display of multiple signs. Industrial uses on the site will also be appropriately signed to give direction to loading and receiving, visitor parking, and other special uses.
GOAL CD3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing, and safe during all hours.
Policy CD3-1 Design
We require that pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and equestrian circulation on both public and private property be coordinated and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
The Specific Plan (Chapter 3.3, Circulation Plan) coordinates street, trail, and bikeway designs to serve onsite land uses and extend access to the surrounding area in compliance with The Ontario Plan Mobility Element. The Specific Plan specifies street improvements for Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue. The Specific Plan streetscape design (Chapter 5.3, Landscape Design) provides an aesthetically pleasing view for pedestrians and motorists, screens parking and loading areas from the public right-of-way, and integrates the development into the surrounding community.
869
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-8
870
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-9
Policy CD3-5 Paving
We require sidewalks and road surfaces to be of a type and quality that contributes to the appearance and utility of streets and public places.
The Specific Plan development standards (Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards) require that design and materials for sidewalks and road surfaces within the Specific Plan area be approved by the City’s Engineering Department. Specific Plan design guidelines (Chapter 5) encourage the use of enhanced paving to mark major building entries and paving materials that possesses a high level of solar reflectivity to reduce the heat island effect.
GOAL CD5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investment.
Policy CD5-1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property
We require all public and privately owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistency maintained.
The Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Chapter 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area.
Privately owned buildings will be maintained as specified by the Property Owners Association (Chapter 6.10.2).
Policy CD5-2 Maintenance of Infrastructure
We require the continued maintenance of infrastructure.
The Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix in Chapter 6, Implementation, identifying the parties responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area.
7.3 Mobility Element
GOAL M1: A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.
Policy M1-1 Roadway Design and Maintenance
We require our roadways to:
871
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-10
• Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards. • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users. • Handle the capacity envisioned in the Functional Roadway Classification Plan. • Endeavour to maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all intersections.
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses. • Be maintained in accordance with best practices and our Right-of-Way Management Plan
The Specific Plan complies with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan of the Mobility Element and, therefore, aims to comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; and maintain a Level of Service of E or better at all intersections addressed in the project environmental impact report. Specific Plan site design strives to minimize the effects of truck traffic on nearby residential uses by locating truck entries and loading docks away from residential use.
Policy M1-2 Mitigation of Impacts
We require development to mitigate its traffic impact.
The Specific Plan requires in Chapter 6.3.4, Compliance with CEQA, that projects within the Specific Plan area comply with all mitigation measures, conditions, and project design features identified in the project environmental impact report. Chapter 5.1, Site Design, provides guidelines to ensure buildings, structures, and loading facilities will be designed so loading and unloading activities occur on-site without extending beyond the property line.
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.
The Specific Plan includes a Circulation Plan in Chapter 3 to provide connectivity to the trails and bikeway corridors identified in the Ontario Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan, including installation of a Class II Bikeway along Merrill Avenue and multipurpose trails along Euclid, Eucalyptus, and Merrill Avenues.
Policy M2-3 Pedestrian Walkways
872
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-11
We require walkways that promote safe and convenient travel between residential areas, businesses, schools, parks, recreation areas, and other key destination points.
The Specific Plan street sections and streetscape designs (Chapter 3.1, Circulation Plan and Chapter
5.3, Landscape Design) provide for construction of five-foot wide public pedestrian sidewalks for Euclid Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Sultana Avenue to connect with adjacent existing and planned pedestrian circulation systems. Pedestrian sidewalks are separated from vehicular travel lanes by a landscaped parkway. Proposed improvements for the Specific Plan area streets are consistent with the City’s Ontario Ranch Streetscape Master Plan.
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.
The Specific Plan discusses in Chapter 3.3.10, Transit, that the City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area.
GOAL M4: An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.
Policy M4-1 Truck Routes
We designate and maintain a network of City truck routes that provide for the effective transport of goods while minimizing negative impacts on local circulation and noise-sensitive land uses, as shown as shown in the Truck Routes Plan..
The Specific Plan is designed to enable easy vehicular access to the truck route network and to encourage its industrial users to implement effective goods movement strategies. The Land Use and Circulation Plans for the Specific Plan area (Chapter 3, Development Plan) are designed to direct truck traffic away from nearby residential use in the City of Chino and focus trucks on the designated Merrill Avenue truck route. Chapter 3.1, Site Design, of the Design Guidelines stipulates buildings, structures, and loading facilities will be designed to ensure that loading and unloading activities and maneuvering of freight vehicles occurs on-site without extending beyond the property line.
7.4 Environmental Resources Element
Deleted: needed
Deleted: on
Deleted: truck routes.
873
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-12
GOAL ER1: A reliable and cost effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
874
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-13
Policy ER1-3 Conservation
We require conservation strategies that reduce water usage.
The Specific Plan incorporates water conservation strategies into its development plan and design guidelines. The use of recycled water to irrigate landscape areas is required consistent with the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan (Chapter 3, Development Plan). Landscape and irrigation plans are encouraged to use water conservation features such as drought-tolerant plant species native to the region and drip irrigation (Chapter 5, Design Guidelines). The Specific Plan encourages the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
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.
In Chapter 3.7, Storm Drainage Plans, the Specific Plan stipulates that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared and approved by the City. The SWPPP will identify and detail appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent pollutant discharge into storm drain systems and natural drainages and aquifers.
In addition to the preparation of a SWPPP, a WQMP will be prepared and approved that will enforce long-term BMPs to prevent pollutant discharges into storm drain systems, for the life of the project.
Chapter 5.8.2, Water Quality, requires the provision of on-site landscape swales to collect and treat stormwater run-off.
Policy ER1-6 Urban Run-off Quantity
We encourage the use of low impact development strategies to intercept run-off, slow the discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.
The Specific Plan (Chapter 3.9, Storm Drainage Plan) incorporates low impact development strategies including landscape designs that promote water retention; permeable surface designs in parking lots and areas with low traffic; parking lots that drain to landscaped areas to provide treatment, retention, or infiltration; and limited soil compaction during grading.
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.
In Chapter 3.9, Storm Drainage Plan, the Specific Plan states that prior to issuance of grading or construction permits, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required to minimize 875
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-14
stormwater runoff and provide on-site opportunities for groundwater recharge integrated into project design and amenities. The grading and drainage of the Specific Plan area will be designed to retain/infilter, harvest & re-use or biotreat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County NPDES Stormwater Program's WQMP for significant new development projects.
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.
In Chapter 3.6, Sewer Plan, the Specific Plan provides for design of a wastewater system consistent with City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements. The Specific Plan includes a network of new public sewer mains consistent with the City of Ontario’s Ultimate Sewer System Plan.
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 collectively helps 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.
The Specific Plan incorporates energy-saving conservation strategies into its design guidelines (Chapter 5) by addressing lighting, bicycle parking, sustainable landscaping, and energy efficiency.
Sustainable design strategies (Chapter 5.8) include design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.
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.
The Specific Plan’s Sustainable Design Strategies (Chapter 5.8) include the use of passive design to improve building energy performance through skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and use of select colors.
876
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-15
GOAL ER4: Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.
Policy ER4-4 Indoor Air Quality
We comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality.
The Specific Plan requires development projects in the Specific Plan area to comply with the State of California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City. The Specific Plan’s Sustainable Design Strategies (Chapter 5.8) include the design and construction of energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution.
GOAL ER5: Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resources extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.
Policy ER5-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process
We comply with state and federal regulations regarding protected species.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the project environmental impact report.
7.5 Safety Element
GOAL S1: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
Policy S1-1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.
The Specific Plan requires all future development projects to comply with the State of California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City.
Policy S1-2 Entitlement and Permitting Process
We follow state guidelines and the California Building Code to determine when development proposals must conduct geotechnical and geological investigations.
Deleted: 1
877
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-16
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with state guidelines and the California Building Code. Research of available maps indicates that the Specific Plan site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Furthermore, there was no visible evidence of faulting during a geotechnical investigation conducted in 2015.
GOAL S2: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.
Policy S2-1 Entitlement and Permitting Process
We follow State guidelines and building code to determine when development proposals require hydrological studies prepared by a State-certified engineer to assess the impact that the new development will have on the flooding potential of existing development down-gradient.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all applicable mitigation measures of the project environmental impact report, state guidelines, and the California Building Code regarding flooding and inundation hazards.
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.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Fire Department and potential redesign to incorporate fire prevention design elements within streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
GOAL S4: An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
Policy S4-1 Noise Mitigation
We utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes and subdivision and development codes to mitigate noise impacts.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the project environmental impact report, the City’s noise ordinance, subdivision and development codes, and the California Building Code to mitigate noise impacts.
Deleted: state
Deleted: the California Building Code
Deleted: noise ordinance
Deleted: ,
878
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-17
GOAL S5: Reduced risk of injury, property damage and economic loss resulting from windstorms and wind-related hazards.
Policy S5-2 Dust Control Measures
We require the implementation of Best Management Practices for dust control at all excavation and grading projects.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the project environmental impact report, the construction management plan, and any subdivision and development codes regarding dust control.
GOAL S6: Reduced potential for hazardous materials exposure and contamination.
Policy S6-9 Remediation of Methane
We require development to assess and mitigate the presence of methane, per regulatory standards and guidelines.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with any and all mitigation measures of the project environmental impact report.
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.
The Specific Plan acknowledges that all projects within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the City’s development review process, which provides for review by the City’s Police Department and potential redesign to incorporate crime prevention design elements in streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings. Parcel lighting (Chapter 5.6, Lighting) addresses illumination of parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, signage, and architectural and landscape features. A key provision includes 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. Chapter 5.1, Site Design, also encourages delineation of pedestrian access to on-site buildings from adjacent streets and parking areas by marking building entrances with signage, prominent architectural features, and/or landscaping features. 879
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-18
7.6 Community Economics Element
GOAL CE1: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
Policy CE1-1 Jobs-Housing Balance
We pursue improvement to the Inland Empire’s balance between jobs and housing by promoting job growth that reduces the regional economy’s reliance on out-commuting.
The Specific Plan anticipates the creation of jobs in warehousing, logistics, light manufacturing, and administration within the Specific Plan area, which helps improve the region’s jobs-housing balance. Actual job creation depends on the type of land uses ultimately developed on the site as a wide-range of commercial, office, and industrial uses are permitted in the Specific Plan. The Land Use Plan (Chapter 3.1) implements the vision of The Ontario Plan by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, research and development, service, and supporting retail at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions.
Policy CE1-5 Business Attraction
We proactively attract new and expanding businesses to Ontario in order to increase the City’s share of growing sectors of the regional and global economy.
In Chapter 3.1, Land Use Plan, the Specific Plan provides for the construction of over 1.3 million square feet of industrial development in compliance with City and regional planning goals and strategies that facilitate goods movement throughout the SCAG region.
GOAL CE2: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, where people choose to be.
Policy CE2-1 Development Projects
We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.
The Specific Plan contains design guidelines in Chapter 5 to guide future development, consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch. The guidelines are intended to ensure high quality, cohesive and attractive development that complements and integrates into the community and adds value to the City. The Specific Plan also establishes landscape setbacks along all roadways within the Specific Plan area to create safe and attractive streets for pedestrians and motorists.
Deleted: community
Deleted: sector
880
General Plan Consistency
Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Page 7-19
Policy CE2-2 Development Review
We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
The Specific Plan establishes a land use plan (Chapter 3.1) and design guidelines (Chapter 5) addressing site design, building design, and landscape design that ensure high-quality, functional and sustainable development that is regionally competitive and appropriate for the Ontario Ranch community.
Policy CE2-5 Private Maintenance
We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.
The Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix (Chapter 6.11) identifying the public, private, or utility providers responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area. A Property Owners Association will be established for the maintenance of on-site common areas, including such improvements as landscape areas and drive aisles.
Policy CE2-6 Public Maintenance
We require the establishment and operation of maintenance districts or other vehicles to fund the long-term operation and maintenance of the public realm whether on private land, in rightsof-way, or on publicly-owned property.
The Specific Plan includes a Maintenance Responsibility Matrix (Chapter 6.11) identifying the public, private, or utility providers responsible for maintenance of roadways, parkways, trails, sidewalks, common areas, walls and monuments, infrastructure, and utilities within the Specific Plan area.
Right-of-way for public streets within the Specific Plan area and infrastructure improvements shall be dedicated to the City of Ontario for maintenance purposes. Landscape improvements and public streetlights within the public right-of-way shall be maintained through a landscape and lighting district or other special maintenance district established by the City. Dry utilities such as electricity, natural gas, and communication systems will be maintained by the appropriate utility company.
Deleted: 10
Deleted: 10
881
RESOLUTION NO.________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO
ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE
ONTARIO RANCH BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2019050018), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, LOCATED WITHIN ONTARIO RANCH
AND GENERALLY BORDERED BY EUCALYPTUS AVENUE TO THE
NORTH, CAMPUS AVENUE TO THE EAST, MERRILL AVENUE TO THE
SOUTH, AND SULTANA AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 1054 041-01, 1054 041-02; 1054-031-01, 1054-031-02; 1054-261-01, 1054-261-02; 1054-291-01-, AND 1054-291-02.
WHEREAS, EUCLID LAND VENTURE, LLC. (“Applicant”) proposes to develop the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (“Project”), an approximately 1,640,690-square foot business and industrial park on an approximately 72-acre site in the southwestern portion of the City of Ontario; and
WHEREAS, the Project site consists of eight parcels and is bound by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Sultana Avenue to the west, Merrill Avenue to the south, and Campus Avenue to the east; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“TOP EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) in association with the 2009 General Plan Update (“GPA”) and certified the TOP EIR on January 26, 2010; and WHERAS, the City certified the Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Supplemental EIR”, State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update, in association of the General Plan Update, File No. PGPA20- 002, and certified the Supplemental EIR on August 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the TOP EIR is a Program EIR from which later specific plan EIRs, such as the EIR for this Project, are tiered; and
WHEREAS, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment for which the public review period extended through August 6, 2021. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. The City received comments from multiple agencies on the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.9 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on Wednesday, July 21, 2021, where comments were received; and
882
WHEREAS, a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“Draft Subsequent EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources, and further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation and traffic; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft Subsequent EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2019050018), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning June 7, 2022 and concluding July 22, 2022. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated along with the Draft Subsequent EIR and was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft Subsequent EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15086; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft Subsequent EIR, the City received five written comment letters, all of which the City responded to in the Final Subsequent EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final Subsequent EIR on October 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed special public hearing on the Subsequent EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Subsequent EIR was fully studied, and concluded said hearing on that date. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No. PC22-053,recommending City Council certification of the Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, five written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing and several people spoke on the project at said hearing; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Subsequent EIR, which consists of the Draft Subsequent EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft Subsequent EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft Subsequent EIR, and written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft Subsequent EIR; and 883
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final Subsequent EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft Subsequent EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final Subsequent EIR); and WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final Subsequent EIR to all commenting public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final Subsequent EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV, B hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit B, are described in Section IV, C hereof; and
884
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant and which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Subsequent EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, D hereof; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, E hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV, F hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts and significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, G hereof; and WHEREAS, because some environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore, render those impacts “acceptable.” The City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City, or any additional information submitted to the City, have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION I. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.
885
SECTION II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft Subsequent EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION III. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project.
The Draft Subsequent EIR and Final Subsequent EIR for the proposed Project. All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR. All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft Subsequent EIR. All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearings for the proposed Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final Subsequent EIR.
All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft Subsequent EIR and Final Subsequent EIR.
The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto. Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC §21167.6(e).
886
B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the proposed Project are at the City of Ontario - Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091 (e).
C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The Project provides zoning regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land uses, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. The Project establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site.
The purpose of the Project is to:
Provide a planning framework that responds to the physical and market driven aspects of future development opportunities;
Specify adequate and coordinated infrastructure, utilities, and public services for this area of the Ontario Ranch;
Promote compatible uses and interfaces with adjacent properties; Ensure the appropriate location and intensity of uses through new development parameters; and
Conform with State laws and local ordinances and policies for the preparation of the Project.
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project and will aid decision makers in their review of the proposed Project and associated environmental impacts:
Create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods.
Provide the framework and facilitate entitlements for the development of approximately 1.6 million square feet (sf) of business park and light industrial uses.
Allow for employment opportunities for community residents. Facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to adequately serve the Project site. 887
Expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
Create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, fund Projectrelated infrastructure improvements in the area and support Project development.
SECTION IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.], §15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Ontario, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment (Project), evaluated in the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“Draft Subsequent EIR”) and Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final Subsequent EIR) for the Project.
The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15091, and which are as follows:
A. INTRODUCTION
PRC §21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to §21081 of the PRC, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
888
As indicated above, §21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy §21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1.).
The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.
Resources Code, §21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to 889
“impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287)
B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING
MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.
1. AESTHETICS
a. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-1) Explanation: 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) Subsequent EIR, “... the scale and design of the City, including its land uses, would not deter views of the mountain backdrop.” Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-1 through 7-2) Explanation: 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. 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). Thus, the Project would result in no adverse impacts on scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
c. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view 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 890
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-2 through 7-3) Explanation: 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. 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 Design Element establishes multiple policies that protect scenic resources and promote high quality, visually compatible development.
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. The City would assure that the Project, as implemented, contains Development 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.
d. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-3) Explanation: 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 891
on-site 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.
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Williamson Contract
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less than Significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-10 through
4.1-11)
Explanation: The Project site is identified as having an Agricultural Overlay (SP-AG) and there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. b. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-4)
Explanation: 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.
892
c. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-4)
Explanation: As stated above, 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 §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.
3. AIR QUALITY
a. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-4) Explanation: Construction
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.
Therefore, impacts associated with construction-generated odors are considered less than significant.
Operations
The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater 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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (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, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
893
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through
4.3-19).
Explanation: Sensitive Plants
No special-status plant species are expected to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Long-standing use of the Project site for agricultural uses and other anthropogenic disturbances have likely altered soil chemistry and other substrate characteristics such that on-site soils are not likely capable of supporting those sensitive plant species known from the Project site vicinity. Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for potentially occurring special-status plant species, nor reduce population size of sensitive plant species below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis (if present). Therefore, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant specifies identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Hence, no significant impact to special-status plant species or their habitat would occur. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.3-15)
Sensitive Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were directly recorded on-site; however, the California horned lark and loggerhead shrike have moderate-high occurrence potential because they are well known to utilize agricultural areas. However, these species were deemed by USFWS to be too widespread and common to warrant listing as threatened or endangered, and as such, were removed from formal sensitive species status. Impacts to agricultural-related habitats could amount to an incremental reduction of potential foraging habitat for certain species that may be considered locally adverse.
However, Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for these species, nor reduce population size below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis. Therefore, less than significant impacts to these species would be expected. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.3-16)
894
b. Riparian Habitat and Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.3-18 through
4.3-19)
Explanation: Based on the field investigation conducted by Ecological Sciences, USACE “waters of the United States” per Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and “streambeds” per Section 1600- 1603 of the CDFW Code were not observed on the property.
The on-site detention basins on the southern border of the Project site were listed in the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory as freshwater ponds. However, these basins would not be subject to federal wetland regulatory requirements and would not be considered freshwater ponds. The artificial basins are not connected to a natural stream, nor do they divert natural flow from any river, stream or lake. Since the source of the water for these artificial features are not part of a natural stream, river, or lake, the stock ponds are not considered jurisdictional under the CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The program states: “An entity shall not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake…”. Therefore, the stock ponds/basins on the Project site are not a “natural flow” of a stream, river, or lake, and would not be considered jurisdictional by CDFW.
Further, the artificial basins are not adjacent to and are not considered Waters of the United States. The stock ponds/basins are isolated features that are not tributary to, nor do they have a significant nexus (biological, chemical, or physical connection) to traditional navigable waters of the United States. Therefore, the artificial basins on the Project site would not be considered federally jurisdictional under the CWA. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. c. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 7-5 through 7-6) Explanation: The Project site contains some trees, particularly near the singlefamily residences on site. The Project would remove these trees as 895
well as other ornamental trees. The City Development Code §6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures was established to further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of healthy heritage trees. The Project would be required to comply with the 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.
d. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-6)
Explanation: 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.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.4-27) Explanation: Under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(1), a project has a significant impact on a historical resource if it “would result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resources would be materially impaired.” Under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(2), material impairment would occur if the project would result in demolition or material alteration of those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance.
Potential historical resources in the Project site were evaluated to determine if they are considered historical resources. Since the assessment of the Project site’s historical resources found no significance of the dairy farm or its structures, the structures were not found to be integral in the history of dairy farming or dairy operations in the City or the Chino Valley area. Therefore, they are not considered eligible for listing pursuant to criterion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a Landmark in the City. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5. 896
b. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-6) Explanation: California Health and Safety Code (HSC) §7050.5, CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, and PRC §5097.98 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 §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 §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 NAHC shall 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 §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.
6. ENERGY
a. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.5-10 through
4.5-13)
Explanation: Construction
During construction, the Project would consume energy through the combustion of fossil fuels in construction vehicles, worker commute vehicles, and construction. Construction vehicles and related energy-consuming equipment would be used during all phases of construction. Limitations on idling of vehicles and equipment and requirements that equipment be properly maintained would result in fuel savings.
897
The Project would use gasoline and diesel-powered construction and transportation equipment. The Project is estimated to consume 319,184 gallons of gasoline and 313,152 gallons of diesel fuel over the entire construction period.
Construction equipment would comply with the latest
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emission standards designed to reduce pollutants and minimize unnecessary fuel consumption.
Energy use during construction of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Therefore, it is anticipated that the construction phase of the Project would not conflict with State or local plan for renewable energy efficiency objectives. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.
Operation
The operational phase of the Project would consume energy as part of building operations and transportation activities. Building operations for the Project would involve energy consumption for multiple purposes, including but not limited to heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems, use of on-site equipment and appliances; and indoor, outdoor, perimeter, and parking lot lighting. The Project would be required to comply with California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). Title 24 establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material conservation.
Based on the modeling output files used to estimate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed land uses, operations would consume approximately 12,583,038 kWh/year of electricity and 12,404,974 kBTU/year of natural gas.
In 2024, Californians are anticipated to use approximately 14,197,483,655 gallons of gasoline and approximately
3,195,776,812 gallons of diesel fuel. San Bernardino County annual fuel use in 2024 is anticipated to be 854,295,454 gallons of gasoline and 280,932,332 gallons of diesel fuel. Operational energy would also be consumed by vehicle trips associated with the Project. Fuel consumption would be primarily related to vehicles used by employees and visitors associated with the Project. Based on estimates contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) output files, Project operation-related vehicle trips would result in the consumption of 658,838 gallons of gasoline and 1,805,989 gallons of diesel fuel annually. These annual fuel consumption estimates represent likely potential maximums that would occur under Project Buildout Conditions. Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project 898
site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation. Average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can also be expected to improve over time in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the transportation system.
Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be domestic or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, current crude oil production would be sufficient to meet 50 years of worldwide consumption. As such, it is expected that existing and planned transportation fuel supplies would be sufficient to serve the Project’s demand.
The Project would meet or surpass standards established under the California Code Title 24, Part 6 (the California Energy Code) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City. The Project would be consistent with City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), which includes measures related to building energy. For these reasons, Project operational fuel consumption would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner and would not conflict or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, operation impacts associated with energy consumption would be less than significant.
b. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.5-14 through
4.5-15)
Explanation: City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) The City’s Community CAP includes measures related to building energy. However, the measures included in the City’s Community CAP would generally not be applicable to the Project. For example, Measures Energy 3 through Energy 5 pertain to the retrofit of existing residential and non-residential buildings only. Implementation of the Project would result in the development and operation of new buildings only. Therefore, the Project would not be inconsistent with the energy efficiency and renewable energy measures of the City’s Community CAP. A less than significant impact would occur.
City of Ontario TOP 2050
Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.5-5, Consistency with the TOP 2010 and 2050 evaluates the consistency of the Project to the applicable policies of TOP. As shown in the table, the Project would generally be consistent with the applicable policies of TOP. A less than significant impact would occur. 899
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-7) Explanation: There are no active faults known on the site and the Project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly AlquistPriolo Zone). The TOP Final Subsequent EIR identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. Additionally, the California Geologic Survey identified that the closest fault is the Chino Fault, located 3.3 miles from the Project site. All Project construction would 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.
b. Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.6-12 through
4.6-13)
Explanation: The Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was identified during the geotechnical investigation. Additionally, the California Geologic Survey identified that the closest fault is the Chino Fault, located
3.3 miles from the Project site. The possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. Furthermore, Southern California is considered a seismically active region and the regional vicinity of the Project site contains a number of known earthquake faults. As part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study (Appendix E of the Draft Subsequent EIR), 2019 CBC Seismic Design Parameters were generated for future structural improvements within the Project 900
area. Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed the most recent CBC standards for earthquake resistance.
The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the Project site. Therefore, future development of habitable structures within the Project site would be conducted in accordance with the CBC Seismic Design Parameters generated as part of the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, which would reduce impacts from seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level.
c. Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.6-12 through
4.6-13)
Explanation: According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, the Project site is not within a zone of liquefaction susceptibility and the subsurface conditions at the boring locations are not considered to be conducive to liquefaction. Liquefaction potential under the site is low due to the depth of groundwater and the mix of soil type and is not considered to be a design concern for the Project. Therefore, Project development would not subject people or structures to liquefaction hazards, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Landslides
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-7) Explanation: The Project site is located in the southern portion of the City where largely flat agricultural fields dominate the topography. According to the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, 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.
901
e. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 7-7 through 7-8) Explanation: Construction
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 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 previously-disturbed 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 Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order No. 2009 0009 Division of Water Quality (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.
Operations
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 902
discharged into the City's stormwater drainage system after construction. 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.
f. Expansive Soils
Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-8) Explanation: 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. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact as the Project site is not located on expansive soils.
g. Septic Tanks
Threshold: 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? Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-9)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. The Project proposes a sewer infrastructure plan that includes a network of new public sewer mains that would connect to the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) sewer system. Water and wastewater systems and their development are further discussed in Section 4.16, Utilities and Service of this EIR. No impact would occur.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-9)
Explanation: 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, 903
there would be no impact related to handling or hazardous materials in close proximity of a school.
b. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.8-25) Explanation: The Project site is within the Ontario International Airport and Chino Airport’s airport influence area. Furthermore, although the Project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Chino Airport, Zone 6 compatibility criteria prohibit people-intensive uses such as stadiums, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. The Project site would not contain such uses and would comply with Safety Zone 6 standard. Additionally, the Project site is not within the Ontario International Airport safety zone, noise impact zone, or airspace protection zone. The Project site also lies within an allowable range of 130 feet to 160 feet of building height as depicted in Figure 4.8-3, Allowable Building Heights, see page 4.8-26 of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7-9) Explanation: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route, due to its historical agricultural uses. 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 Ontario Fire Department (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.
d. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
904
Finding: No Impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-10)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Neither the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) nor the County of San Bernardino identify the Project site within an area susceptible to wildland fires. 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. The Project would comply with all applicable local and state regulations related to fire safety, as evaluated through the City’s standard development review process. No impact would occur.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-11 through
4.9-14)
Explanation: Construction
Development of the Project would require compliance with the CGP Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ (as amended by Order
No. 2010 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), which requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. A SWPPP requires the incorporation of BMPs to control sediment, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during construction and prevent contaminants from reaching receiving water bodies. The SWRCB mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the Statewide CGP. The Project would comply with all State, County, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during construction phases of the Project and the Project Applicant would prepare a SWPPP that would include and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Categories of potential BMPs that would be implemented for this Project are described in Table 4.9-2, Construction BMPs, of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
In addition, the City requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Implementation of the erosion control plan would address any potential erosion issues associated with the proposed grading and site preparation activities.
Operations
Once the Project has been constructed, a preliminary WQMP and a final WQMP would be required for the Project under the MS4 Permit. 905
A preliminary WQMP has been prepared by Thienes Engineering (2022) (see Appendix G2 of the Draft Subsequent EIR) and a final WQMP would be submitted to the City prior to the start of construction.
The preliminary WQMP shows that the Project can treat the stormwater runoff captured on-site, via detention basins that will then convey runoff into hydrodynamic separators. Once runoff is treated, it is then released into the on-site storm drains for eventual discharge into the regional storm drain network.
As specified in the preliminary WQMP, the total volume of stormwater runoff detained is greater than the calculated volume needed to meet requirements. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not increase the time of concentration and the postdevelopment runoff volume would not exceed pre-development conditions for the design storm event. Operational water quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation and maintenance of the BMPs described and specified in the WQMP.
Also, the Project would comply with all State, County, and local regulations regarding stormwater runoff during operational phases of the Project. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-10 through 7-11) Explanation: Construction and Operation
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 2050 Draft Supplemental EIR, 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 906
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.
c. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p.7-11) Explanation: Construction and Operations
Construction of the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, but not in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation. The Project would include the use of an Erosion Control Plan and methods that reduce overall erosion during construction and operation, such as preserving vegetation, soil binders, mulching, soil roughening, and stabilization. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
d. Flooding and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-14 through
4.9-16)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
With the implementation of Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPP) HYD-1 through HYD-3 which includes SWPPP, the BMPs and storm plan Project features, the Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in onor off-site flooding. Also, the Project site design LID features and on907 site detention facilities would ensure that stormwater runoff does not exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The calculated stormwater runoff volume for the 100-year storm under post development conditions would be less than the amount of stormwater runoff for the 25-year storm under existing conditions.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant
e. Flood Hazard
Threshold: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-16 through
4.9-17)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
The Project site is not within a 100-year floodplain, as per FEMA FIRM No. 06071C9335H, dated August 28, 2008. It is designated as within Zone D, where no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted. However, the Project site is relatively flat and there are no nearby water bodies or streams or other conditions that would result in flooding at the Project site.
The Project site, as well as a large portion of the City, is within the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. The dam is owned and operated by the USACE and functions as a flood control and debris dam for the San Antonio River. Dams in California are monitored and inspected annually by the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).
The probability of dam failure is very low, and the City of Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, the proposed BMPs and LID measures at the Project site would result in the treatment and biofiltration of any floodwaters that enter the site and prevent pollutants from entering the regional storm drain system.
The Project site is also not located near any water storage tanks or reservoirs that would result in a seiche during seismic activity. The Project site is inland and approximately 30 miles from the ocean and therefore is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant.
f. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-17 through
4.9-18)
908
Explanation: Construction and Operations
Implementation of the Project per the TOP would not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Implementation of PPP HYD-2, PPP HYD-3, and PPP HYD-4, and compliance with all applicable regulatory framework and implementation of standards of approval governing water quality and groundwater would ensure that any water quality control plan or sustainable management plan cited above would not be obstructed by the Project. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels and no mitigation is required.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-13)
Explanation: Specific Plan – Phase I/Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project proposes business park and industrial uses on approximately 71.69 acres. The Project would replace the existing agricultural uses and does not propose any new streets or other physical barriers, which could physically divide an established community. Given its nature and scope, the Project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. Conflict
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: No Impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.10-6 through 4.10-20; see Resolution No. 2022-129)
Explanation: The Project consists of a SPA to allow for development of an industrial and business park on eight parcels covering approximately
71.69 acres in the City. The development would include six buildings ranging from 61,300 sf to 530,460 sf in building size. This would allow for the development of approximately 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park buildings.
While, at the time the Draft SEIR was published the 71.69-acre Project site’s proposed industrial and business park use was inconsistent with the Project site’s then TOP land use designation, which was 56 acres of LMDR and 18 acres of BP (the Project proposes approximately 12 acres of BP, and approximately 60-acres of IND, to facilitate development of the Project), this inconsistency 909
has been removed due to the City’s August 16, 2022, adoption of TOP 2050 Update. TOP 2050 designates the Project site as BP and IND, land uses which are consistent with the Project’s proposed SPA. Thus, the Project is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use designation.
The Ontario Plan Compatibility
An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Citywide goals in the 2010 TOP is provided in Table 4.10-6, Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP), within Draft Subsequent EIR Section
4.10, Land Use and Planning. While the Project is consistent with the 2010 TOP goals and policies noted in Table 4.10-6, the Project’s proposed land use designations as reflected in the proposed SPA are inconsistent with 2010 TOP land use designations of LMDR and BP, which represents a significant impact. This land use inconsistency was eliminated by the City’s approval of the TOP 2050 Update. Under the TOP 2050 Update, the Project’s land uses are consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-11 through 7-12) Explanation: The Project is within an MRZ-3 area, indicating that there are no known deposits of significant minerals and development of the Project site would not result in the loss of identified regional or local mineral resources, conversion of an identified mineral resource use, or conflict with existing mineral resource extraction activities.
Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. Draft Subsequent EIR.
b. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-11 through 7-12) Explanation: The Project is within an MRZ-3 area, indicating that there are no known deposits of significant minerals and development of the Project site would not result in the loss of identified regional or local mineral resources, conversion of an identified mineral resource use, or conflict with existing mineral resource extraction activities.
Therefore, impacts would continue to be less than significant. 910
12. NOISE
a. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.11-21 through
4.11-22)
Explanation: Construction Vibration
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 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, at 82 feet the vibration velocities from construction equipment would not exceed
0.0150 in/sec Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is below the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 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 lowspeed (i.e., less than 15 miles per hour) and would occur over new, smooth surfaces. 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, no vehicle-generated vibration impacts would occur. In addition, there are no sources of substantial ground borne vibration associated with the Project, such as rail or subways. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with Project operation would be less than significant.
b. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.11-22 through
4.11-23)
Explanation: The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport. The noise contours show the Project site outside the 55 dBA CNEL 911
contour, therefore people working at the Project site would not be exposed to excessive airport related noise.
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 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.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.12-8 through
4.12-10)
Explanation: 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.
As a result of the Project and related components, 1,631 new employees are expected for the City of Ontario. All growth is planned according to TOP and SCAG and would put no unnecessary strain on housing in the region. The construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities and would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. A less than significant impact is expected to occur. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.12-8 through
4.12-10)
b. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-12) Explanation: Construction and Operations
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 912
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.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.13-10 through
4.13-11)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
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 firerelated safety features would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted CFC and the City’s Municipal Code.
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.
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 913
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. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant. b. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
ii) Police Protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.13-11) Explanation: Construction and Operations
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. 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.
914
The Ontario Police Department (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 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.
c. Schools
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-12 through 7-13) Explanation: Construction and Operations
The Project site is located within the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD), which is part of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Therefore, the Project applicant would be required to pay the impact fees levied by the CVUSD, set within the limits of California SB 50. SB 50 also relieves jurisdictions from having the authority of denying approval of a legislative or adjudicative action under CEQA in reference to real estate development based upon the inadequacy of school facilities. Since the Project will pay any applicable fees pursuant to SB 50, a less than significant impact would occur.
d. Parks
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-13 through 7-14) 915
Explanation: Construction and Operations
There are numerous parks in proximity to Project site that could be used by existing local residents and future employees of the Project site. The Project would pay applicable development impact fees including Quimby Act park fees. These fees, along with additional funding accruing to the City’s general fund through direct and indirect economic benefit, would offset any additional demand caused by the Project’s business park and industrial uses. No significant impact is anticipated with payment of fees.
e. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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:
iii) Other Public Facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-14) Explanation: Construction and Operations
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. The Community Life and Culture Department manages the City’s two public libraries, neither of which are near the 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.
15. RECREATION
a. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-14) 916
Explanation: The demand for parks is determined by changes and increases in housing and population. The Project site would be developed with an industrial use, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area. Therefore, buildout of the Project would not directly induce population growth or increase demand on parks and recreational resources. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
b. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-14 through 7-15) Explanation: 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.
16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.14-9 through
4.14-18)
Explanation: In compliance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment, a Traffic Analysis (TA) (see Appendix I1 of the Draft Subsequent EIR) was conducted for the Project which includes an LOS analysis.
TOP Mobility Element
The City’s General Plan Mobility Element guides mobility and transportation in the City, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project would be consistent with the plan, programs, goals and policies of the Mobility Element by enhancing transportation networks and for vehicles and bicycle facilities, safely accommodating pedestrian walkways and providing easy access to the Project site via public transportation. The Project’s circulation system has been designed consistently with the City’s traffic and transportation guidelines and existing transportation system.
Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s DIF program which would require a payment of fees to ensure that the regional circulation and/or arterial expansions planned by the City and County (i.e., CMP) keep pace with the projected population increases or 917
other identified roadway deficiencies. Refer to the following bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities discussion below for more information.
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.
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.
b. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.14-25 through
4.14-26)
Explanation: 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 918
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 driveways from all four fronting streets, for a total of 16 driveway access points. Internal drive aisles would provide connectivity throughout the Project site.
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. Implementation of the Project design features and Recommendations 1 through 28, and compliance with the City’s Traffic and Transportation Guidelines set 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 that impacts would be less than significant, and the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to heavy truck maneuvers.
c. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-15) Explanation: 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, 919
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 onand 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. Therefore, the Project’s impact concerning emergency access would be less than significant.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-18 through
4.16-23)
Explanation: 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
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.
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 920
MC. 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. 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
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 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.
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. The Project includes a network of public sewer mains, consistent with the City’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan and supplemental studies. The Project proposes a 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 SubArea Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and development within the Specific Plan.
As shown in the WSA (Appendix J of the Draft Subsequent EIR) 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. The Project would not require expansion of the wastewater infrastructure specified for the Project site in the sewer plan. No additional off-site extensions or expansions to the planned sewer system serving the region would be required. On-site 921
construction of the proposed sewer infrastructure would provide for connections throughout the site. 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 Project site 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 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 pretreatment, 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 on-site 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 post-development 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.
922
Electricity
Project operation is expected to use approximately 14.1 million kilowatt hours (kWh) annually. Total mid-electricity 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).
b. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-23 through
4.16-25)
Explanation: Water Demand
Water use for the proposed 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, within the Draft Subsequent EIR shows the total water demand estimate for the proposed development.
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.
923
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.
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.
In addition to the City having adequate water supply to service the Project, water conservation measures would be implemented, as described within the Draft Subsequent EIR, which would further reduce impacts on water demand. 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. c. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-25) Explanation: 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. 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 924
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 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.
d. Solid Waste
Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-26 through
4.16-27)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the Project during construction or operations, and Project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.
Through application and accordance of the City’s goals, policies, and standards and adherence to all state, federal, and local laws and regulations, the impacts for the Project site will remain less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-26 through 4.16-27)
e. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-15 through 7-16) Explanation: Construction and Operations
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (U.S. Code Title 42, §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 §40000 et seq.) requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting 925
programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling. 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 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.
18. WILDFIRE
a. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: 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?
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?
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?
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? Finding: No Impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-16 through 7-17) Explanation: 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, and no mitigation is required. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-16 through 7-17) C. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT
CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
926
1. AIR QUALITY
a. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.2-25 through 4.2-33)
Explanation: Operational LST
Since the Project includes warehouses, the operational phase Local Significance Thresholds (LST) protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions.
LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters in SRA 33 were utilized in this analysis because the closest receptors are located 82 feet to the north. Although the Project site is approximately 72 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was also conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.
The LST analysis only includes on-site sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and off-site emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-13 on page 4.2-27 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions of the Draft Subsequent EIR, conservatively include all on-site Projectrelated stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and yard trucks) and five percent of the Project-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling on-site.
Table 4.2-13 shows that the unmitigated localized daily operations would result in significant concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, operational mitigation measures are required to reduce localized operational impacts. With the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, operational LST impacts would be less than significant.
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
This analysis identifies health concerns related to particulate matter, CO, O3, and NO2. Table 4.2-1 on page 4.2-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects. Localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant with mitigation (refer to Table 4.2-12 and Table 4.2-13). Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 927
Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter (DMP)
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA.
The construction phase HRA indicate that the unmitigated cancer risk would be 150-in-one-million, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million. Therefore, MM AQ-7, requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required to reduce the cancer risk. With MM AQ-7 the cancer risk would be reduced to 7.0-in-onemillion which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million.
With the implementation of MM AQ-7 non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.002 and an acute hazard index of 0.02.
Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
An operational phase HRA was also conducted for the Project.
Analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the warehouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors.
Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest unmitigated annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations from diesel truck traffic near sensitive receptors would be 0.5483 µg/m3. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Project is 474 per million, which exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. Therefore, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 are required to reduce impacts. Implementation of operational mitigation measures reduces the diesel exhaust PM10 concentrations to 0.0034 µg/m3. As such, the mitigated carcinogenic risk would be reduced to 2.94 in one million and impacts would be less than significant.
Acute and chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant.
The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the REL. After incorporating operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6, the highest maximum chronic and acute hazard index associated with both DPM and acrolein emissions from the Project would be 0.0007 and 0.0097, respectively. As a result, non‐ carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 928
Conclusion
MM AQ-1 would improve air quality by requiring the use of low VOC paints during the structural coating phase. Project related PM10, PM2.5, and DPM emissions from combustion engines will be reduce by MM AQ-2, which requires the use of electric cargo handling equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) rather than diesel or natural gas. MM AQ-3 would reduce vehicle emission by reducing single occupant vehicle trips through promoting
carpool/vanpool/rideshare programs and providing pedestrian and bicycling amenities. MM AQ-4 would reduce vehicle emission by promoting alternative fuel vehicles such as electric cars and trucks.
MM AQ-5 would l reduce PM10, PM2.5, and DPM by providing trucks with electrical hookups to power onboard auxiliary equipment and refrigeration units, allowing trucks to be turned off rather than remain idling. MM AQ-6 would reduce truck emissions by requiring signs be posted that direct truck drivers to turn off their engines and provides a telephone number to report violations. In addition, MM AQ-6 requires signs to be posted at exits that provide directional information to truck routes, directing truck traffic away from sensitive receptors. To protect sensitive receptors from NOX, PM10, PM2.5, and DPM during the construction process, MM AQ-7 requires all construction to meet CARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. implementation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-7 would ensure the Project’s impact on sensitive receptors from substantial pollutant concentrations would be reduced to less than significant ((Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.2-25 through 4.2-33)
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Plans shall specify that all architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized onsite for daily warehouse and business operations. The Project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement.
In addition, the limitation to use only electric-powered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.
Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/business entity, the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a signed document (verification document) noting that the Project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only 929
electric-powered equipment for daily operations. This verification document shall be signed by authorized agents for the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entities. In addition, if applicable, the tenant/business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electricpowered.
If emergency generators are proposed, the Project applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible, the Project applicant shall provide written justification for the use of diesel-powered emergency generators to be approved by the City’s Building Department. Feasibility of nondiesel generators would be explored on the basis of fire and life safety purposes, relative cost and availability of non-diesel generators, as well as whether or not the non-diesel generator has the capacity to supply the required level of power for the required uses.
MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the Project site;
Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day;
Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ridematching service; and Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
930
The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines. The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.
MM AQ-5 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped.
MM AQ-6 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use
Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, §2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
Truck travel is restricted to identified truck routes only In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.
MM AQ-7 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Ontario that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final offroad emissions standards. Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment 931
shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment.
A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.
2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.3-15 through 4.3-18)
Explanation: Sensitive Plants
No special-status plant species are expected to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat. Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for potentially occurring special-status plant species, nor reduce population size of sensitive plant species below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis (if present). Therefore, the development of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any plant specifies identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation or by the CDFW or USFWS. Hence, no significant impact to special-status plant species or their habitat would occur.
Sensitive Wildlife
No special-status wildlife species were directly recorded on-site; however, the California horned lark and loggerhead shrike have moderate-high occurrence potential because they are well known to utilize agricultural areas. However, these species were deemed by USFWS to be too widespread and common to warrant listing as threatened or endangered, and as such, were removed from formal sensitive species status. Impacts to agricultural-related habitats could amount to an incremental reduction of potential foraging habitat for certain species that may be considered locally adverse.
However, Project site development would not eliminate significant amounts of habitat for these species, nor reduce population size below self-sustaining levels on a local or regional basis. Therefore, less than significant impacts to these species would be expected. 932
Nesting Birds
No nesting birds were incidentally observed during surveys conducted on the Project site in 2020. Although many native bird species are not protected by California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), most are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; California Fish and Game Code (CDFG)) Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 which prohibit take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs. If it were later determined that active nests of any of special-status or native species would be lost or indirectly impacted as a result of sitepreparation, it could result in adverse impacts and would be in conflict with these regulations. If construction activities (e.g., site disturbances) are proposed during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey(s) may be required prior to development. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season (generally September 1 to December 31) usually eliminates the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most native species known from the site vicinity and ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG Code. Compliance with the
MBTA/CDFG Code would be necessary prior to development; however, no special permit or approval is typically required in most instances where BUOW are not present. Development activities performed outside of the avian breeding season would generally eliminate the need to conduct pre-activity nesting surveys for most common native species (other than BUOW) known from the Project site vicinity, and likely ensure that there were no constraints to construction relative to the MBTA/CDFG codes.
Although not expected on the Project site, due to absence of preferred nesting habitat, the tricolored blackbird would need to be considered under CESA due to its current status as endangered.
Based on the General Habitat Assessment, absence of breeding habitat, and that no known colony sites are present in the Project site vicinity, no significant impacts are expected either to potential breeding or foraging habitat under CESA or CEQA.
Furthermore, no special-status bat species are expected to occur onsite due to absence of preferred habitat. If construction activities (e.g., tree removal) are proposed during the breeding season, acoustic bat surveys will be conducted prior to development to determine current roosting status and species present. The breeding season of native bat species in California is generally from April 1 through August 31. CDFW shall be notified of any active maternity roosts within the construction zone. If non-maternity day roosts or hibernacula are found in trees scheduled to be removed, in crevices or man-made structures within the grading footprint, the individuals will be safely evicted following approved CDFW guidelines developed specifically for the species and location. No special-status 933
bat species are expected to occur on the Project site due to absence of preferred habitat. Results of pre-construction bats surveys would determine specific measures if applicable.
Implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-3 will require that nesting bird and roosting bat surveys be conducted and acoustic surveys prior to construction start to reduce impacts to nesting birds and roosting sites for bats to less than significant levels.
Burrowing Owl
BUOW is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. No direct observations or BUOW sign (feathers, pellets, fecal material, prey remains, etc.) were recorded during the 2020 focused surveys or habitat-based surveys.
However, several California ground squirrel burrows potentially suitable to accommodate BUOW were recorded on-site. None of the potential burrows inspected during the surveys were determined to be currently occupied or recently used by BUOW based on the lack of owl observations and absence of sign around burrow entrances. Despite that fact that the site has been exposed to long-standing disturbances, the BUOW (Low-Moderate occurrence potential) often occur in less than optimal and/or disturbed conditions. If Project site-preparation activities occur within potential BUOW habitat, a pre-construction BUOW/Initial Take Avoidance Survey conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the 2012 Staff Report is required by CDFG to determine if active nests of species protected by the MBTA and/or CDFG codes are present in the construction zone for CEQA compliance and to subsequently evaluate appropriate measures that may reduce potential adverse project-related impacts. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the MBTA to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario that either of the following has been accomplished:
Conduct grading activities and vegetation removal outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds, including raptors.
If vegetation removal will occur during the bird nesting season, between February 1 and August 31, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are found, they shall be flagged and the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nest (generally a minimum of 200 feet up to 500 feet for raptors and a minimum of 50 feet up to 300 feet for passerine species, with specific buffer widths to be determined by a qualified biologist). The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
934
MM BIO-2 The Project Applicant shall conduct surveys for tricolored blackbird across all suitable breeding and foraging habitat with the Project site. If tricolored blackbirds are identified, the Project Proponent shall avoid all occupied habitat on-site. If on-site avoidance is infeasible, the Project Proponent shall apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and shall mitigate for the loss of all habitat through the acquisition, conservation, and management of in-kind habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio, or as approved by the final ITP. Habitat shall be conserved in perpetuity via conveyance of a conservation easement to a CDFW-approved conservation entity and a management fund (endowment) shall be established by the Project Proponent consisting of an interest-bearing account with the amount of capital necessary to generate sufficient interest and/or income to fund all monitoring, management, and protection of the conservation area(s), including but not limited to, reasonable administrative overhead, biological monitoring, invasive species and trash removal, fencing and signage replacement and repair, law enforcement measures, long-term management reporting, and other actions designed to maintain and improve the habitat of the conserved land(s), in perpetuity. A Property Analysis Record, or substantially equivalent analysis, shall be conducted to determine the management needs and costs described above, which will then be used to calculate the capital needed for the management of the fund. Except for uses appropriate to a habitat conservation area, the public shall not have access to the mitigation area(s), and no activities shall be permitted within the site, except maintenance of habitat, including the removal of nonnative plant species, trash, and debris, and the installation of native plant materials.
MM BIO-3 Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance and vegetation removal to determine whether the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species. This survey work will occur between late-spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).
If the results of the bat survey finds a total of a single roosting individual of a special-status bat species or 25 or more individuals of non-specialstatus bat species with potential to be present in the study area (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, pallid bat, western red bat, and western yellow bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devices/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work, and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the roost(s).
935
MM BIO-4 Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit for any ground disturbing activity, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for BUOW across all suitable breeding, wintering, and foraging habitat with the Project site, within 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities. If burrowing owls are identified, the Project Proponent shall either avoid all impacts on-site or conserve non-impacted occupied habitat on-site and/or conserve occupied burrowing owl habitat off-site at a minimum total 2:1 ratio of conserved to impacted habitat. Coordination with the CDFW shall occur to mitigate for the loss of habitat through the acquisition, conservation, and management of in-kind habitat. Lands conserved shall include 1) sufficiently large acreage with fossorial mammals present; 2) permanent protection through a conservation easement for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use; 3) development and implementation of a mitigation land management plan to address long-term ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls; and 4) funding for the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.
b. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.3-19) Explanation: Wildlife Movement Corridors
The Project site is surrounded by various forms of existing development, and therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Project site occupies an important location relative to regional wildlife movement. As such, Project implementation would not be expected to have any substantial effect on local or regional wildlife movement. The Project site is currently developed with manmade structures and is surrounded by development and/or existing agricultural uses. The Project site is separated from regional wildlife movement corridors associated with the Prado Damn Flood Control Basin and Santa Ana River. Therefore, the Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor.
Furthermore, no BUOW or nesting birds were incidentally observed during surveys conducted on the Project site, however there is still potential for these species to occur on-site. In order to avoid direct impacts, the Project would implement MM BIO-1, which would require that vegetation removal be conducted outside of the nesting season for migratory birds to avoid direct impacts and that, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be performed within three days prior to vegetation removal. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
936
MM BIO-1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity, the Project Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the MBTA to the satisfaction of the City of Ontario that either of the following has been accomplished:
Conduct grading activities and vegetation removal outside of the nesting season (February 1 to August 31) to avoid impacts to nesting birds, including raptors.
If vegetation removal will occur during the bird nesting season, between February 1 and August 31, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, demolition activities, and grading. If active nests are found, they shall be flagged and the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nest (generally a minimum of 200 feet up to 500 feet for raptors and a minimum of 50 feet up to 300 feet for passerine species, with specific buffer widths to be determined by a qualified biologist).
The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
3. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.4-27 through 4.4-28)
Explanation: The California Historical Resource Information System (CHRIS) records search identified a total of 23 cultural resources investigation that have been previously conducted within a 1-mile mile radius buffer around the Project site, with two studies adjacent to the Project site (see Draft Subsequent EIR Appendix D). Since completion of the cultural resources report, additional archaeological resources were found at two locations near the Project site.
Despite actions taken to ensure that all cultural resources are identified prior to construction, including record searches and on-site field surveying, there remains a possibility that undiscovered, buried archaeological resources might be encountered during grading activities. If discovered, impacts to those resources would be potentially significant. In order to minimize any potential impact to the environment, impacts to archaeological resources are considered potentially significant, and mitigation measures are required to ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered archaeological resources that may be encountered during grading. The
implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 below and MM TCR 1 would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 937
Following the completion of Project construction and disturbances to the Project site, the Project operation will not include further ground disturbing activities, and it is not anticipated to cause a substantial or adverse change in the significant of an archaeological resource since construction will be completed and mitigation measures applied.
Therefore, operational impacts will be less than significant.
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project site, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work at the Project sites. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for their review and approval.
MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve 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 grounddisturbing 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 938
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 PRC §5097.98, and Health and Safety Code §7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California PRC §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 §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 §15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, 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. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.6- 13 through 4.6-14)
Explanation: Lateral Spreading and Subsidence
Liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for the Project, and potential for lateral spreading would be low. The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater.
Based on the conditions encountered in the borings and trenches conducted for the Geotechnical Feasibility Study, groundwater was not observed within 30 feet of the ground surface, and recent water 939
level data obtained from a SWRCB indicates that the highest groundwater levels range around 83 feet bgs in the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, based on anticipated groundwater depths, it is not expected that groundwater would affect excavations for the foundations and utilities. However, minor subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of soil removal, due to settlement and machinery working; the subsidence is estimated to be 0.10 feet.
Furthermore, removal and recompacting of the near-surface native fill soils is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of 7 to 17 percent. Additional exploration during the design level investigation will help to refine the potential shrinkage estimate. If a more accurate and precise shrinkage estimate is desired, a shrinkage study will be performed involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples.
In accordance with Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1, SCG will perform a shrinkage study involving several excavated test-pits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples; special care will need to be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils; protection for embedded metal improvements will be required; additional chloride content testing be performed on soils. Therefore, with
implementation of MM GEO-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Consolidated and Collapsible Soils
Highly organic topsoil materials were encountered at the trench locations performed in the planted areas on the Project site. The concentrations of these soils are considered to be negligible and therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not considered to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes.
Therefore, in accordance with MM GEO-2 and MM GEO-3, all of the manure and any organic topsoil will be removed from the site or utilized in non-structural areas, provided that they are cleaned of highly organic materials and can be blended with the underlying soils in order to reduce the organic content to less than three percent throughout; and additional soluble sulfate testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils which are present at the proposed building pad grades.
Furthermore, any remedial grading performed will be in accordance with MM GEO-4, which ensures the removal of any existing undocumented fill soils and near-surface native alluvium will be 940
replaced with materials such as compacted structural fill. With application of MM GEO-4, post-construction settlements of the proposed structures are expected to be within tolerable limits.
Therefore, with implementation of MM GEO-2 through MM GEO-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
MM GEO-1 A shrinkage study will be performed involving several excavated testpits where in-place densities are determined using in-situ testing methods instead of laboratory density testing on small-diameter samples. Special care will be taken to properly moisture condition and maintain 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as newly placed fill soils. Additional expansion index testing will be performed at the time of the designlevel geotechnical investigation. Protection (protective coating, metal plating, corrosive inhibitors, etc.) for embedded metal improvements will be installed and additional chloride content testing will be performed on soils.
MM GEO-2 All manure and any organic topsoil will be removed during initial site stripping and that additional organic testing will be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation. Prior to grading, grubbing, and segregating of the manure in the cattle pens and the highly organic soils in the planted areas will be done. These soils will be removed from the site or reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as landscape planters. Any additional organic materials encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading and reutilized in nonstructural areas, such as landscape planters. Any additional organic materials encountered in buried fills will also be segregated during grading.
MM GEO-3 Additional soluble sulfate testing would be conducted during the design-level geotechnical investigation and at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils.
MM GEO-4 The remedial grading would be performed to remove the existing undocumented fill soils as well as a portion of the near-surface native alluvium and replace these materials as compacted structural fill. The over excavation would extend to a sufficient depth so that the native soils that will remain in place below the recommended depth of over excavation will not be subject to significant load increases from the foundations of the new structures.
b. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.6-14 through 4.6-15)
Explanation: The Project site currently operates with agricultural uses and is frequently disturbed by human and machine activity. A Phase I 941
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project to review the susceptibility of subsurface geologic units to provide paleontological resources as well as review records for fossil localities near the Project site. No paleontological resources or unique geologic formations were identified on the Project site during the field survey. A records search within a onemile radius of the Project site did not yield any fossil localities and there were no fossil localities identified within the Project site boundaries. The Project site is considered low to moderate sensitivity for paleontological resources. The Project would require remedial grading to remove all existing undocumented fill soils and near-surface alluvial soils. Over excavation to depths of 4 to 6 feet bgs is anticipated; however, design-level investigation could result in additional over excavation requirements. Should excavation exceed a depth of 10 feet bgs, there is the potential to encounter paleontological resources. Therefore, MM GEO-5 will be required to ensure the impacts related to grading activities that have the potential to encounter unknown, buried resources would be reduced to less than significant.
MM GEO-5 Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of 10 feet below the surface to determine if older, paleontologically-sensitive sediments are present. If present, full-time monitoring would be implemented. Prior to the start of construction, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. The Project’s PRMP would implement the following procedures:
A trained and qualified paleontological monitor would perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native sediments below 10 feet in depth. The monitor will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from Lead Agency and Client representatives.
Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate personnel
942
5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.18-23 through 4.8-25)
Explanation: Construction
Project-related construction activities would involve the use of larger amounts of hazardous materials than would Project operation.
Construction activities would include the use of materials such as fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction. According to the City’s Fire Department Hazardous Materials standards, the materials used would be in small quantities or stored in such a manner as to reduce any safety hazards. The use of these materials would also be temporary and short-term or single-use in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project’s construction phase.
Project construction workers would also be required to conduct the safe handling of hazardous materials use as proposed in MM HAZ-4.
Project operation, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Furthermore, strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) would be required through the duration of the Project construction phase. Therefore, hazards to the public or the environment arising from the routine use of hazardous materials during Project construction would be less than significant. 943
Grading Activities
Grading activities required to develop the Project would involve the disturbance of on-site soils. There is the potential for the discovery of contamination during grading activities, due to potential for chemical constituents to accumulate in the ponds and become trapped in the sediment (i.e., pesticides, heavy metals, or chemicals).
Furthermore, site grading requires the removal of Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs), where areas of staining were observed.
Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines. The handling and transport of these materials and exposure to contaminated soils for workers and the surrounding environment could result in a significant impact. Contaminated soils encountered during grading would be required to be removed and disposed of off-site in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidelines. MM HAZ-2 would further reduce these risks, as a Phase II subsurface assessment would be required. Site grading also requires the removal of ASTs, where areas of staining were observed, and septic tanks prior to site development. A demolition permit from San Bernardino County Building & Safety Division will be required to remove the septic tank(s). MM HAZ-5 would be applied to these activities prior to the commencement of construction activities.
The historic and current use of the Project site as a dairy-production farm may produce methane gas in the subsurface from animal wastes. A methane assessment was conducted to assess
subsurface methane levels across a portion of the site. Based on the results of this investigation, methane gas was detected in subsurface vapor probes at maximum concentrations of approximately 10 percent of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane. The methane survey conducted is a preliminary investigation that identified methane on site, and further investigation is required to determined maximum concentrations across the project site. MM HAZ-1 would be applied in order to minimize risks associated with the risk of methane encountered on the Project site.
Demolition
Demolition of buildings and equipment on-site has the potential to expose and disturb asbestos containing materials (ACMs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-based paint (LBP), and mercury. Project site buildings were constructed prior to bans on ACBMs, PCBs, and LBP coming into effect. Such releases could pose significant risks to persons living and working in and around the Project site, as well as to Project construction workers. Before demolition, a comprehensive ACM survey would be conducted to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures, pursuant to MM HAZ-6. MM HAZ-6 would be
944
incorporated to reduce the risk from ACMs. The removal of hazardous materials, such as PCBs, mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, shall be completed in accordance with applicable regulations.
The potential exposure of construction workers to ACMs, PCBs, LBP, or mercury is a potentially significant impact. Through MM HAZ-6, survey of existing structures prior to demolition will characterize the potential exposure and further reduce impacts from the potential release of these materials.
Operation
Operation of the Project would involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials, such as industrial cleansers, greases, and oils for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The industrial park, intended for warehousing and ancillary office uses, may also involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; the specific substances and quantities of such materials are presently unknown.
The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be governed by existing regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Additionally, the proposed Project would also be operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.
Mandatory compliance with laws and regulations, would ensure that operational impacts would be less than significant.
The MM HAZ-1 through 6 require further testing for methane and a Phase II subsurface assessment to evaluate subsurface sediments for chemical risks to human health once the ponds are drained.
Additionally, a SMP would be required to ensure safe and appropriate handling, transportation, off-site disposal, reporting, oversight, and protocols used during construction to protect the health and safety of workers and future residents. The mitigation measures also require the proper removal and disposal of ASTs and ACMs. These measures will reduce risks to human health and potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels. In addition to implementation of MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6, the Project would also be compliant with regulatory requirements and PPPs; therefore, the overall impact is reduced to less than significant. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards have been identified.
MM HAZ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall conduct further testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) methane assessment guidelines. The Project applicant shall 945
prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department.
This survey and recommendation shall include a post-construction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 ppmv, should any such levels occur.
MM HAZ-2 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animal-related wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.
MM HAZ-3 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and include the following:
A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per
California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the State to accept hazardous materials.
Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present 946
per the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (DTSCSLi) and the U.S.
EPA Regional Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (EPARSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection; each contractor will be required to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general project safety requirements. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and sampling frequency. Anticipated testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another approved vapor suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.
All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.
MM HAZ-4 Construction period testing. Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The CRMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination, if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations.
947
The CRMP shall:
Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively.
Require the preparation of a Project-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and training for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in accordance with State and Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the personnel responsible for Health and Safety Plan
implementation.
Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously-unknown hazardous materials be encountered during construction activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or groundwater samples in the newly-discovered affected area by a qualified environmental professional prior to further work, as appropriate. The analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency. The
environmental professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these
recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the County or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction and demolition permits.
MM HAZ-5 Prior to the commencement of any construction-related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required SBCFD Hazardous Materials Division regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated January 10, 2020, soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. USTs shall be removed through reviewing available files at the SBCFD and ensuring the proper removal of the UST and a subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had impacted the subsurface. 948
MM HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project applicant shall conduct a comprehensive ACM survey to identify the locations and quantities of ACM in above-ground structures. The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.
b. Accident or Upset
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7-22)
Explanation: The Project site was identified on the Waste Discharge System (WDS) database as an agricultural facility with designated/influent or solid wastes that pose a significant threat to water quality (dairy waste ponds). As noted in Impact 4.8-1, the Project Applicant shall perform a Phase II subsurface assessment, pursuant to MM HAZ-2 of the sediments after the ponds have been drained. If the Phase II subsurface assessment detects chemical risks to human health and the environment due to sediments in the ponds, the Project Applicant is required to prepare a soils management plan, and any engineering or administrative controls or long‐term operations and maintenance plan that is required by DTSC. Implementation of MM HAZ-2 would require a Phase II subsurface assessment to evaluate subsurface sediments for chemical risks to human health once the ponds are drained. Implementation of MM HAZ-2 will reduce risks to human health and potential impacts of hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels. In addition to implementation of MM HAZ-2, the Project would also be compliant with regulatory requirements and PPPs; therefore, the overall impact is reduced to less than significant. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hazards have been identified.
MM HAZ-2 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animal-related wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified. Any contamination identified as a result of such 949
testing/sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.
6. NOISE
a. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.11-15 through 4.11-21)
Explanation: Construction
During construction, exterior noise levels could affect the residential neighborhoods surrounding the construction site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project construction area is an existing residence located approximately 82 feet from the Project site boundary, on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue.
The City has not established noise limits for temporary construction activities. Chino’s City limits are adjacent to the southern boundary of the Project site. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the City of Chino’s construction noise threshold of 65 dBA for noise generated for 30 minutes or more in an hour when measured at an affected residential property, is used to analyze construction noise impacts to affected residences in the City of Ontario. Chino’s MC §15.44.030 only permits construction to occur between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Construction noise levels cannot exceed 70 dBA for a period of fifteen minutes in an hour or 85 dBA for any period of time. As shown in Table 4.11-9 on page 4.11-16 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, if construction equipment were located on the Project site boundary it would not exceed 85 dBA. However, if equipment nearest to a sensitive receptor were to remained stationary for over fifteen minutes, construction noise would exceed the City’s 70 dBA threshold. MM NOI-1 prohibits heavy construction equipment from remaining stationary for more than fifteen minutes when within 500 feet of sensitive receptors, as noise attenuates based on distance noise and levels would decrease as equipment moves away from sensitive receptors. As shown in Table 4.11-9, at 500 feet from receptors construction noise would not exceed 70 dBA. 950
Therefore, MM NOI-2 would require all stationary equipment to be located a minimum of 500 feet from a sensitive receptor.
The noise levels calculated in Table 4.11-10 on page 4.11-17 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor, show estimated exterior construction noise. Project site and not at a fixed location for extended periods of time. During each construction phases, the distance used in the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) model was 1,286 feet, measured from the center of the Project to the nearest sensitive receptor located to the north. Construction noise would not exceed the 65 dBA threshold at residential properties. In addition, compliance with the Chino MC would minimize impacts from construction noise by limiting construction to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays.
Construction activities would result in a less than significant noise impact.
Operations
Implementation of the proposed Project would create new sources of noise in the Project vicinity. The major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby residences include stationary noise equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners, etc.); truck and loading dock (i.e., slow moving truck on the site, maneuvering and idling trucks, equipment noise); parking areas (i.e., car door slamming, car radios, engine start-up, and car pass-by); and off-site traffic noise.
Mechanical Equipment
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site is the residence on the north side of Eucalyptus Avenue, approximately 82 feet from the Project site boundary. Potential stationary noise sources related to long-term operation of the Project would include mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] equipment) typically generates noise levels of approximately 52 dBA at 50 feet. Based on preliminary site plans, the nearest potential location for a HVAC unit would be on the roof of Building 10, approximately 200 feet from the nearest residential property. HVAC noise levels would attenuate by the distance to approximately 40 dBA, which is well below the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards for residential uses (refer to Table 4.11-6, Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario). Operation of mechanical equipment would not increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels.
Truck and Loading Dock Noise
During loading and unloading activities, noise would be generated by the trucks’ diesel engines, exhaust systems, and brakes during low gear shifting’ braking activities; backing up toward the docks; dropping down the dock ramps; and maneuvering away from the docks. The nearest loading/unloading activities to residential properties would occur along the northern perimeter of the Project site.
951
The proposed Project buildings include dock-high doors for truck loading/unloading and manufacturing/ light industrial operations. The nearest dock-high doors are located approximately 270 feet from the Project site boundary and 380 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. The dock doors are oriented to the south, away from the residences to the north. Loading dock noise is approximately 68 dB at 30 feet. Loading dock noise levels would be approximately 37.9 dBA at the nearest receptor after accounting for distance and the intervening structures. Furthermore, loading dock doors would be surrounded with protective aprons, gaskets, or similar improvements that, when a trailer is docked, would serve as a noise barrier between the interior warehouse activities and the exterior loading area. This would attenuate noise emanating from interior activities, and as such, interior loading and associated activities would be permissible during all hours of the day. Therefore, noise levels associated with truck loading/unloading activities would not exceed the City’s 65 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime noise standards when measured at the nearest residential uses.
Parking Noise
Parking would be scattered throughout the site and located on the north, south, east, and west portions of the Project site and central areas between buildings. The proposed Project would provide 816 parking stalls, 288 trailers stalls, and 259 dock doors. Traffic associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards, which are based on a timeaveraged scale such as the CNEL scale. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-by range from 53 to 61 dBA. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. It should be noted that parking lot noises are instantaneous noise levels compared to noise standards in the hourly Leq metric, which are averaged over the entire duration of a time period. Based on the peak hour trip generation rates in the Traffic Analysis, approximately 274 trips during peak a.m. hours and 323 trips during p.m. hours would be made to and from the Project site each day. At 50 feet from the noise source, the Project’s highest peak hour vehicle trips would generate noise levels of approximately 51.5 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the parking lot. The nearest sensitive receptor is 150 feet from a parking area. Based strictly on distance attenuation, parking lot noise at the nearest receptor would be 42 dBA which is below the City’s nighttime residential noise standard of 45 dBA. Therefore, noise impacts from parking lots would be less than significant 952
Off-Site Traffic Noise
Implementation of the Project would generate increased traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments. According to the Traffic Analysis, the Project would generate 3,656 two-way daily trips which would result in noise increases on Project area roadways. In general, a traffic noise increase of less than 3 dBA is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable. Generally, traffic volumes on Project area roadways would have to
approximately double for the resulting traffic noise levels to increase by 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent increases in ambient noise levels of less than 3 dBA are considered to be less than significant.
Table 4.11-11 on page 4.11-20 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, Phase 1 Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels demonstrates that opening year Project traffic-generated noise levels on Project area roadways would range between 55.5 dBA CNEL and 75.8 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline, and the Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.9 dBA CNEL along Eucalyptus Avenue. Noise impacts from off-site traffic would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Implementation of MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would ensure that construction impacts remain less than significant.
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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.11-15 through 4.11-21)
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.
7. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k), or
953
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 §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?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.15-11 through 4.15-12)
Explanation: 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 §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 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.
Implementation of the 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 954
requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Buildout of the Project and would not cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible in the CRHR with proper mitigation implemented. 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.15-11 through 4.15-12)
MM CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project site, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work at the Project sites. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for their review and approval.
MM TCR-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). A copy of the executed contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve 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 grounddisturbing 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.
955
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 §5097.98, and Health and Safety Code §7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code §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 §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 §15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, nonprofit 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.
D. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
1. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
956
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-9 through
4.1-10)
Explanation: Construction and Operations
The Project proposes to convert the existing Prime Farmland, The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment. The Project will enable future development approvals, including a Development Plan, Tentative Parcel Map(s), and a Development Agreement. The Specific Plan Amendment includes Development Standards and Design Guidelines, where all subsequent development within the Specific Plan Amendment would be required to conform with these Standards and Guidelines. In accordance with the Specific Plan Amendment’s Allowable Uses, commercial crop production and farming would be conditionally allowed within the Business Park (BP) Zoning District and would be permitted by-right in the IndustrialGeneral (IG) Zoning District. Additionally, community gardens, urban farms, and related uses would be administratively allowed within the BP and IG Districts, and kennels and catteries would not be allowed within BP but permitted in the IG District.
The proposed improvements would also include buffering from parking lots, loading and service areas in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Plan Amendment. These requirements support the City’s planned orderly transition of existing agricultural uses to urban uses and include the following:
Site Design: Screen parking areas and loading docks facing the street using landscape buffers planted with screen trees and drought-tolerant vegetation.
Landscape Design: use landscaping to aid in the screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, trash collection areas, loading docks and outside storage from public view.
Buffering and Screening: to alleviate the unsightly appearance of parking lots, loading, and service areas, buffering and screening design features will be used to enhance overall development.
The California Department of Conservation’s FMMP is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status. The classification system is contiguous with U.S. Department of Agriculture soil surveys and current land use. These maps are updated every two years, with the most recent data being from 2016. For CEQA purposes, the following categories are qualified as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land (Public Resource Code §21060.1; California Department of Conservation 2019).
957
The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes, primarily dairy operations, and field crops. Over 40 acres in the southwestern portion of the site are identified as Prime Farmland, and the remainder of the site (approximately 30 acres) is identified as Other Land. The Project would convert the over 40 acres of Prime Farmland from agriculture to urban use, which would be a significant impact as addressed within the TOP 2010 EIR.
As identified in the TOP 2010 EIR, build out of the Ontario Policy Plan would result in conversion of all agricultural-designated land to urban uses; remaining agricultural uses would be retained within 200 acres of the SoCALF preserves. It was determined that the mitigation proposed and considered would not prevent significant impacts from occurring, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2018 for significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural lands with full buildout of the Policy Plan, which allows the decision-making body of the City to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the TOP Final Subsequent EIR. Therefore, consistent with Findings made at the time of certification of the City’s TOP 2010 EIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
Lastly, although implementation of MM AG-1 would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses, with full buildout of the City in accordance with TOP, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Conclusion
As stated above, the City is focusing on developing land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population. Thus, the City’s future development emphasizes mixeduse, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable. Development and implementation of TOP 2010 and 2050 would have significant impacts on agricultural resources in the City. With the development of the Project site, a significant and unavoidable impact will occur. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-9 through 4.1-10)
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing 958
the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying.
In accordance with the findings of the TOP 2010 EIR and as deleted in the SEIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts regarding agricultural conversion to levels that would be less than significant. According to the TOP 2010 EIR findings, while the City maintains a Right-to-Farm ordinance, use of farm equipment and odors associated with dairy farming in the Ontario Ranch area is not compatible with densities proposed in the City’s Land Use Plan. Furthermore, as detailed in the SEIR, several mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of TOP 2010 on agriculture were considered; however, the agriculture development within the City burdened the San Bernardino County region with air quality issues resulting from methane, water quality pollution, and hazardous emissions. None of the mitigation measures considered by the City would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The measures considered are discussed further below. Furthermore, conversion of agricultural lands and loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the Project were considered and addressed in the TOP 2010 EIR.
Considered TOP 2010 EIR Mitigation Measure: Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses. Retention of agricultural uses within the City of Ontario would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Moreover, TOP does not envision long-term use of City properties for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced in the adopted Land Use Plan, which does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City. Preservation of agricultural land uses would therefore conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. The “Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.
Additionally, economic viability of agricultural uses in the City has declined as a result of losing many of the necessary support services. Increasing urbanization, rising land values, and relatively high operational costs have also put City agricultural and dairy farming uses at a competitive disadvantage in regional markets. Ultimately, the long-term viability of agriculture within the City is limited due to the increasing land values, increased water costs, higher labor costs, higher property taxes, competition from other parts of the state, and the growing urbanization of the area. Based on the preceding, retention of on-site agricultural uses is considered infeasible.
Considered TOP 2010 EIR Mitigation Measure: Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site. Replacement of agricultural resources at an off-site location would require the applicant to purchase off-site replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status. Creation of 959
additional Farmland in the City is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action. The potential to provide off-site mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural uses was considered but rejected as infeasible in the TOP 2010 EIR. Using another area within Ontario Ranch for mitigation of impacts related to the Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of on-site mitigation.
Therefore, similar to the reasons why on-site mitigation is not feasible, off-site mitigation within Ontario Ranch is also infeasible. In addition, off-site mitigation within the region is also considered infeasible due to the decreasing economic vitality of agriculture in Ontario Ranch and Southern California and increased urbanization pressures on existing agricultural lands.
Further, creation of new Farmland-status properties outside the City is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol.
Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.
Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site” mitigation strategy would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts. Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at off-site locations is considered infeasible.
Considered 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure: Relocation of Farmland Topsoil.
Relocation of Farmland topsoil would entail removal of the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from Farmland properties and the placement of this soil at sites that have lesser quality soil. This would promote creation of new or additional Farmland status properties in the City, rather than provide for their transition to urban uses.
This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan.
Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.
Further, creation of new Farmland-status by means of imported Farmland topsoil is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extrajurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan. 960
Additionally, excavation and relocation of topsoil would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts affecting biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. Based on the preceding, relocation of Farmland topsoil is considered infeasible.
Considered 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure: Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves. Establishment of conservation easements or preserves is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision providing for transition of agricultural uses to urban uses. This mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment to the Policy Plan. The City has not indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired and has initiated no such action. At the Project site, establishment of agricultural conservation easements or preserves would negate the Project, resulting in a No-Build condition. Based on the preceding, the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.
Considered 2010 TOP EIR Mitigation Measure: Transfer of Development Rights.
SCAG provides the following summary of description and application of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs:
TDR “is a device by which the development potential of a site is severed from its title and made available for transfer to another location. The owner of a site within a transfer area retains property ownership, but not approval to develop. The owner of a site within a receiving area may purchase transferable development rights, allowing a receptor site to be developed at a greater density.”
TDR is most commonly used to preserve agricultural lands, but it can also be used for preserving natural, open space. TDR programs can vary depending on the need of the local jurisdiction but in general there are a few common factors that contribute to the success of a TDR program. These include having a donor site with development constraints, appropriate zoning regulations, and infrastructure requirements.”
The Project Site is not currently entitled for development absent an adopted Specific Plan, and it is unclear what if any development rights would be transferred under a TDR program. Further, there is no designated or contemplated receiving area to accept these development rights. Moreover, a TDR program would preserve agricultural uses at the Project Site rather than further planned transition of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses as envisioned under the Policy Plan.
This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously.
The City of Ontario has not implemented a TDR Program. Implementation of a TDR program would require amending the City Development Code and comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendments are warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such actions. Based on the preceding, implementation of a “Transfer of Development Rights Program” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible. 961
The City has considered but rejected the collection of fees for off-site mitigation of agricultural impacts. Neither the City nor the adjoining counties have adopted fee programs. Absent viable programs in the region, the imposition of fees would not serve to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, an off-site fee mitigation program would not avoid the loss of farmland; would not minimize the effect of the Project; would not repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland; and, absent a viable fee program, would not replace affected farmland with substitute farmland.
Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate or substantially lessen the significant impact of the Project (CRR State CEQA Guidelines §15370; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). The same factors that make on-site mitigation infeasible would apply off-site in the region as well. The challenges to continued agricultural production in the Chino Basin area, also challenge agriculture throughout Southern California (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine [2004] 119 Cal.
App. 4th 1261, 1270-72).
Off-site mitigation would require the City to purchase replacement acreage for Important Farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland. However, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City or the County. In addition, experience indicates a program consisting of the required purchase of agricultural easements on other land or through fee programs for the acquisition of agricultural easements would be of limited utility or benefit. Such a program is inherently dependent upon voluntary agreements by farm owners to sell such easements on their property for an agreed price, which, within the City, is largely driven by the City’s TOP land use designations, population growth, urbanization of the surrounding area, and the limited supply of suitable farmland. In remote areas not planned for development in the near-term, owner’s may be more willing to sell such an easement at a reasonable price but within the region much of the land is already subject to development pressure.
As a result, the most likely result would be a “patchwork” of easements, with some owners more willing than others to sell them, potentially creating a more dispersed development pattern and loss of viability of farmland over time, which would not serve as a feasible measure to mitigate the loss of farmland by the Project. Neither the City nor the County have adopted programs for the acquisition of off-site agricultural easements. Consequently, for the reasons previously outlined, it is determined that off-site mitigation of agricultural resources is neither feasible nor effective in mitigating such impacts.
Overall, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland and conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This finding is consistent with the finding in TOP 2010 EIR; that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts on Important Farmland or the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and thus impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
962
b. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-11) Explanation: Construction and Operations
According to the City’s Zoning Map, the site is within the SP-AG Overlay zone. While sites within the SP AG Overlay zone currently operate with agricultural production, these lands are designated for future urban development in the City’s Policy Plan with land use designations of mixed use to the north and Business Park and Industrial to the east. Property to the south is located within the City of Chino and has an industrial zoning district identified as Airport Development. Property to the immediate west is within the Approved SP area, and contains Business Park and Industrial General land use designations. The area due west of the Approved SP across Euclid Avenue is in the City of Chino are near the City Policy Plandesignated Euclid Avenue Corridor, which is planned to feature a transition to mixed-use development with a focus on retail uses and some higher-intensity residential development. Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of the agricultural use on the Project site, and the surrounding area to the north, south, east, and west is proposed to be developed with uses other than for agricultural purposes.
Because of the provisions in the SP-AG Overlay zone for lands within the Project area, existing nearby agricultural uses would be able to continue via notice in the form of a deed disclosure to future business, or property owners that agricultural nuisances such as noise and odor (see Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.11, Noise), are present and can legally exist so long as the land is not developed otherwise. The deed disclosure ensures that property owners and users within the Project area are aware of nuisances and operations of the nearby agricultural properties to reduce conflicts between existing and proposed uses. Nonetheless, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion
Implementation of MM AG-1 would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses. Nevertheless, with full buildout of the City in accordance with the Policy Plan, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-11)
963
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying
2. AIR QUALITY
a. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18)
Explanation: The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB or SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2016 AQMP
establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving state (California) and national air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP is a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S.
EPA. The plan’s pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1
As shown in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-8: ConstructionRelated Emissions, the Project would not exceed construction emission standards with the implementation of MM AQ-1. However, Project emissions would exceed the operational standard for NOX despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation, as shown in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 are included to reduce 964
operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, even with mitigation, operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.
Consistency Criterion No. 2
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would result in a change of land use designations not reflected in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is conservatively assumed to generate emissions not reflected within the current 2016 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB and is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP. Thus, Phase 1 of the Project is not consistent with the second criterion.
Conclusion
Implementation of the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds following completion of the Project. Although MMs AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce Project emissions by the greatest feasible amount, Project emissions levels would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.
In addition, in accordance with South Coast AQMD Rule 2305 (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2 Regulatory Setting of the Subsequent Draft Subsequent EIR) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this EIR is not taking credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 would reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-17 through 4.2-18)
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-20 through 4.2-25)
Explanation: Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9: Unmitigated 965
Operational Emissions. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.
As indicated in Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-9, operation of the Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX. The majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ 6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ 11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Draft Subsequent EIR Table 4.2-10, Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ 6, operational emissions of NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-20 through 4.2-23)
SC AQ-9 Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the CALGreen Part 11.
SC AQ-10 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with §5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the CALGreen Part 11.
SC AQ-11 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, §2485.
3. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7-18 through 4.7-21)
966
Explanation: Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Project would result in direct emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete. The total GHG emissions generated during all phases of construction were combined and are shown in Table 4.7-2, Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft Subsequent EIR.
The Project would result in the generation of approximately 5,988 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over the lifetime of the Project (assumed to be 30 years), then added to the operational emissions. The amortized Project construction emissions would be 200 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project.
GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as Projectgenerated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators.
Total GHG emissions associated with the Project are summarized in Table 4.7-3, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft Subsequent EIR. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the Project’s unmitigated emissions would be approximately 24,929 MTCO2e annually from both construction (amortized) and operations. Project-related GHG 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. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.
The Project would generate approximately 19,268 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. MM AQ-2 requires the use of electrical off-road equipment such as forklifts and hostlers/yard trucks. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 requires 967
electrical hookups at all loading bays, and MM AQ-6 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.
Standard condition (SC) GHG-1 through SC GHG-9, as required by the CBC, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels to offset the Project’s energy consumption and MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency.
With mitigation, the majority (89 percent) of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions to less than significant levels. While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. However, MM GHG-3 would require that the Project incorporate Project Design Features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points or provide additional mitigation that achieves a 25 percent reduction are considered less than significant. However, at the time of this analysis, the City’s CAP update is underway and the potential timeframes for approval and adoption of the City CAP update are unknown. Once approved, the CAP may implement performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets differing from the current CAP. There is the potential that even after achieving more than 100 points on the current Screening Tables, the Project may conflict with as-yet-unknown performance standards and GHG emissions reduction targets implemented under the anticipated CAP updates, and thereby result in GHG emissions that would be considered to represent a significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Conclusion
In addition to Project Design Features and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, which requires the Project to acquire energy from renewable sources, meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards, and achieve a minimum of 100 points on the CAP Screening Threshold Checklist. Achieving 100 points ensures that 968
the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050, but the Project’s GHG emissions remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1
through MM GHG-3, the Project’s impact on GHG emissions is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7-18 through 4.7-21)
Standard Conditions and Requirements:
SC GHG-1 Require construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the CCR §2449.
SC GHG-2 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.
SC GHG-3 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Requirements (§17.06.030 of the City’s MC).
SC GHG-4 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the CALGreen Part 11.
SC GHG-5 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the CALGreen Code Part 11.
SC GHG-6 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410.1 of the CALGreen Code Part 11.
SC GHG-7 Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the CALGreen Code Part 11.
SC GHG-8 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment in accordance with Section
5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the CALGreen Code Part 11.
SC GHG-9 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, §2485.
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in the Section 4.2, Air Quality. The following additional mitigation is also required.
969
MM GHG-1 Project development proposals with building permit applications on file with the City prior to approval and adoption of updates to the December 16, 2014 CAP shall implement Screening Table
Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.
The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple
development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.
b. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7-21 through 4.7-35)
Explanation: City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.
Table 4.7-4, Community CAP Consistency evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project to the applicable measures of the Community CAP. As discussed in the table, the proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable measures. By using energy more efficiently, harnessing renewable energy to power buildings, recycling waste, and enhancing access to sustainable transportation modes, the City can keep dollars in local economy, create new green jobs, and improve community quality of life. As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project would not conflict with the goals of the Community CAP. 970
The CAP Appendix B, Greenhouse Gas Emissions CEQA
Thresholds and Screening Tables (CAP Screening Tables), establishes a points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project. The CAP Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. Table 4.7-5, GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development, identifies potential design features and their associated scores. The City is also considering additional design features, but they have not yet been assigned point values as part of the ongoing CAP update process. The Project Applicant may work with the City to determine point values for additional design features with the goal of achieving a minimum of 100 points. Table 4.7-5 shows that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables.
As noted above, implementation of MM GHG-3 would require future development accommodated under the proposed Project to be designed to achieve at least 100 points on the City’s GHG Screening Threshold Table. Implementation of MM GHG-3 would ensure that future Project development is consistent with the City’s Community CAP and 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.
Conclusion
In addition to Project Design Features and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and PPPs, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed City’s threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 (refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality), as well as MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, which requires the Project to acquire energy from renewable sources, meet or exceed CALGreen Code Tier 2 standards, and achieve a minimum of 100 points on the CAP Screening Threshold Checklist. Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050, but the Project’s GHG emissions remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1
through MM GHG-3, the Project’s impact on GHG emissions is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
971
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in Section 4.2, Air Quality and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, above.
4. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Conflict
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.10-6 through 4.10-20)
Explanation: The Project consists of a SPA to allow for development of an industrial and business park on eight parcels covering approximately
71.69 acres in the City. The development would include six buildings ranging from 61,300 sf to 530,460 sf in building size. This would allow for the development of approximately 1,640,690 sf of industrial and business park buildings.
The 71.69-acre Project site’s proposed industrial and business park use is inconsistent with the Project site’s current TOP land use designation, which is currently 56 acres of LMDR and 18 acres of BP (the Project proposes approximately 12 acres of BP, and approximately 60-acres of IND, to facilitate development of the Project). The Project SPA would provide a land use plan, circulation plan, streetscape plan, infrastructure service plan, grading plan, maintenance plan, phasing plan, design guidelines, development regulations, and implementation measures to guide the development of the Project site. Although the Project would be inconsistent with the City’s current TOP (a significant unavoidable impact), this would be remedied upon the City’s planned adoption of TOP 2050 Update, which is scheduled for City approval in August 2022. Should the Project follow approval of TOP 2050 (which proposes the site as BP and IND land uses consistent with the Project’s proposed SPA), the Project would be consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 land use designations.
The Project would allow for up to 227,951 sf of business park building space to be developed on a total of 11.6 acres. This would be developed with business park buildings that would allow for the development of uses such as offices, technology centers, research and development, enterprises, light manufacturing, and
warehouse/distribution uses. The Project would allow up to 1,412,739 sf of industrial building space to be constructed. This would be comprised of 60 acres and would allow for the development of uses such as general and light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse/distribution, and e-commerce fulfillment center operations.
972
Below is an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
The Ontario Plan Compatibility
An analysis of the Project’s consistency with Citywide goals in the current TOP is provided in Table 4.10-6, Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP). Because CEQA Impact Threshold 4.10-2 emphasizes consistency with land use goals “adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect,” Table 4.10-6 focuses on consistency with the City’s TOP Elements that address environmental issues. Goals and policies that do not address environmental effects or are not applicable to the Project are not addressed below. Note that the following TOP consistency analysis is based upon Project consistency with the City’s current TOP. While the Project is consistent with the current TOP goals and policies noted below, the Project’s proposed land use designations as reflected in the proposed SPA are inconsistent with current TOP land use designations of LMDR and BP, which represents a significant impact. As discussed further below, this land use inconsistency would be remedied upon the City’s approval of the proposed TOP 2050 Update planned for 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.
5. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
b. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.14-18 through 4.14-25)
Explanation: 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 criteria:
Low VMT Area Screening
Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria are presumed in a less than significant impact.
973
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. 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.
Low Trip Generating Uses Screening
The City Guidelines indicate that small development projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact, subject to discretionary approval by the City. Trips generated by the Project’s proposed land uses have been estimated based on trip generation rates collected by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Based on information contained in the Project’s LOS based traffic study (see Appendix I2, VMT Analysis, Low Trip Generating Uses Screening), the Project is anticipated to generate more than 110 daily trips. The Low Trip Generating Uses screening threshold is not met.
Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
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.
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.
974
Project Generated VMT
The City Guidelines state that projects not screened through the steps above should complete VMT analysis and forecasting through the SBTAM model to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. The first step in the analysis is to calculate project generated VMT and compare it to the City’s adopted impact threshold. 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. It was also the tool used to establish the City’s impact threshold, so it is the appropriate tool to conduct the analysis to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison of project generated VMT to the adopted threshold.
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 socio-economic 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.
At the time of this analysis, future tenants are not known. Therefore, to perform a more conservative 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.
Based on these employment generation rates; the Project is expected to generate approximately 1,630 employees. Project 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 its 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.
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.
975
Table 4.13-3 of the DRAFT SUBSEQUENT EIR presents a comparison between baseline project generated VMT per SP to the City’s impact threshold. The baseline Project-generated VMT per SP is 43.30 or 19.61 percent above the City’s threshold, therefore a significant impact will occur.
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 in areas that are characteristically suburban in context are noted to be limited to a maximum VMT reduction of 15 percent, which is not enough to reduce Project-generated VMT to a level below the City’s adopted significance threshold. Finally, as future Project design features and building tenants are not yet known, reductions in VMT related to the above TDM measures cannot be accurately estimated or guaranteed. Therefore, the Project’s transportation impact based on VMT is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact would be significant, unavoidable, and unmitigable for the Project.The VMT reduction measures could include VMT measures 1, 6 and 7 above.
Furthermore, MM GHG-1 may provide further VMT reduction depending on which GHG reduction strategies are chosen from the City’s CAP Screening Table discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No other mitigation measures are feasible to reduce VMT below the City’s thresholds of significance.
E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:
1. AESTHETICS
Construction of the Project site would result in alterations to the scenic vistas views.
However, while construction activities on the Project site would modify foreground views as observed by some viewers, construction is temporary and considering the existing nature of the Project site, developed nature of surrounding areas, and the current partially obscured views from existing off-site development, the changes the construction activities 976
would represent are not considered to be substantial. Upon completion of construction on the Project site, the new structure would be a new permanent visual element in the environment. The new structures and operations associated with the Project would change the foreground views of the San Gabriel Mountains as observed from viewers looking north, across the site; however, most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration so views, as seen to the north, would not be significantly adversely affected. The proposed Project and all related projects are required to adhere to City and State regulations designed to reduce and/or avoid impacts related to aesthetics. With compliance with these regulations, cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-1 through 7-3)
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The cumulative study area for agriculture includes the County of San Bernardino.
Throughout the County, numerous related projects exist that would result in the additional conversion of agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. Important Farmland in the County has continually declined and all of the prime agricultural land in the southern area of the City of Ontario is planned for development by the City’s TOP. Continued conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City and the region.
According to the TOP 2010 EIR, agricultural land within the Ontario Ranch area has the potential to be converted to non-agricultural uses, upon buildout of TOP and the Specific Plan overlay. This was identified as a significant cumulative impact in TOP 2010 EIR.
Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the region and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources.
Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region, the Ontario Ranch area, and the Project site, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural resources. The City’s TOP 2010 EIR and the TOP 2010 CEQA Findings determined that implementation of the TOP 2010 would result in individual and cumulative significant and unavoidable impacts to various resources including, agricultural resources. Significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture resources have been identified; refer to Impacts 4.1 1 and 4.1-3. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.1-12.
3. AIR QUALITY
Regional
In accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment contributes to the cumulative impact. Cumulative projects in the local area include new development and general growth in the Project area. The greatest source of emissions in the SoCAB is mobile sources. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (i.e., the SoCAB), SCAQMD considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.
Construction
The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5 under both the California and federal standards and nonattainment for PM10 and lead (Los Angeles County only) under the federal standards. O3 is created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOCs; thus, NOX and VOCs are precursor to O3. Construction of cumulative projects will further 977
degrade the regional and local air quality. The Project would not make a cumulative considerable contribution to PM2.5 or PM10, but air quality from VOCs would potentially be impacted during construction activities. However, as discussed under Impact 4.2-2, implementation of MM AQ-1 would reduce Project-related construction emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds on a Project and cumulative basis.
Therefore, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable with incorporation of mitigation.
Operation
For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact.
Operation of the Project, after incorporation of mitigation, would still result in emissions in excess of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds for NOX. Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable and therefore significant and unavoidable.
Localized
Under SCAQMD guidance, projects that exceed the project-specific significance threshold of 10 in a million are considered to be cumulatively considerable (SCAQMD 2003). Per the MATES IV study, the proposed Project is in an area that has an estimated cancer risk of about 898.83 in a million. Project-related construction activities would result in a cancer risk of 7.0 in a million to the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR). Development and operation of the proposed Project would result in cancer risk of 2.94 in a million to the MEIR, which would be below 10 in a million.
As a result, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to the overall elevated levels of DPM in the SoCAB. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to health risk impacts in the SoCAB is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.2-33 through 4.2-34)
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative study area for biological resources includes the southwestern San Bernardino County region. This area consists of a variety of land uses that includes agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The agricultural areas may include sensitive habitats which may contain special-status plants, migratory bird species, and jurisdictional resources. However, as discussed above the Project would implement mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the identified species to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, and impacts would be less than cumulatively significant.
Project development would not involve the removal of critical habitat and is not expected to make a considerable contribution to the decline of wildlife species. The Project would remove potential raptor foraging habitat through development of the warehousing and business park structures.
Although the existing agriculture may provide foraging habitat for raptors, it is not expected to be valuable, as the lands are actively maintained to minimize use by small mammals (prey for raptors) and active ground squirrel management programs are continually implemented. This loss of potential raptor foraging habitat would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of raptors.
978
Mitigation has been incorporated into the Project that would avoid direct impacts to any potentially sensitive wildlife species that may occur on-site. Therefore, the mitigation measures for the proposed Project would mitigate the potential of the Project to cumulatively combine with other projects; and the Specific Plan Amendment would not contribute to the cumulative loss of any special status wildlife species.
According to the several field surveys, none of the potential burrows identified on the Project site were determined to be currently occupied by BUOW. MM BIO-4 would be implemented to further reduce potential BUOW impacts to less than significant levels.
The types of birds potentially affected are common to the region and the number of individuals would be limited given the type of vegetation proposed for removal (agriculture, ornamental plantings). Based on the types of species and expected limited number of nesting pairs potentially affected, development of the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of native nesting bird populations. However, because native birds are protected by MBTA, mortality to a single native bird due to the Project would be in violation of the MBTA, CESA or FESA CESA.
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to nesting birds would be less than cumulatively significant.
The General Habitat Assessment also indicated that the Project would not impact CDFW jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats. Thus, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the regional decline of jurisdictional waters.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. In the immediate vicinity of the Project site, no significant cultural resources were identified that if altered could combine with the effects of the Project to result in a cumulatively significant impact to cultural resources. Additionally, cultural resources investigations would be required for other projects before the City would permit ground disturbances or demolition or substantial alteration of existing structures. Such investigations would identify resources on the affected project sites that are or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Such investigations would also recommend mitigation measures to protect and preserve cultural resources. The proposed Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of cultural resources that could be inadvertently discovered on the Project site to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
The Project could result in potential site-specific impacts to currently unknown archaeological resources discovered during grading and trenching activities. Other projects within the cumulative study area also have the potential to result in damage and/or loss to these resources. The combination of the Project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and County would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, County, and local regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation.
Similar to the Project, these projects also would be required to implement and conform to mitigation measures, which would be likely to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Although in the process of development, some known or unknown resources may be lost, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be cumulatively considerable. In addition, 979
implementation of MM CUL-1 would reduce Project-specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.4-28)
6. ENERGY
The areas considered for cumulative impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies are the service areas of SCE and SoCalGas, respectively, described above in Section 4.5.1.
Other projects would generate increased electricity and natural gas demands. However, all projects within the SCE and SoCalGas service areas would be required to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code, which would contribute to minimizing wasteful energy consumption. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Geology and soils impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in Geology and soils impacts are site-specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts.
Like the Project, future development projects would be required to comply with applicable state and local building regulations, including the most recent CBC. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed in each project’s geotechnical investigation. Further, future developments would be required to comply with environmental analysis and review. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.5-15) Additionally, other projects in the area would involve ground disturbance and could damage paleontological resources that could be buried in those project sites. As with the Project, other projects would require site-specific paleontological analysis that could lead to mitigation requiring monitoring and recovery, identification, and curation of any resources discovered. Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant, and Project contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.6-15)
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under Impact Threshold 4.7-1 are not Project-specific impacts, but the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impact. As discussed previously, incorporation of mitigation would contribute to minimizing emissions, although implementation of the proposed Project would still result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year under the City’s CAP. Therefore, Projectrelated GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.7- 35)
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazards and hazardous waste impacts are typically unique to each site and do not usually contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative development projects would be required to assess potential hazardous materials impacts on the development site prior to grading. The Project and other cumulative projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used and generated as described previously. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance. 980
The areas considered for cumulative airport-related hazards impacts are the airport influence areas of ONT and Chino Airport. Some related projects may be proposed within the safety compatibility zones of the ONT and Chino airport influence areas, and thus could expose the nearby population to potential hazards such as aircraft crashes. Airport land use planning agencies for ONT and Chino Airport regulate development within their safety compatibility zones. Related projects proposed within safety compatibility zones would be required to comply with each safety zone’s respective land use regulations set forth by the affected agencies. After regulatory compliance, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.8-27)
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Hydrology and Drainage
Cumulative projects within the Chino Watershed could increase impervious areas and increase stormwater runoff rates. However, all projects within the watershed would be required to prepare and implement WQMPs that include provisions for the capture and infiltration of runoff or the temporary detention of stormwater runoff in HCOC areas so that post-development runoff discharges do not exceed pre-development runoff rates, in accordance with the NPDES MS4 permit. Thus, no significant cumulative drainage impacts would occur, and Project drainage impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Water Quality
Cumulative projects have the potential to generate pollutants during project construction and operation. All construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs in order to obtain coverage under the Statewide Groundwater Conservation Plan. All projects within the watershed would also be required to prepare and implement WQMPs specifying BMPs, including LID measures, that would be applied during project design and project operation to minimize water pollution from project operation. Furthermore, all future development would be required to comply with applicable local, State and federal requirements, as part of the City’s discretionary review process. This includes compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, which specifically addresses water quality (Municipal Code Article 5, Construction Requirements). Thus, no significant cumulative water quality impacts would occur, and Project water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-18)
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The geographic context for this cumulative analysis includes the City in relation to the City’s TOP, as well as nearby projects in neighboring jurisdictions. Cumulative development would result in substantial changes to existing land use patterns through conversion of agricultural and dairy lands into urban uses pursuant to the General Plan land use designations. Cumulative development would be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted General Plan goals, objectives, and policies, as well as with the City’s Development Code and ALUCP policies. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with TOP and environmental policies that would result in significant adverse environmental effects. The cumulative projects as a whole would continue the steady urbanization of the City, and in particular the continued development of this industrial corridor within the City. 981
Cumulative projects could include General Plan amendments and/or zone changes, modifications to existing land uses. However, such amendments do not necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environment, particularly if the proposed changes involve changes in types and intensity of uses, rather than eliminating application of policies that were specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. As noted above the Project’s proposed land uses were inconsistent with the City’s 2010 TOP at the time of publication of the Draft SEIR. . This Project and cumulative impact were remedied upon the City’s adoption of TOP 2050 Update on August 16, 2022. (Draft Subsequent EIR, pp. 4.10-21) As such, no significant cumulative Land Use and Planning impacts would occur. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.9-18; see Resolution No. 2022-129).
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project site is within the City and its Sphere of Influence is designated Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ)-3, which is defined as areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data. Only areas in the far north of the City have been designated as areas where significant mineral deposits are present or there is a likelihood of their presence, and development should be controlled. Therefore, the development of the Project site would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-11 through 7-12) No cumulative impact would occur.
13. NOISE
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.
982
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. The traffic analysis 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.
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.
983
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 on-site 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 Projectspecific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.11-23 through 4.11-26)
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
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 jobs-housing 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 jobshousing 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.12-10)
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Project 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, 984
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 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 Project 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 2010 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.13-11 through 4.13-12)
16. RECREATION
The Project site would be developed with an industrial use, and no new residents or housing would be introduced to the area. Buildout of the Project would not directly induce population growth or increase demand on parks and recreational resources, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, any future development, such as the Project, would be required to comply with the City’s standard discretionary review process, including provision of adequate on-site recreational amenities, as well as 985
payment of applicable DIF fees to offset impacts to recreational facilities. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-14) Thus, no cumulative impacts would occur.
17. TRANSPORTATION
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.
The 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.14-26)
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 previouslyrecorded 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.15-12)
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
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 986
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 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. 987
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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 4.16-27 through 4.16-28)
20. WILDFIRE
The Project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone and is within a Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) zone. Cumulative projects near the Project site would also be located within LRA zone, and therefore no impact would occur. Moreover, future projects, such as this project, would be required to comply with applicable local and state requirements, including applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code related to fire safety and emergency access. (The Project would not result in significant wildfire hazard impacts following conformance with applicable local and state requirements. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 7-16 through 7-17) Thus, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (§15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below (Draft Subsequent EIR at p. 6-1 through 6-2):
[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.” (§15126.6[b]). “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (§15126.6[e][1])
988
“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.” (§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.” (§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)” (§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.” (§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.” (§15126.6[f][3])
1. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(3) defines as:
. . . set[ting] 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. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking.
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have 989
access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.
For purposes of this analysis, the Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.
2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE
SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. 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; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
The following is a discussion of the land use alternative considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why it was not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.
a. 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 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 §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 sized project 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 sf of 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. (Draft subsequent EIR, p. 6-2 through 6-3)
990
Finding: The City Council rejects the Alternative Development Areas alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative does not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternative would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that there are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project applicant. Therefore, the Alternative Development Areas alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
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.
Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
a. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by §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 single-family 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 6-3 through 6-4)
Impacts: 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.
Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction or demolition activities and related emissions 991
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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; 992
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.
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.
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 be realized under this alternative.
Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be greater under the alternative than compared to the proposed Project.
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, 993
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.
Land Use and Planning
Following approval of the TOP 2050 Update, the No Project/No Build Alternative would not continue the existing agriculture and residential uses.
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. However, the existing Project’s land uses are not consistent with the City’s TOP 2050 General Plan land use designations. Impacts under this alternative would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
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.
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.
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 994
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.
Transportation
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.
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.
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 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 995
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.
Attainment of Project Objectives:
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would eliminate the significant and 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 soils in relation to paleontological resources, noise, population and housing, public services, tribal cultural resources, and utility and service systems. Impacts related to geologic hazards, hazards and hazardous materials and hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development would not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a multi-purpose business park, light industrial and warehousing/logistics complex that is compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods (Objective 1); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses (Objective 2); provide employment opportunities for community residents (Objective 3); facilitate the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized 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).
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and would not provide any of the Project benefits that would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, including creating a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for development; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to geologic hazards, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality.
996
b. Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the current General Plan land uses, and zoning would remain in effect. Development in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning would occur. Following approval of the City’s TOP 2050 Update, 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 6-8 through 6-9)
Impacts: 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.
Air Quality
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses, and the alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impact from the exceedance of NOX emissions. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be similar to that of the proposed Project. Impacts under this alternative would be similar compared to the proposed Project and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Biological Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update 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.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources on the Project site as the proposed Project. Grading or 997
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.
Energy
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would result in the same amount of employment-generating building square footage and employees. Additionally, this alternative would result in a similar number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project.
Therefore, building energy and fuel consumption would be similar under this alternative as compared to the Project.
Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would still occur under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, under the TOP 2050 Update. 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.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would develop the Project site for the same type of business park, industrial and warehousing uses. Therefore, GHG emissions would be similar when compared to the proposed Project, and the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would still implement similar mitigation to that of the proposed Project and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would develop the Project site for business park and industrial uses.
The use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the 998
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. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update, 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.
Land Use and Planning
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would develop the Project site with business park and industrial uses. This alternative would be consistent with TOP 2050 Update and zoning designations and would result in a less than significant impact. The Project’s proposed land uses are consistent with TOP 2050 Update land uses and zoning, and the Project would result in a less than significant impact for land use consistency under the current TOP. Therefore, similar to 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 similar compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would result in a similar development and number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. Similarly, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would implement similar mitigation to that of the proposed Project. Therefore, the alternative would result in similar impacts compared to the Project.
Population and Housing
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update, 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). Impacts under the alternative would be similar compared to the proposed Project due to the alternative’s consistency with TOP 2050 Update land use designations and associated housing projections. 999
Public Services
Similar to the Project, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update would require payment of fees, and compliance with applicable plans and regulations. , This alternative would result in similar impacts to public services compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under the TOP 2050 Update, transportation and traffic impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Project due to the vehicle trips associated with business park, office spaces, and industrial uses. The alternative would be required to implement similar roadway improvements as the Project. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under TOP 2050 Update 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.
Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under TOP 2050 Update would result in similar 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 industrial development allowed by TOP. This No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project for 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 business park and industrial 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 TOP 2050 Update. Therefore, the impacts related to utilities and services systems would be similar compared to the Project.
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in increased impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, and transportation and traffic under the TOP 2050 Update, when compared to the impacts under the Project. Under the TOP 2050 Update, this alternative will have similar impacts compared to the proposed Project related to agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural 1000
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and public services, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
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).
Finding: Following approval of the TOP 2050 Update, the City Council rejected Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, which was analyzed against the TOP 2010, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative:
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) and this alternative is infeasible. See Section 6.0, Alternatives of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Post approval of the TOP 2050 Update, approved August 16, 2022, the Project is now consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations under the TOP 2050 Update, and this alternative is now moot.1
1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Policy Plan. Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan, page 14. Available at https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/07/%5E%5EFinal-Policy-Plan-20220720.pdf. 1001
c. Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description: The Reduced-Intensity Alternative proposes a 25 percent reduction in building area of the proposed industrial warehousing and business park uses. Under this alternative, a total of 1,640,690 sf of industrial and warehouse uses will have a reduction of 410,173 sf and would be developed with 982,838 sf of high-cube 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 6-14)
Impacts: 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 Reduced-Intensity 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 similar to those of the proposed Project.
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.
1002
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.
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 resources with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be similar compared to the Project.
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.
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. 1003
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 related GHG 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 14,451 MTCO2e 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.
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 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.
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. 1004
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 TOP 2050 General Plan, the City’s Development Code, and consistency with airport plans. Therefore, like the proposed Project, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in no impacts related to land use and would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
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 Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures and reduced compared to the proposed Project.
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.
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.
1005
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 sf to 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.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts with a potential to 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.
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.
Attainment of Project Objectives:
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 1006
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 everchanging business market. This alternative would not fully meet Objective 2 to provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.6 million sf of business park and light industrial uses.
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative would not achieve the project benefits to the extent the proposed Project does since a reduction in intensity would generate less job opportunities in the City; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, GHG emissions, land use and planning, and transportation and traffic; and (3) the alternative is infeasible.
4. 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 environmentally-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, 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. 1007
However, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, GHG emissions, 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 environmentallysuperior 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 §15126.6[c]).
G. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
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. 1008
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.
o Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.14, Transportation and Traffic); o Emissions of air pollutants associated with operations (see Section 4.2, Air Quality); and
o 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:
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 CALGreen. 1009
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.
Water Quality
Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins, or employ bio-treatment 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 5-1 through 5-3)
2. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
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? 1010
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 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 removal 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 potentially growth inducing impact. The Project would include various new infrastructure improvements on-site and off-site, including water, wastewater, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, and dry utilities (natural gas, electricity, telecommunications).
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) 2050. 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.
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 growth-inducing 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. 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.
1011
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 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.
Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth
Implementation of the Project would provide development to accommodate regional and 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. (Draft Subsequent EIR, p. 5-1 through 5-8)
1012
SECTION V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines §15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City identifies the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed project:
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Impact 4.1-3: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact 4.2-2: Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.7-1: Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 4.7-2: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions? Transportation and Traffic
Impact 4.14-2: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1013
B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the proposed Project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the Project acceptable even though the FEIR has indicated that there will be eight significant and unavoidable project impacts if the mitigation measures for Impacts 4.1-1, 4.1-3, 4.2-1,
4.2-2, 4.7-1, 4.7-2, and 4.14-2, are implemented. Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, as set forth below, has been prepared.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the Project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project.
Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein, and balancing the benefits of the proposed Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons:
1. Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The Project objectives include creating a professional, well-maintained, and attractive environment for development; providing entitlements and framework for development of business park and light industrial uses; providing employment opportunities for community residents; facilitating the construction of utilities, roads, and other major infrastructure; expanding Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks; and creating an economic engine to drive future growth and spur improvements in the area.
2. Provides Employment Opportunities
The Project would provide for high-quality industrial uses within the City and the TOP area and would increase employment opportunities for City and area residents. The proposed Project would include eight warehouse buildings totaling a maximum development of 5,333,518 square feet of warehouse and office uses and would generate 5,459 employment opportunities.
3. Provides Substantial Infrastructure Improvements
The Project will be responsible for the construction of area-wide infrastructure construction within the Ontario Ranch area, including roadway, water, and sewer and storm drains as set forth in the Draft Subsequent EIR and Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment. The Project would construct improvements and infrastructure consistent with the 2050 TOP and the City’s various master plans for roadways and sewers, among others.
4. Consistency with the Regional Goals in the RTP/SCS
SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high 1014
quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands.
The proposed Project would create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land. The implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate the construction of roads and other major infrastructure investments that will ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The Specific Plan would expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional networks, and the vehicular and pedestrian improvements called for in the Specific Plan would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and visitors. Additionally, all modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by state, regional, and local regulations. The proposed Specific Plan would preserve and ensure access to the local public transportation near the Project site. The proposed project would improve and maintain local and area-serving transportation systems to maximize efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the proposed Project would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability strategies.
5. Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan The Project will implement GHG emissions reduction measures specified in the Draft Subsequent EIR and will comply with the City’s adopted CAP , which strives to achieve GHG reductions City-wide that comply with the State’s reduction requirements. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The GHG emissions reduction target established under the CAP is 30 percent under year 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels. To meet this goal and to supplement statewide initiatives, the City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City before 2020. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.