Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 13 of 24)

I. THE PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE SEIR AND

THERE IS A FAIR ARGUMENT THE PROJECT WILL CAUSE MORE

SEVERE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL

MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE
SEIR
The City must prepare a subsequent project-specific EIR analyzing the site- and projectspecific impacts of the current version of the Project, including analysis of alternatives to, and additional mitigation measures for, the project as required by CEQA. The Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the 2050 General Plan did not disclose sufficient baseline data, nor did it analyze, or include sufficient alternatives to or mitigation measures for, the site- and project-specific impacts of the Project, and therefore the Project is not within the scope of the PEIR.

Under CEQA, a lead agency must analyze any subsequent site-specific project that is proceeding under an approved PEIR to determine whether the subsequent project is “consistent with” and “within the scope of the project or program covered by” the previously-certified PEIR, and if it will have one or more additional or more severe significant effects or require additional mitigation measures that were not analyzed in the prior PEIR. Pub. Res. Code, § 21094(b)-(c); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15168(c)(2), (c)(5). When a lead agency has prepared a prior PEIR, “the question for a court reviewing an agency’s decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project is one of law.” Committee for Reevaluation of the T-Line Loop v. San Francisco Muni. Transp.

Agency (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1237, 1252 (2016); Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1164.

The case law makes clear that a project is “consistent with” and “within the scope of” the prior EIR if it is essentially part of the same project analyzed in the PEIR and that project was specifically identified, analyzed and discussed at a site-specific level of detail in the PEIR. (See, e.g., Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 1319-21 (1992); Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes, 82 Cal. App. 4th 511, 528-29 (2000); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 103 Cal. App. 4th 268, 281-85 (2002); American Canyon Community v. City of American Canyon, 145 Cal. App. 4th 1062, 1072-73 (2006); Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1172- 73, 1175-77 (2012); Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, 231 Cal. App. 4th at 1174-76. ) All of these cases also hold that a project is not “consistent with” or “within the scope of” a PEIR if that previous environmental document did not contemplate or analyze the site- and project-specific effects of the subsequent project and those effects are not otherwise covered in the PEIR. Id.; cf. Latinos Unidos de Napa v. City of Napa, 221 Cal. App. 4th 192, 202-03 (2013) (revisions to housing element of general plan was within the scope of a prior PEIR for a general plan.

Here, the Project is not consistent with or within the scope of the PEIR because it was not specifically identified, analyzed or discussed in the PEIR, and the PEIR did not address the siteand project-specific impacts of this project. The PEIR merely discussed the impacts generally of an industrial land use category, which includes any “variety of industrial uses, including 3086
January 3, 2023

Page 3 ends

warehousing/distribution.” (Addendum, p. 11.) The PEIR discussed development in general and established a general mitigation program for such projects, and did not discuss projects at a project-specific level of detail.

The Project’s environmental documents do not fill this analytic gap because they are too vague and general and do not contain any meaningful site-specific analysis of the precise nature or extent of the impacts of this project, or include any additional mitigation measures for these effects. For example, neither the Project, nor the PEIR, disclose existing baseline conditions for the burrowing owl, or the suitability of the habitat to support burrowing owl. The EA mentions that burrowing owl surveys were “completed in 2019, 2020 and a 2022 protocol study was conducted to determine the current number of burrowing owls on site.” (Addendum, p. 11.) But nowhere were the results of these surveys disclosed to the public, or discussed in the Addendum.
1 Absent that information, the Addendum fails to meet CEQA’s core informational purpose and deprives the Addendum of the necessary evidence supporting how the PEIR’s mitigation measures will be adequate to mitigate these effects for this large project. Id. These errors pervade the addendum, which also fails to provide basic explanations of how the PEIR’s air quality mitigation measures will prevent operational impacts to air quality in the region, both at an individual project and cumulative level.

Similarly, the Addendum lacks a site-specific discussion of how this Project may impact air quality and neighboring sensitive receptors. (Addendum, p. 33 [stating that the PEIR does not analyze the project’s air quality impacts.]) The Addendum recognizes the PEIR did not “make a specific conclusion regarding the significance of project-related air pollutant emissions compared to any significance thresholds” and instead recommended a potential menu of mitigation measures to address project impacts. (Addendum, p. 33.) The Addendum then concludes the Project will have less-than-significant air quality impacts because the Project would not result in new impacts “other than those previously considered or addressed in the [PEIR].” (Id.) Under the Addendum’s own admission, the PEIR did not address project-specific air quality impacts.

The Addendum also lacks any discussion of how the PEIR’s three mitigation measures will be adequate to mitigate the effects of this particular Project. The Addendum’s conclusory statement is unsupported by evidence or analysis and simply does not meet CEQA”s muster.

For these reasons, the Project is not within the scope of the PEIR, and a fair argument can be made, based on substantial evidence, that the Project will have site-specific impacts and require additional mitigation measures that were not analyzed and included in that PEIR.

Therefore, the City is obligated to prepare a subsequent EIR for this project analyzing these impacts in detail.

II. CONCLUSION
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Development Plan (File No. PDEV21- 047). Due to the shortcomings described above, the City must prepare a project-specific 1 The Addendum also relies on these surveys to conclude that the preparation of a site-specific EIR is not required. (Addendum, p. 11.) Absent disclosure of this information, the Addendum simply has no basis by which to conclude that an EIR is not warranted.
3087
January 3, 2023

Page 4 ends

subsequent environmental impact report (EIR) that analyzes the site-specific effects of the Project in detail and includes additional alternatives to and mitigation measures for this project.

Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we note the City’s statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding. (§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v.

Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees that relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Project applicant’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.

Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.

Sincerely,
Hallie Kutak
Staff Attorney | Senior Conservation Advocate
Center for Biological Diversity
Tel: ( ) -
@
3088
From: Joel Huschle
To: Planning Director
Subject: Burrowing Owl Protections
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 8:50:32 AM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

Thank you,
Joel Huschle
3089
From: kimberlyfour
To: Planning Director
Subject: Public comment regarding Agenda Item B
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 7:37:47 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development. Time and time again, the owls were driven out with no successful intervention to relocate them to a suitable habitat even though great amounts of mitigation money was collected. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young and we need to change the practices that have resulted in the huge population drop that has occurred in the last 30 years.

There are significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

Thank you,
Kimberly Dillbeck
3090
From: Marcyn Clements
To: Planning Director
Subject: SAVE the Burrowing Owl Habitat @ the Airport!
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 8:20:45 AM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023
Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Dear Sirs,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino
but have been driven out of the area due to widespread
development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall
higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls. Please do not destroy it so more warehouses can be added to Ontario! A 90-acre Burrowing 3091
Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and wellmanaged will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat.

Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy.

Sincerely and most empassionately,
Marcyn Del Clements
3092
From: Jessica Garciacano
To: Planning Director
Subject: Development Plan PDEV21-047 Environmental Assessment and Addendum Approval Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:34:22 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Development Plan PDEV21-047 Environmental Assessment and Addendum Approval on today's agenda for the City of Ontario Development Advisory Board. I am not available to attend today's meeting but would like to voice my concern for approval. I have lived in Ontario my entire life as well as my parents and children. I am very concerned regarding the proposed development and actions taken towards the burrowing owl population on-site. This burrowing owl population has garnered world-wide attention and has enthralled the public.

I am aware that the CIty of Ontario has collected fees from development, particularly within the Ontario Ranch Specific Plan in response to burrowing owl mitigation, but I am not aware, and the addendum also refers that these moneys have not been used to purchase and conserve burrowing owl mitigation. This deferment of mitigation is irresponsible and harms the burrowing owl population in the City of Ontario. There needs to be transparency on how these fees will be utilized for mitigating impacts. The City of Ontario as a lead agency, needs to be responsible and move forward with fulfilling its obligations, as well as consider the cumulative impacts from this deferment.

This may be one of the last successfully reproducing populations of burrowing owl in the City of Ontario. They have in recent years observed having up to 9 chicks, in one burrow! I implore the City to ensure that if this project moves forward, and the owls are moved, the City requires the project developer to conserve land, forever to protect burrowing owl within the City of Ontario. We should not subject these owls to move without permanent conservation.

The fees are not acceptable in this case. These owls need land and without compensatory mitigation of habitat, the impacts to this project are significant under CEQA as they will have a substantial effect either directly or through habitat modifications on a special status species.

Sincerely,
Paul Romero
3093
From: Suzanne C. Thompson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 9:35:12 AM

CITY OF ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING SUBMITTED

COMMENTS
1/4/23
Re: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but due to widespread development that did not protect biological resources, the owls are fast disappearing. We need action now to protect Burrowing Owl habitat and allow these little birds to continue to live on in Ontario as they have for hundreds of years. The presence of a thriving population of Burrowing Owls in Ontario is a biological asset for the community and a chance for children and all of us to see the owls close by in their native habitat. The people of Ontario need protection for their native species, not more warehouses.

There are at least four significant negative effects on the environment that will be caused by and not mitigated by the current plan.

One, it is shocking that the DAB is suggesting that the Ontario Plan mitigation for Burrowing Owls was in any way successful and that it is an approach to be used for the owls east of Haven Avenue. The Ontario Plan mitigation started around 2007 and I assume it is continuing.

From 2007 on, the City of Ontario collected fees from developers to mitigate the loss of large sections of habitat. The idea was that the funds would be used to purchase mitigation land. I don’t know how much has been paid by developers but as of a few years ago, it was about $14 million. None of that has been spent for mitigation. Probably 100s of BUOWs were evicted from their homes and no mitigation land was purchased that they could go to. Please don’t tell us that now 15 years after the first evictions that the city is trying to find a land trust to establish a mitigation site. That doesn’t repair the damage done by years of evicting owls without a mitigation site.

Two, another significant negative effect of translocating owls to sites far from their native land is the loss of distinct biodiversity. Kelly Barr, Kristin Ruegg and others have found genetically distinct populations of Burrowing Owls that are a distance apart even within California (Alvarado, Bossu et al., 2022). Translocating owls 30 to 40 miles from their natal site risks mixing the distinct groups. Possible advantages of the genetic differences that might increase survivability in a particular location would be lost to the owls.

Three, Burrowing Owls need to have other sites nearby within the usual range of juvenile dispersion (from .5 to 13 miles) so young adult owls can avoid inbreeding (Rosenberg, Gervais, & Trulio, 2007). The East of Haven Ontario Burrowing Owls are an average of 7 to 8 miles from several Burrowing Owl nesting sites in the Chino area. Thus, the Airport area owls make it possible for a healthy exchange of young adults finding mates between the two sites.

Loss of the East of Haven site could seriously undermine the viability of what are now healthy populations of Burrowing Owls in Chino, contributing to the loss of all Burrowing Owls from the Pomona Valley.
3094
Four, mitigation translocation for burrowing owls is an option that suits the preferences of land developers, but it does not provide a superior life for the owls. In fact, owls that are translocated from their home habitat are subject to higher mortality than those who are protected on site or nearby (Hennessey et al., 2022). The removal of all the OIA owls will be a significant blow to the possibility of success of owls in the area.

Contrary to the DAB analysis, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

In fact, the Helix Environmental Biological Resources report also states that leaving Burrowing Owls on site is the best option for the owls. Unfortunately, the report goes on to reject that option for invalid reasons such as the mistaken notion that Burrowing Owls are a hazard to aviation. Contrary to the statements in the Helix Environmental report, Burrowing Owls are not a hazard to aviation. They are small birds that fly close to the ground and do not fly in flocks. According to the FAA bird strike data, there were 21 reports of airstrikes involving these owls at OIA since 2008. Eight turned out to be other wildlife or the species were unknown; for eleven a carcass or wing was found but no airstrike was reported by pilots; and two involved a Burrowing Owl strike but no damage was reported. In all these years, there were no instances of a Burrowing Owl causing damage to a plane. If Burrowing Owls that live right next to the runways are not a threat to aviation, how much less a threat are the owls that live east of Haven.

Another argument is that Burrowing Owl attract larger raptors that might cause damage to a plane. This problem can be addressed through a raptor control program, something that all airports need to have in place, whether or not they have Burrowing Owls near their property.

Many other airports protect plans from large raptors using control strategies that do not kill or harm or trap the raptors.

Finally, none of the Helix Environmental statements that the FAA will not allow mitigation for Burrowing Owls near an airport are backed up with reference to FAA regulations or communications. If you look at the FAA regulations that discuss Wildlife Hazards, you will find that Burrowing Owls are not mentioned. If Burrowing Owls are NOT a hazard to aviation, then owl mitigation can be done on the boot property.

It is not too late to do the right thing and find a way to keep the Ontario Airport Burrowing Owls in the Ontario area with a professionally managed and properly endowed preserve for the owls on site.

We incorporate by reference the objections stated in the Redford Conservancy group opposition letter and additional opposition letters related to the January 4, 2023 hearing of this matter. While one or more of these letters may be withdrawn, the objections stated in the letters are valid and we incorporate them as if fully stated herein.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Thompson
Chair, Pomona Valley Audubon Society Burrowing Owl Committee References
Alvarado AH, Bossu CM, Harrigan RJ, Bay RA, Nelson ARP, Smith TB, and KC Ruegg. (2022). Genotype-environment associations across spatial scales reveal the importance of 3095
putative adaptive genetic variation in divergence. Evolutionary Applications 00: 1-18.

Hennessey, S.M., et al. (2022). Release strategies and ecological factors influence mitigation translocation outcomes for burrowing owls: a comparative evaluation. Animal Conservation.

Rosenberg, D.K., L. A. Trulio, D. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K. A.

Haley. 2007. The ecology of the Burrowing Owl in California. Unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management.
3096
Citizen Letter Addressing Agenda Item B for the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
January 2, 2023
Dear Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Fifty years ago while growing up in Los Angeles County, I enjoyed watching Burrowing Owls in the fields behind my childhood home. Sadly, this species has been in sharp decline ever since and is now a California Species of Special Concern. It is even being considered for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. So it is with great surprise that I read that the city of Ontario is considering developing one of its primary nesting sites! It is prudent for cities to keep open land surrounding airports. Undeveloped areas provide emergency landing zones for aircraft if needed. This area is perfect for Burrowing Owls which already call it home. This owl flies low over the ground during the day while hunting large insects and small rodents, thus posing no danger to descending aircraft. In fact, there have been no documented plane strikes by Burrowing Owls so this grassland is safe for birds and people.

During the six years that I have visited this nest site, I have noticed a crowd of wildlife photographers standing respectfully along the edges of the S. Haven Avenue (north of E. Jurupa Street) when these owls are nesting. Many people travel long distances to get their photos, and spend money in Ontario during their visit which helps benefit the city.

Surely the best use for this property is to become a Burrowing Owl preserve. The local community can come visit and learn about the biology and interesting adaptations of their feathered neighbor. Children can study Burrowing Owls in school just like Orange County school children learn about the threatened Western Snowy Plover along their coastline.

As a reminder, these birds are state protected and cannot be harmed in any way. Trapping and moving them is not feasible and has resulted in high mortality. As a biologist, I am opposed to this devastating failed plan. Ontario’s plans for these protected birds and their nest site need to be carefully reviewed so there are NO negative impacts. This is the lawful and right thing to do.

Thank you for listening to a nearby resident who enjoys the Burrowing Owls of Ontario.

Trude Hurd
Lake Forest, CA
3097
Photographs of Burrowing Owls, a California Species of Special Concern, at nest site next to Ontario Airport, southern California, by Trude Hurd

Burrowing Owls at nest burrow 2022 Burrowing Owls in habitat next to airport

Burrowing Owls, five, at nest burrow 2018 Burrowing Owl hunting over grassland 2018

Wildlife photographers enjoying the owls Burrowing Owls at nest burrow 2019 3098
3099
From: Seth Thompson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 10:34:01 AM
The multi page document supporting this agenda item includes several misstatements of fact and references to a flawed earlier document, all purporting to support the notion that there are no potential environmental harms flowing form the proposed development scheme. This is clearly not the case:
• the document relies on a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed;
• there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that even the best translocation efforts result in high mortality;
• those owls who survive the trauma of translocation represent a loss of distinct biodiversity;
• loss of the Ontario Airport owls will have damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls and cascading negative effects on the few indigenous Burrowing Owls in the Pomona Valley.

Dumping a massive document supporting one agenda item in the middle of a holiday week end and poses an almost insurmountable obstacle for advisory board members who want to conscientiously weigh the interests of OIAA, the local communities, and the broader good of the region.

If I were a member of the board, I’d want to say, “whoa, let’s give this proposal the time and attention it deserves and table this agenda item.” I encourage you to do the same.
3100
From: Seth Thompson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 10:46:08 AM
The multi page document supporting this agenda item includes several misstatements of fact and references to a flawed earlier document, all purporting to support the notion that there are no potential environmental harms flowing from the proposed development scheme.

But this bald statement requires you to ignore the dismal failure of the much hyped translocation scheme in the City of Ontario and the best available science on Burrowing Owl population dynamics.

The timing of filling this document in the middle of a holiday weekend almost guarantees that the members of the advisory board will not have time to thoughtfully review it and make a prudent recommendation.

The members of the advisory board and the larger community deserve better. Please table this item until you have had a chance to give it the skeptical scrutiny it deserves.
3101
From: NATASHA WALTON
To: Planning Director
Subject: Please Vote to Deny Recommendation of the January 4, 2023, Ontario DAB Meeting Agenda Item B Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 12:28:39 PM
Dear City of Ontario Development Advisory Board:

We, Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment (IVAE), ask that you recommend denial of the January 4, 2023, agenda item B to the Ontario Planning Commission regarding the (1) “CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] Determination Motion to recommend Approval / Denial of an Addendum to a previously approved EIR [Environmental Impact Report],” and (2) “File No. PDEV21-047 (Development Plan) Motion to recommend Approval/Denial.” The Development Plan (File No. PDEV21- 047) is to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 197.74 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the IL (Light Industrial) land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.

One of the main reasons why we ask you to deny recommendation of agenda item B is because we disagree with the City of Ontario’s CEQA determination for the Development Plan (p30 of 404 pp in the 1/4/2022 meeting agenda). This determination is that “although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.” We argue that the environmental impacts of the proposed project (including significant ones) have not been adequately analyzed and presented under the August 2022 Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR, and the public and public agency review of these potential impacts does not exist. These environmental impacts include, but are not limited to, the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of this project on greenhouse gas emissions, transportation/traffic, agricultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, noise, and biological resources. Thus, a higher level document consisting of a CEQA Environmental Impact Report should be completed to allow further study and public review of this project under CEQA.

Examples of inadequate analyses and conclusions include the following:

No field studies of current noise levels have been conducted at the proposed project to help determine the expected level of noise at the project site which is located within two miles of a public international airport.

The proposed project would have a significant negative effect on burrowing owls and this effect cannot be mitigated by a proposed relocation plan; regardless of the addendum’s conclusions, the previously approved EIR did not include, address, or evaluate the potential significant effects of warehouse developments on wildlife such as the burrowing owl. In addition, no documented concurrence has been received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that the proposed project with a burrowing owl relocation plan would have a less than significant impact on the local burrowing owl (a special-status species) population, as well as on the population of burrowing owls that would be receiving the relocated owls.

Another major reason to deny recommendation of agenda item B is so that we may preserve the safety and quality of life of our community and our local wildlife; the proposed project area should include an alternative project that would protect the project area as a nature preserve and not be developed for any kind of industrial facility. Such a nature preserve would not only preserve the area as undeveloped safety zones for the airport, but it could even draw in the world to visit our special wildlife residents like the burrowing owl which lives and nests annually on this land. 3102
Please see the link below discussing how people are fighting to save our native wildlife, like burrowing owls, in California. We ask that you do the same and resist the urge to develop our precious open spaces into yet more ugly and unnecessary warehouses.
https://urbanbird.org/victory-for-southern-california-burrowing-owls/ [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
We have attached a photo that very few airports can boast about being able to capture – a burrowing owl perching on a light post as a commercial jetliner lands. You have the opportunity to make Ontario Airport special and not just another eyesore among the clutter of urban banality. Once again, please recommend denial on agenda item B.

Sincerely,
Natasha Walton, M.S.

Cofounder of IVAE and Wildlife Biologist
3103
3104
From: @
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B
Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 7:08:20 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023, Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls' nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Dave Macias
3105
From: Deena Ligorria
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 6:11:18 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Deena Ligorria
3106
From: glok01
To: Planning Director
Subject: Burrowing Owls
Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 2:02:08 PM
Regarding:

Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls have been in this area for years, this is their home. Do we really need more development???
Please find another location for development, protecting the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young is crucial to their survival.

Thank you,
Gloria Karimi
3107
From: @
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 5:27:14 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Gus Ocon
3108
From: Jacob Ligorria
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 6:02:25 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Jacob Ligorria (College biology student and seabird researcher) 3109
From: Laura Jaoui
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B for Jan. 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 10:21:29 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely, Laura Jaoui,
3110
From: Lori Galloway
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B at the January 4,2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 8:15:24 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for.

These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

Lori Galloway
3111
From: Madeline w Allinder
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 6:12:28 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Madeline Allinder
Sent from my iPhone
3112
From: Maria B
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting, re Burrowing Owls Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 2:06:42 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young. The burrowing owl group formerly located at the Chino Airport in 2021, did not return in 2022, due to construction and other issues.

Thank you,
Maria Bennett
3113
From: Martina Ebert
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting: Preserve the Habitat of Local Burrowing Owls
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:43:51 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Martina Ebert, Ph.D.
( ) -
@pomona.edu
3114
From: Myriam Rodriguez
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 6:39:13 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Sincerely,
Myriam Rodriguez
3115
From: Patty Anis
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 5:59:19 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Patricia A. Anis
Pomona Valley Audubon Society
@
3116
From: patricia gleeson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 9:24:28 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Please protect Burrowing Owls in our area. These small, sandy colored owls with long, slender legs and bright yellow eyes are a state species of special concern and also a local concern due to development which threatens their habitat. Unlike other owls, Burrowing Owls are active in the daytime. They live and hunt on the ground, and people can see how special they are in the full light of the sun. In the past Burrowing Owls were once abundant in Ontario and Chino, but many of these owls have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect the land where these beautiful owls nest and raise their young. They are worth saving and safeguarding.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for the consideration of these owls. The mitigation plan for the Burrowing Owls has already failed and will result in a high mortality, and there is a loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls. There is also a damaging effect on Chino Burrowing Owls and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board Decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls which are already a state species of special concern.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls. Please do not destroy their habitat so that more warehouses can be added to Ontario. A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat, and schoolchildren, families and each one of us can study and enjoy the beauty of our local Burrowing Owls in the future.

Please help the species to survive in our area by protecting Burrowing Owls and their nesting site east of Haven Avenue.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Patricia Gleeson
@yahoo.com
( ) -
3117
From: Rachael Innes
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 10:01:11 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Thank you,
Rachael Innes
3118
From: rebeca byerley
To: Planning Director
Subject: Burrowing owl at the Ontario airport
Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 9:31:20 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owl's nest and raise their young.

Thank You,
Rebeca Byerley
-
3119
From: robert holcomb
To: Planning Director
Subject: Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Sunday, January 1, 2023 9:34:44 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area by widespread development that did not protect them. This mistake must not be made again. We need to protect
the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are significant negative environmental impacts of the proposed plan that have not been considered or for which adequate mitigation actions have not been identified. Those mitigation actions
currently being proposed for Burrowing Owls ARE CLEARLY INADEQUATE, have FAILED in the past, and will result
in HIGH MORTALITY and LOSS OF DISTINCT BIODIVERSiTY for the translocated population, The proposed Development Advisory Board decision fails to recognize that the project, as proposed, will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern. The land that
OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is one of a VERY SMALL number of primary nesting sites for the owls.

These owls are a public and a community resource, and this critical nesting area must not be destroyed for the financial gain of a few or short-sighted revenue increases. Once lost, this public resource cannot be restored.

A reasonable accommodation needs to be adopted. A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that
is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live and breed in their native habitat. Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having our
owls nearby to study and enjoy.

Robert J. Holcomb
3120
From: Marcia Holcomb
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:03:53 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

MARCIA HOLCOMB
3121
From: Scott Marnoy
To: Planning Director
Subject: Proposed Development East of Haven Ave.

Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 11:22:58 AM
Ontario Development Advisory Board
Dear Sirs: This is to voice my opposition to the planned destruction of the Burrowing Owl habitat located east of the airport. Burrowing Owls are a state Species of Special Concern and the proposed translocation of these owls is risky and its success is unproven. As an alternative, I support the proposed 90 acre Burrowing Owl Preserve at that site. Please do not destroy one of the last remnants of Burrowing Owl habitat in our valley.

Sincerely,
Scott Marnoy, MD
3122
3123
From: Shea Millan
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B, 01/04/2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Comment Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 4:22:54 PM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

Thank you,
Shea Millan
Vice Chair
Sierra Club Santa Margarita Group
3124
3125
From: Andy Georges
To: Planning Director
Subject: Burrowing Owls
Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 2:19:20 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposedplan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

Regards,
Andy Georges
Sent from my iPhone
3126
From: Jimmy Chertkow
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:46:36 AM
Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

James Chertkow
3127
From: @
To: Planning Director
Subject: Save the Burrowing Owls!
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:53:02 AM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young before it is too late.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not been considered or mitigated for. These are using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls.

Do not destroy it to build more warehouses in a city that is already littered with them! A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and wellmanaged will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat. Save our future and do the right thing. Value life over money and greed.

Have a conscience and do the RIGHT thing. Save the Burrowing Owls for future generations and lead by example.

Sincerely,
April D. Chertkow
3128
From: Pam Nelson
To: Planning Director
Cc: Pam Nelson
Subject: agenda item B: comment, burrowing owls and warehouse advisory board Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:22:32 AM
Please many negative environmental effects for the warehouse development considered today. Burrowing owl habitat is one of them. Burrowing owls were once numerous throughout S. California and especially in Ontario and Chino. They are now a State species of concern. Development of all types have not been kind to this wildlife species since they live best on the same type of land that humans like to develop.

Thank you,
Pam Nelson
chair, Santa Margarita Group/Sierra Club
(commenting as an individual, not representing the Club) 3129
From: C Hanson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Burrowing Owl Habitat threat
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:46:58 AM
Please many negative environmental effects for the warehouse development considered today. Burrowing owl habitat is one of them. Burrowing owls were once numerous throughout S. California and especially in Ontario and Chino. They are now a State species of concern. Development of all types have not been kind to this wildlife species since they live best on the same type of land that humans like to develop.

Caren Hanson
Project Manager of Butterfly Gardens for the Sierra Club Santa Margarita Group @
3130
From: Jazmyn Rivera
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:04:53 AM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

There are at least four significant negative environmental effects of the proposed plan that have not beenconsidered or mitigated for. These are: using a mitigation plan for Burrowing Owls that has already failed and will result in high mortality, loss of distinct biodiversity for the translocated owls, damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls, and overall higher mortality of translocated owls. Contrary to the proposed Development Advisory Board decision, the project will have a significant negative effect on Burrowing Owls, a state species of special concern.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls. Please do not destroy it so more warehouses can be added to Ontario! A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat. Schools, children, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy. 3131
From: Jeff Strogen
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 10:23:51 AM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls.

Please do not destroy it so more warehouses can be added to Ontario! A 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat. Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy.

Sincerely,
Jeff Strogen
3132
From: kelly coyne
To: Planning Director
Subject: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:06:19 AM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Re: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
I agree with and support the following statement:

Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls.

Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy. thank you,
Kelly Coyne
3133
From: Erik Knutzen
To: Planning Director
Subject: Fwd: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 11:28:16 AM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Re: Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting
I agree with and support the following statement:

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls.

Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy. thank you,
Erik Knutzen
3134
From: Shari Wasson
To: Planning Director
Subject: Shari Wasson, Public Comment, Please Vote to Deny Agenda Item B Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 12:28:33 PM
Dear City of Ontario Development Advisory Board:

I ask that you recommend denial of the January 4, 2023, agenda item B to the Ontario Planning Commission regarding the (1) “CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] Determination Motion to recommend Approval / Denial of an Addendum to a previously approved EIR,” and (2) “File No. PDEV21-047 (Development Plan) Motion to recommend Approval/Denial.” The Development Plan (File No. PDEV21-047) is to construct nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated site improvements on 197.74 acres of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, within the IL (Light Industrial) land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan.

As a long-time resident of the Inland Valley and community member who values our native wildlife, I am greatly concerned about the proposed development plan and the devastating consequences it will have for Ontario’s remaining burrowing owl population.

This unique little bird, which was once considered common and abundant, is now designated as a species of special concern by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Habitat loss due to development has been one of the strongest driving forces behind this. Due to the high levels of development that the Inland Valley has seen in the last several decades, the roughly 200 acres that the City of Ontario and Ontario International Airport are planning to develop with yet more warehouses is now one of the last remaining parcels of burrowing owl habitat in Ontario.

This bird is an important part of the natural heritage of Ontario and the Inland Valley. This vestigial habitat and owl population are true treasures that the City and Airport have the unique opportunity to capitalize on and share with not just the local community, but with travelers from both near 3135
and far. Instead of allowing the land to be developed, this land should be set aside for preservation of the burrowing owl. In doing so, the City and Airport will be taking a leadership role in helping conserve the burrowing owl, which is, after all, a fellow partner in flight. Such a stance will brand the City of Ontario and the Ontario International Airport as ecologically minded entities that are invested in the wellbeing of the environment and the natural resources native to the area. Public relations centered on this can help increase City and Airport patronage, lead to partnerships with schools and other educational institutions, and set a model for other cities and businesses to follow. Partnering with the burrowing owl can help make the City of Ontario into an ecological destination.

I further recommend you deny agenda item B based on the City’s inadequate CEQA determination for this Development Plan. Please see Natasha Walton’s emailed public comment for details regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Shari Wasson
Certified California Naturalist
Co-founder of Inland Valley Advocates for the Environment (IVAE) Sent from Outlook [aka.ms]
3136
From: henry
To: Planning Director
Subject: Warehouse development east of Haven Avenue
Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 2:38:10 PM
Planning director,
The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls.

Thank you,
Henry Kantrowitz
Concerned Citizen
3137
From: Katie Quint
To: Planning Director
Subject: agenda item B: comment, burrowing owls and warehouse advisory board Date: Wednesday, January 4, 2023 3:28:42 PM
Attachments: WRI-LOGO.png
Please consider many negative environmental effects for the warehouse development considered today. Burrowing owl habitat is one of them. Burrowing owls were once numerous throughout S. California and especially in Ontario and Chino. They are now a State species of concern. Development of all types have not been kind to this wildlife species since they live best on the same type of land that humans like to develop.

The land that OIAA owns east of Haven Avenue is a primary nesting site for the owls. Please do not destroy it so more warehouses can be added to Ontario! Consider instead a 90-acre Burrowing Owl preserve on the site that is properly endowed and well-managed will help keep the remaining Ontario owls safe so they can continue to live in their native habitat.

Schoolchildren, families, and all of us can enjoy having the owls nearby to study and enjoy.

Thank you,
Katie Quint
Research Director
Golden Eagle Specialist
O: - - C: - -

WILDLIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC
3138
3139
From: Marcia Holcomb
To: Planning Director
Subject: Agenda item: For Agenda Item B at the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board Meeting Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:03:53 PM
To the Ontario Development Advisory Board,
Burrowing Owls were once numerous in Ontario and Chino but have been driven out of the area due to widespread development that did not protect them. We need to protect the remaining land where the owls nest and raise their young.

MARCIA HOLCOMB
3140
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023
Exhibit I: MIG RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
(Exhibit follows this page)
3141

to Rudy Zeledon, Planning Director
from Kent Norton, AICP, REPA, MIG Riverside
re The HUB at Ontario International Airport Project
date January 18, 2023
On January 3-4, 2023 a group of environmental organizations and 46 individuals submitted comment letters or emails on Environmental Assessment and Development Plan PDEV21-047 under consideration by the City’s Development Advisory Board (DAB) on January 4. The development under consideration is referred to as the HUB at Ontario International Airport (HUB OIA Project) The following addresses the various comments and issues raised in those letters. The letters are also attached to this memo for reference. This information is provided to the Planning Commission for its deliberation on this project.

LETTER 1: JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS LETTER/SUSAN PHILLPS ET AL Comment 1 (Pages 1-4). Their first major issue was the proposed use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Addendum) as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the proposed HUB OIA Project.

The commenter also refers to the City relying on a CEQA exemption. That is not the case here and such comments misstate the applicable law. An addendum, which is allowed under CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is totally unrelated to any statutory and/or categorical exemptions allowed under other provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The commenter does not acknowledge that an addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning when it can be demonstrated a project will not result in new or more significant impacts that those that were already examined in the EIR for which the addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that.

In this case, the use of an addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning, therefore the potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.

In addition, general comments on industrial development in the City as a whole are irrelevant to this current CEQA process. Furthermore, the Addendum includes an evaluation of all of the project’s potential environmental impacts, including noise, air quality and transportation. Vague and unsupported complaints about impacts allegedly associated with warehouse development in general are simply incorrect.
3142
MIG, Inc. 2
Comment 2 (Page 3). The commenter expresses concern that the project has “topics of controversy” and so a separate EIR should be prepared. The commenter states….”If a topic of controversy exists regarding a proposed project, this can counter the use of a CEQA Determination Motion.” However, the commenter is citing CEQA incorrectly. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(4) states…”The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” The key determinate is providing substantial evidence that there will be no significant impacts. In this case, the Addendum prepared for the HUB OIA Project provides substantial evidence, supported by information from TOP and TOP EIR, and a number of technical studies cited in the Addendum, to demonstrate the HUB OIA Project will not have new or more significant impacts on the environment that were not already evaluated in TOP EIR. This includes several studies on burrowing owl (owl) as well as air quality and health risk impacts of the project.

Comment 3 (Page 4). The commenter states…”There are significant impacts that can and should be mitigated but have not been properly considered. The City may not adopt a statement of overriding consideration to approve a project where feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives exist and feasible mitigation measures have not been considered or adopted.” The commenter also argues the City must “deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects.” This comment fails to acknowledge the provision in CEQA for a lead agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if the benefits of a project or plan outweigh the identified significant impacts. In this case the City Council adopted an SOC for TOP EIR.

The comment fails to acknowledge the City Council already adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations when it approved TOP, and the proposed HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designation for the site.

In addition, the comments on the adequacy of TOP EIR are untimely and irrelevant. If these groups disapproved of that document, they were required to raise those issues when the matter was before the City Council. Opponents cannot use this project to attack the certified TOP 2050 EIR now.

Criticisms on the City’s overall planning efforts are misplaced in the current context of a single project, one which has long been planned and allowed on this project site (i.e., CCCSP and TOP). Further, unnamed comment letters supposedly submitted regarding TOP 2050 EIR are immaterial, particularly when they are not provided to the City at this time.

Comment 4 (Page 5). The commenter argues that development of the HUB OIA Project will have irreparable impacts on the owl. The commenter argues that the project site is a critical part of the owl’s habitat in the region and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) actually encourages wildlife like the owl to co-exist on airport properties.

However, the various technical studies1 on the owl and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe 1 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 3143
MIG, Inc. 3
(i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies1 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owl from the project site to a safer site in some other location. The Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan (Relocation Plan) prepared for the HUB OIA Project outlines a way to successfully achieve such relocation (see Appendix B).

The commenter also provides erroneous information on the current and historic state of owls in the City, and more importantly, on the project site. The analysis included in the Addendum and TOP EIR 2 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3144
MIG, Inc. 4
adequately addresses the project’s potential impact on owls. As explained therein, the applicant will comply with the City’s existing regulations and TOP policies through implementation of a Relocation Plan, which is based on the most recent site-specific technical studies. Compliance with these requirements will ensure potential impacts to owls are less than significant. Opponents’ claims to the contrary are thus hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Comment 5 (Pages 5-7). The commenter next argues the project will have cumulative impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and habitat loss.

The commenter fails to acknowledge TOP EIR did examine these cumulative issues at City buildout, and the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP. Therefore, potential cumulative air quality, GHG, and habitat impacts of this project have already been addressed in TOP EIR and a SOC was adopted by the City Council as allowed under CEQA.

In addition, the information provided regarding ongoing airport operations and the allegedly resulting GHG impacts is irrelevant to the current analysis, which considers a single project’s potential impacts on the environment. TOP EIR concluded that buildout of the City, including this project, would result in significant direct and cumulative GHG emission impacts and thus, a SOC was approved by the City Council. The project site was analyzed in TOP EIR as an industrial site and the applicant will implement a number of project design features to reduce GHG emissions as outlined in the City’s GHG Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table, attached to the Addendum as Appendix A2. Opponents ignore this information, which is clearly stated in the Addendum, and decry the City’s failure to consider cumulative impacts “at a broader scale.” Full buildout of the City is the absolute broadest scale possible for the analysis of potential GHG impacts. Opponents may dislike the City’s GHG analysis, but it does not diminish the fact that the analysis demanded by opponents was completed and TOP 2050 EIR was certified without challenge.

Comment 6 (Pages 7-9). The commenter states, within evidentiary support, that TOP EIR mitigation for owl impacts has not been successful (i.e., collection of new development fees to purchase habitat).

Regardless, however, a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is inapplicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

In fact, no evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies3 prepared by qualified professionals (see Appendix B), the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the 3 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 3145
MIG, Inc. 5
long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 1 Summary. These responses, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies1, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 2: ANA RODRIGUEZ
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies4 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. The supporting studies3 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies3 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 2 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies3, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.
4 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 3146
MIG, Inc. 6
LETTER 3: BARBARA BARTON
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies5 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 5 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 6 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3147
MIG, Inc. 7
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies4 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies4 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 3 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies7, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 4: HALLIE KUTAK, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Comment 1 (Page 1). The commenter objects to the proposed use of an addendum as the CEQA documentation for the proposed HUB OIA Project.

Comment 2 (Page 2). The commenter argues that the HUB OIA Project is not within the scope of TOP EIR, will have more severe significant impacts, and will require additional mitigation not found in TOP EIR. Their conclusion is a separate project-level EIR must be prepared for this project. 7 Addendum Appendices A through G
3148
MIG, Inc. 8
As noted above, the commenter fails to recognize that an addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning when it can be demonstrated a project will not result in new or more significant impacts that those that were already examined in the EIR for which an addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that.

In addition, the Addendum and the various supporting technical studies8 provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not result in new or more severe significant impacts on the owls than those identified in TOP EIR, the Relocation Plan is consistent with TOP EIR mitigation, and the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

Comment 3 (Page 3). The commenter states the Addendum did not evaluate air quality impacts and health risks of the HUB OIA Project.

The Addendum states the following regarding Air Quality Significance Threshold 3.a, Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan:

The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designations upon which the AQMP is based.

Furthermore, the project is consistent with the City’s participation in the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plan. The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 which include fugitive dust control measures pursuant to SCAQMD’s Rule 403, use of Tier 3 construction equipment, proper service and maintenance of construction equipment, limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment, use of Super-Compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints for coating and architectural surfaces, providing non-vehicular access options, and calculate and reduce any significant health risks from future development on nearby sensitive receptors (MM 3-1 through 3-3, respectively). The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. The following measures from TOP EIR are applicable to the proposed project:

AQ 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of 8 Addendum Appendices A through G
3149
MIG, Inc. 9
significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
− Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. − Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. − Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits. • Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department. (Addendum, pp. 32-33.)
The Addendum then determines the HUB OIA Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Addendum, pp 34-35.) That section provides a complete assessment of the air quality impacts of the HUB OIA Project relative to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s regional significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and recommends implementation of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3.

The Addendum also states… “A detailed air quality assessment (AQ Study) of the proposed project was conducted by Urban Crossroads in February 2022, to identify project-specific air pollutant impacts and recommend additional mitigation if necessary (i.e., other than those applicable measures already identified in TOP EIR). The AQ Study (Appendix A) determined the project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality because the project is consistent with the existing Industrial designation in the CCC SP.” (Addendum, p. 34.) It should also be noted the Addendum provides the full text of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 and explains how the project would implement them to address potential air quality impacts. 3150
MIG, Inc. 10
In addition, the Addendum concludes the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore, it would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR. Thus, no project specific mitigation was required for sensitive receptors. In sum, the HUB OIA Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary and no project specific mitigation is required.

Therefore, the commenter is incorrect as the Addendum did fully evaluate potential air quality impacts of the HUB OIA Project at a project level.

LETTER 5: JOEL HUSCHLE
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies9 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program10 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. 9 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 10 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3151
MIG, Inc. 11
o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies7 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies7 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 5 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies11, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 6: KIMBERLY DILLBECK
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls. 11 Addendum Appendices A through G
3152
MIG, Inc. 12
The various technical studies8 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies8 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not 12 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3153
MIG, Inc. 13
applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies8 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 6 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies13, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 7: MARCYN CLEMENTS
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-2). The commenter makes a number of claims about owls relative to the HUB OIA Project. The commenter argues that owls are being “driven out of the City” and that a 90- acre preserve on the project site is needed to protect the owls.

The various technical studies14 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program15 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of 13 Addendum Appendices A through G
14 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 15 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3154
MIG, Inc. 14
airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies16 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies11 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 7 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies17, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or 16 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 17 Addendum Appendices A through G
3155
MIG, Inc. 15
more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 8: PAUL ROMERO/JESSICA GARCIACANO
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-2). The commenter makes a number of comments about burrowing owl (owl) relative to the HUB OIA site and project. The commenter expresses concern about the collection of development fees to help protect the owl but is not aware if those funds have been used to protect owl habitat. The commenter states that land should be preserved in the City to protect the owl.

The various technical studies18 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program19 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits. 18 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 19 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3156
MIG, Inc. 16
The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies13 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specifically for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies13 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum. Letter 8 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies20, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 9: SUZANNE THOMPSON, POMONA VALLEY AUDUBON SOCIETY, BURROWING OWL

COMMITTEE
Comment 1 (Email Pages 1-3). The commenter makes a number of comments about burrowing owl (owl) relative to the HUB OIA site and project. The commenter argues that this development will have irreparable impacts on the owl. The commenter argues that the project site is a critical part of owl habitat in the region and the FAA actually encourages wildlife like the owl to co-exist on airport properties. The commenter also states TOP EIR mitigation for owl impacts has not been successful (i.e., collection of new development fees to purchase habitat).

The various technical studies21 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents 20 Addendum Appendices A through G
21 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 3157
MIG, Inc. 17
as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies15 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl 22 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3158
MIG, Inc. 18
populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies23 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 9 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies24, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 10: TRUDE HURD
Comment 1 (Page 1). The commenter laments the loss of owl habitat over the years throughout the region, and claims it would be appropriate for an owl preserve on the HUB OIA Project site.

The commenter is incorrect that the HUB OIA Project site is “perfect for a burrowing owl preserve.” The various technical studies25 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program26 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
23 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 24 Addendum Appendices A through G
25 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 26 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3159
MIG, Inc. 19
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies18 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

Based on information in TOP, TOP EIR, and several technical studies18 prepared by qualified professionals, the Relocation Plan is the most appropriate way to provide for the long-term survival of the owls consistent with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 in TOP, as cited in the Addendum.

Letter 10 Summary. This response, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies27, provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.
27 Addendum Appendices A through G
3160
MIG, Inc. 20
LETTER 11: DAN SILVER, ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter argues that owl relocation does not work and the HUB OIA Project site should include an owl preserve.

The commenter is incorrect that the HUB OIA Project site is “perfect for a burrowing owl preserve.” The various technical studies28 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 28 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 29 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3161
MIG, Inc. 21
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies30 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

LETTER 12: SETH THOMPSON
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter suggests TOP EIR is a “flawed document”.

Comments on the adequacy of TOP 2050 EIR are untimely and irrelevant. Objections to that document were required to be raised when the matter was before the City Council. Opponents cannot now use the current project to attack the certified TOP EIR. Moreover, criticism of the City’s overall planning efforts are misplaced in the current context of a single project, one which has long been planned and allowed on the project site (i.e., CCCSP and TOP).

Comment 2 (Email Page 1). The commenter states TOP Addendum for the HUB OIA Project relies on an owl mitigation plan that has already failed but does not elaborate on the nature of the failure.

The commenter also states…“there is incontrovertible scientific evidence that even the best translocation efforts result in high mortality.” However, the commenter does not provide any documentation to support that statement.

The various technical studies31 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term. 30 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 31 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 3162
MIG, Inc. 22
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides Wildlife Services (WS) through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) program for airports to help prevent and resolve wildlife conflicts that threaten public health and safety from concentrated populations of birds and other wildlife at or near airports contribute to wildlife strikes. The Airport Wildlife Hazards Program32 supports an airport when preparing a Wildlife Hazards Management Plan (WMP) to document an airport’s wildlife hazards and how the airport plans to address and manage them. It guides operations, defines roles of airport personnel, and details training to reduce risks. A WMP often involves a variety of methods to resolve wildlife conflicts including the following:
o Habitat Modification — Altering vegetation and water, creating fences and barriers, and other activities to make the airport unattractive to wildlife. o Active Dispersal — Scaring and hazing wildlife away from airport environments. o Trapping and Relocation — Capturing and moving animals can be used for some species when legally allowed and feasible (e.g., hawks and owls). o Lethal Removal —Lethal removal may be used in some situations for the protection of the flying public and crew. Lethal removal is permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies under airport depredation permits.

My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies22 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future. 32 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3163
MIG, Inc. 23
Comment 3 (Email Page 1). The commenter states, without evidentiary support, that owls that…”survive the trauma of translocation represent a loss of distinct biodiversity” and that “loss of the Ontario Airport owls will have damaging effects on Chino Burrowing Owls and cascading negative effects on the few indigenous Burrowing Owls in the Pomona Valley.” The various technical studies33 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 33 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 34 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3164
MIG, Inc. 24
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies23 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. . If the owls were to remain on the project site, raptors will continue to hunt the owls by perching on the large buildings and trees in the surrounding area. There is no indication that relocation of the owls to an appropriate site in the area would result in significant impacts to the biodiversity or genetic pool for owls in the Pomona Valley.

Comment 4 (Email Page 1). The commenter argued there was insufficient time to respond to the project documents over the holidays.

The HUB OIA Project has been in process for some time. The City properly noticed the January 4, 2023 Development Advisory Board hearing per California Government Code Sections 54950-54963 (Ralph M. Brown Act) and the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) Titles 1 and 2 (General Provisions and Administration). Regarding this noticing, a number of individuals and entities – including this one – were able to provide comments prior to the start of the meeting. Regardless, the HUB OIA Project requires Planning Commission approval and all interested parties will have an opportunity to provide written and/or oral comments at that time.

Letter 12 Summary. These responses, TOP, TOP EIR, the Addendum, and the various supporting technical studies35 provide substantial evidence that the HUB OIA Project will not have any new or more significant impacts than those identified in TOP EIR, and therefore, the Addendum satisfies the intent and requirements of CEQA.

LETTER 13: NATASHA WALTON, INLAND VALLEY ADVOCATES FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (IVAE)
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenter questioned reliance on TOP EIR but did not acknowledge that an EIR Addendum can be the appropriate CEQA compliance document for a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations when it can be demonstrated the Pa project will not result in new or more have significant impacts that those that were not already examined in the EIR for which the Addendum is prepared. The Addendum does just that. In this case, the use of an TOP Addendum is appropriate as the HUB OIA Project is consistent with TOP land use designations and City zoning designations, therefore the cumulative potential impacts of the HUB OIA Project have been accounted for in TOP EIR.
35 Addendum Appendices A through G
3165
MIG, Inc. 25
For additional information, see separate responses in letters from Allen Matkins regarding comments in the “Coalition Letter” and the “Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) Letter”.

Comment 2 (Email Page 1). The commenter argued the HUB OIA Project did not conduct a proper noise study involving airport noise. However, the commenter failed to note the Addendum clearly evaluated both Project-related and Airport-related noise impacts. Page 71 of the Addendum states… TOP EIR found stationary and transportation noise impacts of future development under TOP to be less than significant with implementation of Safety Element Policy S-4.1, Noise Mitigation, which utilizes the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects (SEIR p. 5.13-32).

The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as supporting industrial uses and the project will not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in TOP EIR (Section 5.12). The project site is surrounded on the north, east, and south sides by industrial or commercial/office uses, and to the west by the OIA. The I-10 is just north of the site, the I-15 is just east of the site, and the site is within the OIA’s Safety Zones. The issue of the project’s consistency with the ALUCP is addressed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (airport-related hazards) and potential noise impacts are addressed in detail in Section

9.3e. As discussed therein PDF/COA included in the Mead & Hunt airport study (Appendix E) have been incorporated into the project.

Both the Addendum and the Mead & Hunt report on airport safety included analyses of airport noise impacts.

Comment 3 (Email Pages 1-2). The remaining comments were regarding burrowing owl and are similar to those raised in Letters 14 through 44 below. 3166
MIG, Inc. 26
NOTE: The following 33 letters make essentially the same comments so they are addressed with one response after the list of commenters:

LETTER 14: DAVE MACIAS
LETTER 15: DEENA LIGORRIA
LETTER 16: GLORIA KARIMI
LETTER 17: GUS OCON
LETTER 18: JACOB LIGORRIA
LETTER 19: LAURA JAOUI
LETTER 20: LORI GALLOWAY
LETTER 21: MADELINE ALLINDER
LETTER 22: MARCYN DEL CLEMENTS
LETTER 23: MARIA BENNETT
LETTER 24: MARTINA EBERT
LETTER 25: MYRIAM RODRIGUEZ
LETTER 26: PATRICIA ANIS
LETTER 27: PATRICIA GLEESON
LETTER 28: RACHAEL INNES
LETTER 29: REBECA BYERLEY
LETTER 30-1: ROBERT HOLCOMB
LETTER 30-2: MARIA HOLCOMB
LETTER 31: SCOTT MARNOY
LETTER 32: ALAN DAVIS
LETTER 33: SHEA MILLAN
LETTER 34: SIDNEY SILLIMAN
LETTER 35: ANDY GEORGES
LETTER 36-1: JIMMY CHERTKOW
LETTER 36-2: APRIL CHERTKOW
LETTER 37: PAM NELSON
LETTER 38: CAREN HANSON
LETTER 39: JOEL HUSCHLE
LETTER 40: JAZMYN RIVERA
LETTER 41: JEFF STROGEN
LETTER 42: KELLY COYNE
LETTER 43: ERIK KNUTZEN
LETTER 44: SHARI WASSON
3167
MIG, Inc. 27
Comment 1 (Email Page 1). The commenters argue that owl relocation does not work and the HUB OIA Project site should include an owl preserve.

The HUB OIA Project site is not an appropriate location for an owl preserve. The various technical studies36 on the owls and airport safety clearly demonstrate that the project site (i.e., just east of OIA and under normal landing pattern operations) is absolutely not safe (i.e., harmful) for both airport aircraft and the owls. Owls may not fly high enough to directly cause aircraft accidents as cited by the commenter. However, the presence of owls in this location attracts larger birds of prey into the landing airspace of OIA which does represent a safety hazard both for aircraft damage and potential injury/loss of life for passengers/crew. Without removing the attractor prey species, it is unlikely a raptor management program would be successful over the long-term.

The OIA strives to meet APHIS requirements for wildlife management to minimize risks and hazards to aircraft and their passengers and crews. On February 21, 2021, Michelle Brantley, the Director of Planning for OIA, stated in an email to Suzanne Thompson with the Audubon Society, that “the biologist’s assessment [for the HUB project] concludes the only viable alternative is active relocation of the owls more than 10,000 feet away from the airport. I did discuss the draft report with the FAA. 36 Addendum Appendix B, BUOW Reports (Helix-Kidd 2020), BUOW site surveys (Helix or Wood 2019-2022), BUOW Relocation Plan (ELMT 2022), and Appendix E, Airport Safety Report (Mead & Hunt 1-2022) 37 USDA WS APHIS WMP Website
https://www.bing.com/search?q=USDA%20APHIS%20wildlife%20management%20plans%20for%20airports&msbd=%7B%22tri ggeringMode%22%3A%22Explicit%22%2C%22intent%22%3A%22UserHistory%22%7D&form=BFBBQF&cvid=B43D24A1DAF C42E8B9C5A09CBAE3E636&sp=3&ghc=1
3168
MIG, Inc. 28
My contacts emphatically agreed with the assessment and reinforced that they would not allow any mitigation within 10,000 feet of the airport.”
The supporting studies25 conclude that the most appropriate solution to this safety issue is to relocate the owls from the project site to a safer site in some other location. That is why a separate Relocation Plan has been prepared specially for this HUB OIA Project, and thus, a generic in-lieu fee is not applicable. The Relocation Plan, which will be overseen by the CDFW, will govern before, during, and after project implementation to assure successful relocation of the owls from the unsafe project site.

No evidence was presented to show the Relocation Plan would result in alleged impacts, such as loss of biodiversity, avoiding inbreeding of dispersed juveniles, and/or cumulative impacts on owl populations. Moreover, the comments fail to acknowledge any benefits that may accrue from relocating owls from the project site, including survival of owls now and in the future. 3169
From: Kent Norton
To: Edmelynne V. Hutter
Cc: Pam Steele; Rudy Zeledon; John Pierce; Bruce McDonald Subject: Re: The HUB - Response comments and letters - email #1 Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 12:54:42 PM
Attachments: 46 Kantrowitz owl email.pdf
45 Karnovsky email.pdf
47 Quint Email.pdf
I have reviewed the three email DAB letters dated 1-4-23 you sent me today. Although we did not receive these with the other 44 email letters, they make the same comments as most of the other email letters we did respond to in our memo dated 1-18-23. They all present arguments regarding burrowing owl that were raised by many other commenters as addressed in our memo. You should consider these three emails added to the "group" of 31 responses presented at the end of our memo (Responses 14-44). If necessary, you can number them Letters 45-47 as attached and provide this email as part of the Administrative Record to the Planning Commission. Thank you...

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 3:05 PM Edmelynne V. Hutter <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Pam and Kent,
I don’t know if these 3 comments were forwarded to you. They were received after the DAB meeting. They are the form letters/emails.

Regards,
Edmelynne V. Hutter, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Ontario | Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
909.395.2429 direct
[email protected]
--
Kent Norton, AICP, REPA
Senior Project Manager
3170
PLANNING | DESIGN | COMMUNICATIONS | MANAGEMENT | SCIENCE | TECHNOLOGY 1650 Spruce Street, Suite 106
Riverside, California 92507 | USA
o 951-787-9222 ext 8320 cell 909-518-8200
[email protected]
www.migcom.com [migcom.com]
[facebook.com] [twitter.com] [linkedin.com] [instagram.com] Former State President of the Association
of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
Because of the Shelter at Home order, we are working from home. Please call my cell phone to reach me. Thanks!
3171
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023
Exhibit J: ELMT CONSULTING RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
(Exhibit follows this page)
3172
“Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com
January 18, 2023
SUBJECT: Response to Comments – Group Letter dated January 4, 2023, challenging the HUB at Ontario International Airport.

1. The Ontario Plan mitigation that started around 2007 has been collecting fees from developers to mitigate the loss of large sections of habitat. The City has been working with the Inland Empire Resources Conservation District (IERCD) and Dan Silver to allocate the collected funds towards preserving lands around the Prado Basin.

2. The Ontario HUB is one of the last remaining sites undeveloped in this region. There is currently an insufficient quantity of owls to maintain a healthy population capable of persisting overtime.

Single large mitigation sites can be subject to stochastic events (fire, disease, vandalism, predators, feral cats/dogs, etc.) that can lead to the loss of remnant populations. Several mitigation sites that are connected through greenbelts or areas allowing safe travel is necessary for dispersal between mitigation sites.

Regarding the Hub property, the owls will not persist here forever even if the site was preserved and undeveloped. There are many reasons which demonstrate that owls will not persist in the subject site in perpetuity, despite if a monitoring and management program was established.

Preservation of this subject site will not adequately support a population of owls.

The owl populations at the Seal Beach naval weapons station and the Orange County fairgrounds and many other similar locations all met the same fate. They were surrounded by urbanization and development and after several years the populations were extirpated. Development brings increased risk of mortality (predators, vehicle strikes, loss of foraging habitats, vandalism, etc.). Eventually these island patches of fragmented habitats supporting owls will blink out. They won’t support owls in perpetuity as supported by these similar situations at the OC fair grounds and Seal Beach (and many other locations). The ability to safely disperse away from and into these island patches are critical for a regional population but as this area loses more habitat and dispersal becomes more difficult (increases risk of mortality), then it’s more likely owls will be extirpated. Preservation of portion of the property would not result in long term owl occupation either.

3. Prior to the 1980’s southwestern San Bernardino supported a robust breeding BUOW population with hundreds of pairs from the base of the San Bernardino Mountains south to the Prado Basin.

After decades of development pressure and the complete absence of meaningful mitigation, only a few remaining breeding pairs and winter migrants are known to persist. The remaining highly fragmented landscape which lacks suitable, large, protected sites with connectivity to and between extant breeding sites creates a bottleneck and prevents the existence of a healthy source population. 3173
January 18, 2023

Page 2 ends

With the continued development pressure and lack of adequate mitigation required by the resource agencies, the BUOW population in this region is tenuous at best and will likely never recover from what was once a robust breeding source population (Kidd et al. 2003, 2007).

A current review of BUOWs previously reported near the Ontario Airport includes 45 records from 1989-2017. These 45 records are located within seven nearby 7.5min USGS quads (Ontario, Prado, Corona North, Fontana, Cucamonga Peak and Mt. Blady) and Guasti quad where the airport is located (CNDDB 2020). The nearest owl locations reported south of the airport were evicted approximately ten years ago during development of industrial warehouses. Mitigation included the installation of artificial burrows in a barrow pit on the west side of the nearby retired landfill and the owls were evicted from their burrows prior to grading. Owls are no longer known to occupy this site south of the airport. The existence of two (2) breeding owl pairs, currently surveyed by the 2022 Helix report, which are located at the subject OIAA property along the east side of Haven Avenue are included in the list of 45 owl records. Several reported owls north of Interstate 10 that are located west and north of Ontario Mills Mall are some of the only possible extant owls near the airport. All of these owls are surrounded by development and located on small, highly fragmented sites that will not provide long-term conservation value for the owl due to future development and predation pressure to name a few.

Further, the sites chosen for relocation are preserved sites and will be connected to large open areas that support existing burrowing owl populations, that are already in conserved areas, allowing increased survivability and genetic diversity to avoid inbreeding.

4. The Conclusions and Management Implications section of the study “Release Strategies and Ecological Factors Influence Mitigation Translocation Outcomes for Burrowing Owls: A Comparative Evaluation” (S.M. Hennessey, et. al.) states the following:
“Even if there is a survival penalty associated with translocation, it is important for managers and regulatory agencies to consider that translocation may achieve conservation goals better than displacement. The long-term value of translocation exceeds that of displacement when there are plausible projections of increasing future threats on the unprotected landscape around displacement sites. As the pace of development continues without any apparent de-escalation, wildlife such as BUOW experience ‘serial eviction’ as one habitat patch after another is lost to infrastructure expansion. Under these circumstances, it may be wise to consider translocation to protected areas that can manage these threats, conduct restoration activities to enhance habitat suitability, and include extra management support following release.”
Except for the undeveloped interstitial areas associated with the Ontario International Airport runway to the west of the project site, the project site is almost entirely surrounded by existing development (industrial buildings) to the north, east and south. In accordance with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owls, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted sufficient habitat for BUOW to occupy with permanent protection mechanism in place. Since the project site is surrounded by development on 3174
January 18, 2023

Page 3 ends

three of its boundaries, BUOW burrow exclusion and closure would likely result in BUOW moving from The HUB @ ONT project site to the Ontario International Airport runway, which would put the BUOW at risk of creating additional bird strike hazards with aircraft.

The presence of BUOWs at ONT is one wildlife hazard that the OIAA is required to abate under federal regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations §139.337). These regulations require the OIAA, as part of ONT’s certification with FAA, to “alleviate or eliminate wildlife hazards to air carrier operations.” The ONT WHMP identifies BUOW as a wildlife hazard to airport operations that must be addressed, along with other hazards, under the WHMP.

While the subject site is zoned for industrial uses, the change of use incorporating the creation of a burrowing owl preserve site on airport property east of Haven Street would directly conflict with FAA regulations and guidance associated with the safety of aircraft operations and the use airport property. The following regulations and FAA guidance would apply to the proposed establishment of burrowing owl preserve on airport property:
• Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 139.339, Wildlife Hazard Management • FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Wildlife Hazard Attractants on and Near Airports • FAA Grant Assurances
• CertAlert 06-07, Requests by State Wildlife Agencies to Facilitate and Encourage Habitat for State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern on Airports Each item and its applicability to the proposed preserve is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Numerous avian bird strikes have been reported on the Ontario International Airport, including various strikes from BUOW. Due to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations for avian bird strikes, flight safety, and USDA depredation permits in situ, onsite conservation of this subject site is not feasible. Translocation is needed for the long-term survival of the BUOWs on The HUB @ ONT project site.

USDA (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service; APHIS) is hired by OIAA to reduce strike hazards caused by various wildlife species. Per FAA rules and regulations, OIAA can’t engage in restoration, mitigation or any actions that increase wildlife hazards within zones at and around an FAA certified airport. Any airport can lose their FAA certificate and funding if they are found to be out of compliance with this rule. Any mitigation efforts within 10,000 feet of the airport (the project site is located well within 10,000 feet of the airport) would be considered out of compliance and would likely result in wasted efforts as APHIS has the authority to haze, evict or lethally remove any hazardous wildlife.

Installing artificial burrows and/or encouraging owls to inhabit lands on or directly adjacent to the OIAA property violates FAA rules and is not a viable strategy because of the expected increased presence of other larger hazardous birds (e.g. red-tailed hawks, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, red-shouldered hawks, Cooper’s hawks, turkey vultures, and common ravens) who would attempt to predate or scavenge owls, squirrels or rabbits that would likely use the artificial burrows. Hawks 3175
January 18, 2023

Page 4 ends

and vultures are those struck by aircraft at the highest rates and those known to cause the most damage per strike. These species are often involved in aircraft strikes while they are hover hunting or circling over the approach or departure ends of the airport within the glide slopes. Bird strikes in these situations (landing and take-off) are the most dangerous and can lead to catastrophic events that can kill hundreds of passengers and crew on jetliners.

Evicting the owls along Haven Avenue outside the airfield could result in owls moving to areas within the airfield, making a more hazardous situation. Owls are often found seeking refuge very close to taxiways and runways under lights, signs and other man-made structures that support refuge and areas for squirrels to create burrows. Many burrowing owls that are struck at airports are those crossing runways as aircraft are departing and arriving. This will generally not lead to a catastrophic accident however even small birds like burrowing owls are capable of causing tens of thousands of dollars in damage to aircraft per event.

Further, relocating or encouraging owls to reside on a commercial airfield would violate FAA rules, will result in APHIS having to remove the owls in the future, and creates potential liability for the resource agencies or biologists promoting the in-situ conservation of owls at or near an airport.

In summary, the act of attempting to conduct any form of “mitigation” including in situ or eviction on or directly adjacent to the airfield is not supported by the FAA, APHIS, or past direction from CDFW Headquarters. The best approach for owl mitigation at and adjacent to OIAA property should involve active relocation. This will better ensure for safe flight operations and compliance with FAA regulations while also attempting to provide the owls with a greater chance of survival and future breeding attempts.

Sincerely,
Travis McGill, ELMT Consulting
3176
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023
Exhibit K: OIAA RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
(Exhibit follows this page)
3177
3178
3179
www.flyontario.com
Appendix A
OIAA Correspondence to Pomona Valley Audubon Society, June 13, 2022. 2 pages.
3180
COPY
3181
COPY
3182
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-007

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO

THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO PDEV21-047.

WHEREAS, MCDONALD PROPERTY GROUP (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Development Plan, File No.

PDEV21-047, which consists of nine industrial buildings totaling 4,263,454 square feet and associated improvements on 216.39 gross acres (196.83 net acres) of land generally located east of Haven Avenue, west of Doubleday and Dupont Avenues, north of Jurupa Street and south of Airport Drive, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and 3183
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the decision-making authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, public comments were received regarding opposition of the Project due to concerns about the Project’s impact on Burrowing Owls and air quality; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided responses to each comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, the public comments received, and the Applicant’s responses, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project are on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental 3184
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or 3185
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby approve the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3186
3187
3188
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PDEV21-047
January 24, 2023

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
3189

Page 1 of 86 ends

Project Title/File No.: PDEV21-047 — The HUB at Ontario International Airport Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036 Contact Person: Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner, (909) 395-2429 Project Sponsor: McDonald Property Group
Project Location: The project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario (City) as shown in Figure 1 below. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the project site is irregularly shaped and located east of Haven Avenue, north of Jurupa Street, south of Airport Drive, and west of Double Day Avenue and Dupont Avenues within the California Commerce Center at Ontario Specific Plan (CCC SP or Specific Plan). The project is located on 24 parcels encompassing 196.9 acres just east of the Ontario International Airport (OIA). This acreage does not include the City water well easements. The project site includes Assessors’ Parcel Numbers 0211-222- 47 and -048; 0211-222-52 thru -57; 0211-232-04 thru -07; 0211-232-011 thru -20; and 0211-232-44 thru - 046. All full rights-of-way for public streets that are required for this project have been dedicated and granted to the City.

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909.395.2036
Fax: 909.395.2420
California Environmental Quality Act
Addendum to The Ontario Plan
Environmental Impact Report
3190
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 2 of 86 ends

Figure 2: VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE
N
3191
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 3 of 86 ends

Figure 3: SITE PLAN
N
3192
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 4 of 86 ends

General Plan Designation: Existing – Industrial (0.55 FAR) Proposed – Industrial (0.55 FAR)
Zoning: Existing – California Commerce Center Specific Plan (2591-SP) - Light Industrial
Proposed – California Commerce Center Specific Plan (2591-SP) - Light Industrial
Description of Project: The project proposes to construct nine (9) industrial warehouse buildings in one phase with a total of 4.28 million square feet of building area as shown in Figure 3 and consistent with the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (CCCSP). Table 1 shows the building characteristics of the proposed project. The most current Figure LU-01 of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050, which is the Land Use Plan of the City’s current General Plan (2022), indicates that industrial uses have a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.55 so the 196.9-acre site would be allowed up to 4,717,330 square feet of industrial uses such as warehousing under TOP. TOP Industrial land use category allows a “variety of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution”. The project proposes 9.2% less square footage than the maximum allowed under TOP (i.e., project is 90.8% of TOP` maximum). It should be noted the most current version of TOP and its environmental impact report (EIR) are dated August 16, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364).

On August 21, 2018, the City Council amended the CCCSP designations and rezoned the following eight (8) parcels 0211-222-55, 0211-232-45, 0211-232-46, 0211-232-16, 0211-232-17, 0211-232-18, 0211-232- 19, and 0211-232-20 on the project site from Commercial and Office to Light Industrial. Table 1 shows the land uses of the proposed project. At that time the Council also determined the proposed changes were within and consistent with the analysis of TOP EIR certified on January 27, 2010, as the appropriate CEQA compliance for that action.

Table 1: Proposed Project Land Uses
Building1
Site Area Building Area (Sq. Ft) Landscaping
Acres Sq. Ft. Office Warehouse Total % Sq. Ft. %
1 23.59 1,027,744 10,000 349,960 359,960 35.0 78,119 7.6 2 40.64 1,770,343 10,000 916,099 926,099 52.3 170,377 9.6 3 25.37 1,104,938 10,000 537,395 547,395 49.5 71,488 6.5 4 11.74 511,394 10,000 244,677 254,677 40.8 81,847 16.0 5 19.47 848,330 10,000 414,550 424,550 50.0 112,883 13.3 6 20.58 896,406 10,000 481,110 491,110 54.8 98,719 11.0 7 9.71 422,791 10,000 194,510 204,510 48.4 56,263 13.3
8 24.08 1,048,828 10,000 524,292 534,292 50.9 114,734 10.9 9 21.65 942,972 10,000 510,860 520,860 55.2 112,266 11.9 TOTAL 196.83 8,573,915 90,000 4,173,453 4,263,453 49.5 896,696 10.5 Source: Development Plan Application, McDonald Property Group December 2022 1 see Figure 3 a proposed site plan.

A detailed airport safety assessment was prepared for the project by Mead & Hunt in January 2022 with some of the tabular data updated in December 2022 (M&H 2022, Appendix E). Just west of the project site is a “clear zone,” designated for the OIA, which is part of its aircraft landing approach zones for Runways 26R and 26L (Aircraft Safety Zone 2). As shown in Figure 4, the project site spans the following Safety Zones: Safety Zone 1, Runway Protection Zone (RPZ); Safety Zone 2, Inner Approach/Departure Zone; and Safety Zone 3, Inner Turning Zone. Although 14.56 acres of the Project site fall within Safety Zone 1, which encompasses the RPZs for Runways 26L and 26R, the proposed site plan (see Figure 3) keeps this zone clear of future structures and parking lots. As such, no compatibility conflicts exist in Safety Zone 1, which is the most restrictive of all the safety zones.

For Safety Zones 2 and 3, the individual proposed building sites are subject to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) usage intensity (people per acre) limits for each zone. In accordance with ALUCP Policy S2, any site that is split by safety zone boundaries is treated as if it were multiple parcels divided at the safety zone boundary. This analysis is based on the most recently approved ALUCP (2018). 3193
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 5 of 86 ends

Figure 4: ONTARIO AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES
Table 2, Maximum Allowable Occupancy, presents the maximum allowable occupancy (number of people) permitted for each building site based on the ALUCP average intensity limits for Safety Zones 2 and 3. The maximum allowable occupancy is the primary criterion by which to evaluate the compatibility of each lessee’s proposed specific use or combination of uses within each building. It should be noted that each building site includes the building itself plus adjacent parking and landscaping areas.

Table 2: Maximum Allowable Occupancy
Building1
Site/Parcel
Safety Zone 2 Safety Zone 3 Building
Site/Parcel
Allowable
Occupancy3
Intensity
Limit2
Site
(acres)
Allowable
Occupancy3
Intensity
Limit2
Site
(acres)
Allowable
Occupancy3
1 60 5.09 305 100 12.58 1,258 1,563
2 60 26.79 1,607 100 12.87 1,287 2,894
3 60 13.83 830 100 11.54 1,154 1,984
4 60 -- -- 100 1.50 150 150
N
3194
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 6 of 86 ends

Building1
Site/Parcel
Safety Zone 2 Safety Zone 3 Building
Site/Parcel
Allowable
Occupancy3
Intensity
Limit2
Site
(acres)
Allowable
Occupancy3
Intensity
Limit2
Site
(acres)
Allowable
Occupancy3
5 60 16.35 981 100 3.12 312 1,293
6 60 12.77 766 100 7.81 781 1,547
7 60 9.71 583 100 -- -- 583
8 60 11.46 688 100 11.53 1,153 1,841
9 NA NA NA 100 0.09 9 9
TOTAL
(1-8) 60 96.0 5,760 100 61.04 6,104 11,864
Source: Exhibit 8, M&H 2022 Note: Totals rounded to nearest whole number NA = Not Applicable (see footnote 1)
1 Portions of Buildings 3, 5-7 are also outside of the Safety Zones, and only the portions inside the Safety Zones are subject to building occupancy limits as shown above. Buildings 4 and 9 are not in Safety Zone 2 so no total building occupancy limits apply.
2 Intensity limit = people per acre 3 Allowable occupancy = maximum number of people on each building site The Land Use Element of TOP 2050 states that all new developments surrounding ONT should be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and should meet standards and recommendations of Part 77 of the FAA, adopted through Ordinance 2758 in the Ontario Municipal Code. A consistency determination analysis for the ONT was prepared by the City and submitted to ONT-IAC and found that TOP 2050 is consistent with ALUCP for ONT (ONT–IAC 2022). Therefore, similar to the proposed project, TOP 2050 is consistent with the ALUCP for ONT because the general land use designations within the airport influence area are the same.

The City controls the ultimate determination of compliance with the ALUCP usage criteria, and those determinations will occur when a potential tenant(s) is identified for each building and a specific land use is proposed. The types of uses allowed with the proposed project include a mix of light industrial or warehouse uses with ancillary office space. According to data in the M&H Report, a high-intensity light industrial use (e.g., food products preparation) is likely to exceed the maximum allowable occupancy limits for Zone 2.

Buildings located in Zone 2 are therefore better suited for low intensity light industrial and warehouse uses.

Because tenants have not been identified, for purposes of this analysis, the applicant has requested approval of a 24-hour/7 days per week operational schedule to allow for flexibility for future tenants.

Requested Approvals. The project is within the boundaries of the CCCSP for which an EIR was prepared in 1981. The project application includes a Development Plan and an Addendum to the previously certified EIR prepared for TOP, which was Certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The EIR Addendum will allow the project to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Project Background below). The City’s OIA Planning Liaison has shared the proposed Development Plan with OIA and it has been determined to be consistent with the OIA ALUCP.

Architecture. The proposed industrial buildings will include concrete tilt-up walls with painted and scored accents. The design will provide glazing and color variations to ease the length of the buildings. The mixture of varying elevations will utilize a combination of materials and colors. A maximum 14-foot tall concrete tiltup wall will screen the truck yards and the wall colors will match the paint and color variations of the industrial buildings.

The project includes security and decorative lighting for the new proposed warehouse buildings, parking areas, and access routes consistent with the CCCSP and the City’s Development Code. The lighting plan shows that all lighting is shielded and directed toward the ground to the extent necessary to minimize potential impacts with operations at the airport just west of the project site. The City’s OIA Planning Liaison has shared the proposed Development Plan, including the proposed lighting, with OIA and it has been determined to be consistent with the OIA ALUCP.

Circulation and Parking. Access to the project will be from the following streets:
• Haven Avenue
3195
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 7 of 86 ends

• Jurupa Street
• Airport Drive
• Carnegie Avenue
• La Salle Street
• Commerce Parkway
• Doubleday Avenue
• Dupont Avenue
• Santa Ana Street
There are a minimum of two (2) access driveways for each of the buildings in the development. There are also 26-foot wide emergency vehicle access roads provided around the buildings and through the parking areas of the site. The project will provide a total of 2,269 parking spaces (see Table 3).

Landscaping. The project will provide landscaping along all the parkways, on the sides of the buildings except the truck docks/courts, and throughout the automobile parking areas per the requirements of the CCCSP. Landscaping setback requirements vary according to the street on which the building is located as outlined in the CCCSP. The Light Industrial zone does not have a set landscaping percentage requirement, however, the project will provide landscaping areas for each building site as shown previously in Table 1 for an average of 10.5% for the entire proposed project.

Development Standards. The industrial facility will be subject to the most current CCCSP zoning standards for development and design provided in Table 3, which demonstrates the project meets or exceeds the required standards. Setbacks vary according to the street on which the building is located.

Table 3: Project Development Standards
Location Minimum
Lot Size
Building
Size
Building
Height
Auto Parking
Requirements
CCC SP Requirement
Development
Standards for
Light Industrial
Uses
10,000 sf See each building
size below
55’ Warehouse:
1st 20,000 at 1/1,000 square feet
Above 20,000 @1/2,000 square feet
(If office is less than 10% of Gross Floor
Area, then no office parking is required)
Provided by Project Building/Parcel Provided Required
Building 1 23.6 ac 359,960 sf 48’ 276 spaces 190 spaces Building 2 40.6 ac 926,100 sf 48’ 513 spaces 473 spaces Building 3 25.4 ac 547,395 sf 50’ 6” 284 spaces 284 spaces Building 4 11.7 ac 254,677 sf 48’ 138 spaces 137 spaces Building 5 19.5 ac 424,550 sf 50’ 343 spaces 222 spaces Building 6 20.6 ac 491,110 sf 50’ 6” 256 spaces 256 spaces Building 7 9.7 ac 204,510 sf 48’ 112 spaces 112 spaces
Building 8 24.1 ac 534,292 sf 50’ 6” 277 spaces 277 spaces Building 9 21.7 ac 520,860 sf 50’ 6” 270 spaces 270 spaces Total 196.8 ac 4,263,454 sf Max. 50’ 6” 2,469 spaces 2,221 spaces Source: Development Plan Application, McDonald Property Group November 2022 ac = acres sf = square feet
Grading. Per the proposed conceptual grading plan, preparation of the project site will require specialized earthwork for Buildings 1-4 to accommodate the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 and 7460 aviation-related height restrictions. Grading of the site will require approximately 699,626 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 658,489 CY of fill, resulting in the export of 41,137 CY of soil from the site. Assuming 14 CY per load, the exporting of soil will require 2,938 one-way truck trips or 5,876 two-way truck trips which will require approximately 122 days to transport assuming 8 hours per day and 6 days per week. Truck trip lengths are assumed to be 20 miles per trip.
3196
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 8 of 86 ends

Construction. All construction activities, including site preparation and grading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings, are expected to take approximately three years (January 2024 to December 2026) and involve a variety of construction equipment as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Construction Equipment
Construction Activity Equipment Quantity Hours/Day
Site Preparation
Crawler Tractors 5 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 4 8
Grading
Crawler Tractors 3 8
Excavators 3 8
Graders 2 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Scrapers 3 8
Building Construction
Cranes 2 8
Crawler Tractors 6 8
Forklifts 6 8
Generator Sets 2 8
Welders 2 8
Paving
Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 8
Source: Urban Crossroads 2022
Project Setting: The project site consists of approximately 196.9 acres of land within eastern Ontario. The site is irregular in shape and is located just east of the OIA and Haven Avenue. The site is currently vacant and relatively flat with elevations ranging from 950 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the northern end down to 910 feet amsl at the southern end with a gentle slope of 11 percent to the south. Runoff from the site generally flows toward the surrounding roadways. Historically the site was regularly disked for weed abatement and fire protection. However, it has not been cleared in some time now due to the presence of burrowing owl on the site (see below). The site supports some landscaped species around the perimeter and at major road intersections. The vacant conditions of the site currently support a small population of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) which is a California Species of Special Concern. The site supports no native plant associations of habitat for other listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals.

The only existing onsite improvement is one abandoned water well although there is a former agricultural reservoir offsite just east of Haven Avenue. This structure appears to have been created sometime in the 1940’s and was abandoned sometime before 1966 – remnants of it still appear on aerial photographs of the area. The location and extent of these uses are shown in the previous Figure 2. The majority of the project site lies within the OIA Safety Zones 1, 2 and 3 per the OIA ALUCP, as discussed above.

Project Background: The project is part of the CCC SP for which a project-level EIR was prepared and originally certified in November 1981. The CCCSP EIR (City EIR No. 81-4) originally proposed the project site for Industrial/Office uses (50% each) and identified the following environmental impacts with a total of 91 mitigation measures (MMs):
• construction air quality (MMs 1-6);
• operational air quality (7-13 MMs);
3197
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 9 of 86 ends

• airport noise on the project (14-16 MMs);
• cultural resources (MM 17);
• biological resources (MM 18-20); [no mitigation for burrowing owl] • energy conservation (MMs 21-30);
• hydrology (MMs 31-34);
• land use compatibility (MMs 35-40);
• noise (MMs 41-44);
• seismicity (MMs 45-48);
• soils and geology (MMs 49-51);
• traffic (MMs 52-67); [only addressed LOS/congestion impacts] • visual and aesthetics (MMs 71-73);
• wastewater (MM 74);
• water supply (MMs 75-78);
• utilities (MMs 79-83);
• services (MMs 84-89); and
• fiscal/economics (MMs 90-91).1
Due to its age, it should be noted the 1981 EIR did not make any conclusions about the significance of impacts after mitigation, only identifying the potential for impacts and recommending mitigation measures as shown above. Most of the mitigation measures recommended in the original 1981 EIR have been supplanted by regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval by the City, and some issues like level of service (LOS) for traffic impacts no longer apply to CEQA documents. Typically, a project within a specific plan would be processed as an addendum to the previously certified EIR (i.e., the 1981 CCCSP EIR). However, in this case, the City’s TOP and its EIR contain much more current and accurate environmental information about the project site and applicable mitigation as explained below and as summarized in Table A (provided separately).

On August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted the latest version of TOP, which serves as the City’s General Plan under state law and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation that consists of six (6) distinct components: 1) Vision; 2) Governance Manual; 3) Policy Plan; 4) Council Priorities; 5) Implementation; and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The Policy Plan component of TOP meets the functional and legal mandate of a municipal General Plan and contains nine elements; Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design and Social Resources.

The City Council certified TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364) analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan, and impacts resultant of population and employment growth in the City. The project proposes land uses consistent with TOP 2050. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in TOP EIR included: agriculture resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise and transportation/traffic.

CEQA requires lead agencies to use the most current and accurate environmental information in analyzing project impacts. Therefore, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the proposed project and its site have been analyzed relative to current technical studies and TOP EIR. These uses will be consistent with the industrial uses to the north, east, and south of the subject site. In addition, the subject site is located under the landing path of the OIA and this analysis evaluates the project relative to OIA constraints as well.

CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of an EIR or negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the negative declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and 1 In January 1983, EIR Addendum No. 1 was approved that consolidated this list to 79 MMs and added some regulatory compliance. 3198
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 10 of 86 ends

adopt an addendum. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Thus, if the project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may adopt an addendum to TOP EIR.

CEQA Analysis: According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:
1) Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the project compared to what is allowed in TOP, and project implementation will not require revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The site is located within the Light Industrial designated portion of the CCC SP. The project is consistent with the CCC SP requirements for that zone, which permit warehouse/distribution uses. As described in the Specific Plan and, therefore, analyzed in TOP EIR, maximum development of the project site (196.9 acres) would not exceed 4,717,330 square feet of light industrial uses. This is based on Figure LU-01 of the current TOP (Land Use Plan) which indicates that (light) industrial uses have a maximum FAR of 0.55 so the 196.9-acre site would be allowed up to 4,717,330 square feet of industrial uses under TOP. It should be noted the project proposes 9.2% less square footage than the maximum allowed under TOP (i.e., project is 90.8% of TOP maximum). Therefore, the proposed project will result in less development of the site than TOP EIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 4,281,128 sf vs. 4,717,330 sf). Since the anticipated buildout resulting 3199
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 11 of 86 ends

from the project will be less than that originally analyzed in TOP EIR, no revisions to TOP EIR are required.

In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP EIR are conditions of project approval or mitigation measures and are incorporated herein by reference. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as Industrial with a maximum FAR of 0.55 (based on TOP Figure LU-01, Land Use Plan, and TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan), consistent with the surrounding industrial properties to the north, east, and south. The proposed project is implementing TOP EIR’s industrial land use designation for the site and is consistent with the previous 1992 General Plan land use designation of Industrial for the site.

Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to TOP EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted TOP EIR mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference (see separate Table A).

This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
3) Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

No new information has been provided that would indicate the proposed project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as Industrial with a maximum FAR of 0.55 (based on TOP Figure LU-01, Land Use Plan, and TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan), consistent with the surrounding industrial properties to the north, west, and south. Since adoption of the 1992 General Plan certification and the TOP 2050 EIR, the subject site and surrounding area have been planned for and remained industrial.

Burrowing owl surveys were completed in 2019, 2020 and a 2022 protocol study was conducted to determine the current number of burrowing owls on site. Any owls found onsite will be relocated to a more natural, less urbanized location with no aviation associated hazards in accordance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) protocols. In this regard, the applicant has prepared a Burrowing Owl Relocation Program (BRP) consistent with TOP Environmental Resources Element Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the TOP EIR are required.

In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference and outlined in Table A. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.

Conclusion: TOP EIR, certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022 was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines section 15121(a), and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. TOP EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP. Consequently, TOP EIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area. The amount of development anticipated at project buildout, as shown in Table 1 above, will be less than the development analyzed in TOP EIR.

Accordingly, and based on the conclusions of the previously certified TOP EIR, the analysis in this document, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need 3200
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 12 of 86 ends

for additional mitigation with implementation of the number of conditions of approval required by the City based on the results of the site specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.

Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is surrounded on the north, east, and west by land uses within the CCCSP (e.g., rail industrial and light industrial) including some vacant land. The OIA and related uses (e.g., parking lots) are just west of the site across Haven Avenue. See Table 5 for onsite and surrounding land uses and zoning designations. Onsite and surrounding land uses are also shown in the previous Figure

2. Table 5: Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Location Existing
Land Uses
TOP Designation Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site: Vacant Industrial California Commerce
Center (2591-SP) Light Industrial
North:

Light Industrial
Warehousing and
Vacant Land
Industrial California Commerce
Center (2591-SP) Rail Industrial
South: Light Industrial
Warehousing Industrial California Commerce Center (2591-SP) Rail Industrial East: Vacant and Light
Industrial Warehousing Industrial California Commerce Center (2591-SP) Rail Industrial and
Light Industrial
West: OIA Airport OIA NA
TOP 2050 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS/REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The following actions will implement various requirements of TOP 2050 to protect environmental resources and City residents from environmental hazards. They are based on recommendations from the various technical studies prepared specifically for the project (see “Additional Studies” listed below). The actions regarding biological resources were prepared to comply with Policies ER5-1 and ER5-2 of the Environmental Resources Element of TOP 2050 as well as comply with applicable federal and state environmental regulations:

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: BURROWING OWL RELOCATION PROGRAM (BRP). Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the developer shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Burrowing Owl (BUOW) Relocation Plan for the project site that consists of the following steps:

Focused Survey. A subject site area focused survey is required to identify individual owls and nesting pairs and the burrows they are occupying.

Identify Receiver Site(s). The proiect biologist will identity potential receiver sites that can accommodate relocated birds from the project site and provide long-term habitat for the species. Based on preliminary research, there are three potential options:

Option 1 – Habitat Mitigation (HM) Land. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will allow an applicant to acquire and provide perpetual management of its own HM land or secure an existing conservation easement program in place to provide continued management of relocated Burrowing Owls. For this to occur, CDFW must approve the HM land as appropriate for the defined conservation goals. Several steps are required to accomplish this prior to relocation:
• Obtain CDFW written approval of the HM lands before acquisition. • Transfer fee title of the HM lands to CDFW or a CDFW approved entity pursuant to terms approved in writing by CDFW.
• If CDFW does not hold fee title to the HM lands, CDFW shall serve as grantee for a Conservation Easement over the property or approve another entity to act as grantee. • Provide a recent title report, Phase I Environmental Assessment, and other necessary documents. 3201
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 13 of 86 ends

• Designate both an interim and long-term land manager approved by CDFW. The interim and longterm managers need not be the same. • Provide for site preparation, including the initial site protection and enhancements. • Provide for the interim management of the HM land which, in the case of burrowing owls, is a minimum of two years.
• Ensure that the HM lands are perpetually managed, maintained, and monitored by the long-term manager as described in the long-term management plan.
• Provide long-term management funding by establishing a non-wasting endowment or otherwise ensure the perpetual management of the HM lands
• Develop and implement a two-year Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for preparing the relocation site and for monitoring the BUOW population. • Ensure funding to cover all aspects of the relocation process.

Option 2 - Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Active burrowing owl relocation is a pre-approved activity within the MSHCP. The Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) manages conservation lands within Riverside County and accepts relocated owls if consistent with the MSHCP and approved by the wildlife agencies. A proposed relocation plan would have to be submitted to the RCA for review and approval by the Joint Project Review Committee (JPR).

Both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW are members of the JPR. Once the RCA tentatively approves the plan and can identify a receiver site on MSHCP conserved lands, the proposed relocation will be presented to the JPR for a final review and approval. With approval, the owls could be relocated by an authorized biologist according to a CDFW approved relocation plan.

Option 3 – Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD) Relocation Site and/or In-Lieu Fee.

The IERCD manages habitat lands for various species within Riverside County and may have BUOW habitat land available for relocation of project BUOW. If existing easement sites as proposed under the current relocation plan are found to be unsuitable or not approved by CDFW or USFWS, then the applicant may be able to pay an in-lieu fee to help mitigate BUOW impacts of the proposed project. The applicant will continue discussions with the City and IERCD to determine if or what habitat resources are available, or in-lieu fee may be needed to adequately mitigate project impacts to BUOW.

Prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. Once a receiver site(s) is chosen, the project biologist would submit the chosen site(s) to appropriate agencies (e.g., USFWS, CDFW) for review and approval. A sitespecific relocation plan can then be prepared for review and approval. Upon plan approval, the developer shall establish an escrow account or endowment that guarantees funding for the entire translocation and monitoring effort.

Receiver Site Preparation. The authorized biologist shall supervise installation of cages and/or burrows on the receiver site as necessary. String trimming or minor vegetation modifications may be necessary to effectively install the cages/burrows.

Onsite Trapping. The authorized biologist shall trap owls on the project site as close to egg laying (February - early March) as possible, then release the owls into tracking cages at receiver site. At that time, the owls will be banded for identification and tracking purposes. Occupied burrows on the project site where capture occurred will be excavated to prevent reoccupation. One-way doors may also be installed for 72 hours prior at all other suitable burrows to prevent re-occupation of the project site.

Relocation Monitoring. The transfer of owls from the project site to the receiver site will be supervised by an authorized biologist holding a valid permit for such activities. Owls will be fed and monitored daily at the receiver site until a full clutch of eggs is well into incubation. Cages will then be removed from the receiver site. Game cameras shall be installed to assist future monitoring efforts. Monitoring is to assess site for predators, disturbances, and identify actions to be taken to address potential problems that could impact the success of owl relocation. The project biologist will band young birds and continue to monitor them for success and address any problems related to predators or site disturbance. The receiver site shall be monitored for two (2) years post release of owls on the site to document efficacy of relocation. The biologist shall also conduct habitat modifications and burrow maintenance as needed. 3202
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 14 of 86 ends

Reporting. The project biologist shall prepare monthly reports from the start of owl relocation for at least twenty-four (24) months and prepare at least two Annual Reports with the second being the final Project Mitigation Report. These monitoring reports shall be sent to the City, USFWS, and CDFW. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation with the CDFW and USFWS.

NOTE: In addition to burrowing owl, development of the project site may impact nesting birds in trees adjacent to the site. TOP EIR indicates the City wishes to protect biological resources such as nesting birds which are also protected by state regulations. Therefore, the following site-specific measure, Nesting Bird Survey, implements the goals of TOP to protect such resources:

BIO-2: NESTING BIRD SURVEY. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or if vegetation removal is scheduled during the nesting season (typically February 1 to September 1), then a focused survey for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist (as determined by a combination of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities) no more than five (5) days prior to the beginning of project-related activities (e.g., excavation, grading and vegetation removal). Surveys shall be conducted in proposed work areas, staging and storage areas, soil, equipment, and material stockpile areas. For passerines and small raptors, surveys shall be conducted within a 250- foot radius surrounding the work area (in non-developed areas and where access is feasible). For larger raptors, such as those from the genus Buteo, the survey area shall encompass a 500-foot radius. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during weather conditions suited to maximize the observation of possible nests and shall concentrate on areas of suitable habitat. If a lapse in project-related work of five (5) days or longer occurs, an additional nest survey shall be required before work can be reinitiated. If nests are encountered during any preconstruction survey, a qualified biologist shall determine if it may be feasible for construction to continue as planned without impacting the success of the nest, depending on conditions specific to each nest and the relative location and rate of construction activities. Any nest(s) within the project site shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during active construction if work is occurring directly adjacent to the pre-determined no-work buffer. If the qualified biologist determines construction activities have the potential to adversely affect a nest, the biologist shall immediately inform the construction manager to halt construction activities within a minimum exclusion buffer of 50 feet for songbird nests, and 200 to 500 feet for raptor nests, depending on species and location. Construction activities within the no-work buffer may proceed after a qualified biologist determines the nest is no longer active due to natural causes (e.g., young have fledged, predation, or other non-anthropogenic nest failure).

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: WELLPIPE DOCUMENTATION. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to adequately document the existing well/pipe using the appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Confirmation of receipt of the documentation by the California Office of Historic Preservation shall be provided prior to the start of grading. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.

HAZARDS
NOTE: The following TOP Implementation Actions/Regulatory Compliance are based on the recommendations of the Mead & Hunt report (Appendix E) to comply with the recommendations of TOP EIR Section 5.8, Impact 5.8-3:

HAZ-1: Avigation Easements. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, an avigation easement shall be recorded with the deed to the property. The avigation easement language and conveyances shall be acknowledged in the Ground Lease between the Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA) and the developer and all future tenant sublease agreements, and Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CCRs).

HAZ-2: Building Intensity. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall demonstrate to both the OIAA and the City of Ontario that the proposed use of each building complies with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) intensity criteria. Additionally, the Ground Lease between the OIAA and the developer shall require a consistency evaluation at the time a specific use (or re-use) is proposed for each of the nine building sites to ensure long-term compliance with the ALUCP usage intensity 3203
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 15 of 86 ends

criteria. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-3: Part 77 Height Limits. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall receive a positive “No Airspace Hazard Determination” determination from the FAA. While the proposed buildings have been confirmed by Mead & Hunt to be designed in compliance with Part 77 height limits, the FAA may find that other aspects of the project be further evaluated and addressed, such as electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation with the FAA and with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-4: Architectural Design. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate that building plans show structures or architectural features that could provide nesting, shelter, or perching opportunities for raptors and large birds have been designed to reduce the attractiveness of these features through the application of nets, bird spikes, or other deterrents (communication towers, signs, and light standards are examples of structures of this type). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-5: Landscaping. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate that landscaping plans preclude the planting of new trees that create a dense and contiguous canopy or plant materials that provide food sources such as fruit, nuts, or berries. The plans shall use only short tree species/varieties to ensure that mature trees will not create an airspace obstruction or hazardous wildlife attractant. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-6: Lighting Fixtures. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate that lighting fixtures do not project light directly onto the existing runways or taxiways or into the approach and departure paths for the OIA. Exterior lighting shall incorporate down-shielding to direct light downward and away from the airport approach and departure paths. Lighting shall not imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish airport lighting from other lighting (streetlights, signs, etc.), nor create the appearance of oncoming aircraft traffic to pilots landing from or departing toward the east on Runway 26R/L or toward the west on Runways 8R and 8L. Lighting within Airport Safety Zones 1 and 2 shall not be aligned in a linear pattern parallel with the runways (Runway 8R/26L and 8L/26R). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-7: Glare Control. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall demonstrate that buildings do not include glare-producing materials, including but not limited to unpainted metal, white paint/rooftop materials, or highly reflective glass (e.g., mirrored glass). No glare-producing materials shall be used on the exterior of structures located within the airport approach and departure paths or on nearby lands where glare could impair a pilot's vision. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-8: Glare Analysis. For any building rooftops on which solar systems are proposed, the developer shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare a glare analysis to alleviate potential visual impacts to OIA operations. The findings of the analysis shall be included in the FAA Form 7460-1 submittal for the solar project. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

HAZ-9: Construction Coordination. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall coordinate with the OIAA to develop a project construction schedule to alleviate any potential impacts to airport operations, particularly from cranes (i.e., due to their height and location) as outlined in Exhibit 14 of the Mead & Hunt report (Appendix E). If the project’s schedule is aligned with planned runway closures, runway closure timeframes shall be included on the FAA Form 7460-1 submittal for the cranes. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department with OIAA concurrence.

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): CDFW (burrowing owl survey and relocation)
Tribal Consultation: Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes No 3204
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 16 of 86 ends

If “yes”, has consultation begun? Yes No Completed
This document is an Addendum to TOP 2050 EIR which had its own extensive Native American Consultation (NAC) process per SB 18 and AB 52. The proposed Project and its TOP EIR Addendum do not require separate subsequent NAC since the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and an EIR Addendum is an administrative action, not a legislative action.

Additional Studies: The following additional studies have been or are being prepared in support of the analysis in this document regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. These studies are in the Appendices to this document and include:
• Air Quality and Energy Memorandum, Urban Crossroads, March 15, 2022 (Appendix A) • GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Commercial and Industrial Development, HPA Architects, December 14, 2021 (Appendix A)
• Burrowing Owl at Ontario Airport Study, Helix Env. – Kidd Biological, 2020 (Appendix B) • Pre-Construction Clearance Survey for Burrowing Owl, Wood Environmental, August 14, 2021 (Appendix B)
• Cultural Resources Survey for Parcel Group 1 Development, Helix Environmental, April 15, 2019 (Appendix C)
• Cultural Resources Survey for Parcel Group 2 Development, Helix Environmental, April 15, 2019 (Appendix C)
• VMT Memorandum, Urban Crossroads, December 8, 2021 (Appendix D) • Traffic Impact Assessment, Urban Crossroads, January 11, 2022 (Appendix D) • Ontario Airport Land Use Consistency Report, Mead & Hunt, January 26, 2022 (Appendix E) • Hydrology Report, Thienes Engineering, December 27, 2021 (Appendix F) • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, Thienes Engineering, October 27, 2022 (Appendix F)
• Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for PDEV21-047 Hub at ONT, Ontario, California, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, December 2022 (Appendix F)

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
3205
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 17 of 86 ends

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

December 23, 2022
Signature Date
Edmelynne Hutter, Senior Planner City of Ontario
Printed Name and Title For
3206
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 18 of 86 ends

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from the "Earlier Analyses” Section may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. For this project, reference will be made to TOP EIR and the CCC SP EIR as appropriate. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 3207
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 19 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
3208
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 20 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
e. 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 nonforest use?

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3209
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 21 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
3210
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 22 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
3211
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 23 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

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

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
3212
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 24 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

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

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
3213
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 25 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR

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

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?

20. WILDFIRES. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
3214
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 26 of 86 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in

TOP FEIR
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

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

Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. 3215
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 27 of 86 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.M of the CCC SP EIR did not identify any significant visual impacts of the project but did recommend seven (7) mitigation measures for the project related to building appearance and landscaping with implementation of the CCC SP. Those measures are outlined in Table A and are referenced as CCCSP EIR Measures 18, 36, 37, 68, 69, 70, and 73 in the first column of the table.

TOP EIR concludes… “the scale and design of the City under TOP 2050 would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains which are the dominant scenic resource in the City of Ontario. Regulations such as the City’s Municipal Code and policies [of TOP] would ensure that increased development would not impact scenic vistas” (SEIR p. 5.1-5). TOP Policy CD1-5 requires all major north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The project site is located just east of the OIA and includes the following north-south streets, Haven Avenue and South Commerce Way, consistent with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan (Figure M2) of the Mobility Element within TOP Policy Plan. The CCC SP and surrounding area are planned for industrial and commercial uses. Major land uses in the surrounding area are non-residential (e.g., industrial and commercial). The proposed project will permit warehouse, distribution, assembly, and/or manufacturing similar to uses that already exist in the surrounding area and are consistent with TOP Policy Plan. The new uses are already allowed by TOP and do not obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains from onsite or surrounding north-south streets. No adverse impacts are anticipated in relation to the project.

Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any scenic resources on the site and did not identify any scenic highways in the area. The EIR concluded the project had no impacts and no mitigation was required.

TOP EIR states…”The Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. These are not State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City” (SEIR 5.1-6). The City is served by three freeways: I10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. The project site is just south of the I-10 and west of the I-15 freeways. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the City.

The project site is vacant and contains no historic buildings or any scenic resources, nor are there any in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, it will not result in adverse environmental impacts.

The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to the EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 3216
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 28 of 86 ends

Discussion of Effects: Section VI.M of the CCC SP EIR did not identify any significant visual quality or characteristics of the area. Nevertheless, the EIR did recommend seven (7) mitigation measures related to building architecture and landscaping to be consistent with the CCC SP. Those measures are outlined in Table A and are referenced as CCCSP EIR Measures 18, 36, 37, 68, 69, 70, and 73 in the first column of the table.

TOP EIR characterized this area as having existing industrial development and the area contained urban land uses including industrial development planned on and around the project site. TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City, which includes light industrial uses planned on the project site, would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 5.1-7).

TOP EIR also states…”future development under the [TOP 2050] would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which includes general development requirements for development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetic of the City. Finally…the Development Code is enacted to assist implementation of planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws and the TOP and to achieve the proper arrangement of land uses envisioned in TOP. Because it is the overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the…TOP 2050…would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality” (SEIR p. 5-1-7).

The project site is located in an area that is characterized by industrial development and is surrounded by urban land uses. The project is consistent with TOP land uses and zoning so it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.

The proposed project will be required to comply with the policies of the Community Design Element of TOP Policy Plan and zoning designations on the property, as well as the design requirements of the CCC SP. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts are anticipated, and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not address lighting although one (1) of the mitigation measures in Section VI.M stated a unified lighting and signage program should be provided throughout the project.

TOP EIR concluded that new development throughout the City would increase ambient light levels over time as development occurred, but that compliance with Development Code lighting requirements would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 6.1- 7).

The project proposes the development of nine light industrial buildings consistent with TOP and CCC SP land use designations. New development will have architectural and security lighting on buildings and in parking lots, and streets that do not yet have street lighting will have new lighting installed. Pursuant to the requirements of the CCC SP and the City’s Development Code, onsite lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to onsite users, pedestrians, and motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within each building site and minimize light spillage. The OIA has reviewed the project plans and determined they have no concerns regarding lighting.

Site lighting plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 3217
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 29 of 86 ends

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.K of the CCC SP EIR addresses geology and soils and does indicate the project site is underlain by prime agricultural soils (site previously supported vineyards).

The CCC SP EIR did not identify any significant agricultural resources on the project site although it was prepared prior to the creation of the FMMP website. The EIR indicated the area had been used years ago for agriculture, as had much of the City, but was now transitioning to urban light industrial land uses.

No impacts were anticipated, and no mitigation was recommended. The EIR concluded the project will result in the loss of prime agricultural soils but does not recommend any mitigation and does not indicate if this loss is a significant environmental impact of the project.

TOP EIR states that the City is underlain by prime agricultural soils in a number of areas but that the City envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. The EIR concluded TOP…”would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use” (SEIR p. 5.2-12). The EIR concluded this because those changes had already been evaluated in the 2010 TOP which represents the baseline condition for the 2050 TOP. TOP EIR did not anticipate these changes to be a significant adverse impact and as a result did not recommend mitigation.

The project site is presently vacant and does not contain any agricultural uses. Further, the site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency as part of the FMMP. Based on the information above, no adverse environmental impacts from the project related to prime farmland are anticipated.

Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts on agricultural resources and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any agricultural zoning or current agricultural uses on the project site (i.e., at that time in 1981) although it did indicate the site supported vineyards in the past. The EIR did not indicate if the site was under a Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract, and current chain of title reports for the project parcels do not indicate any were or are present on the site now.

TOP EIR indicates that some areas of the City were used for agriculture in the past, including the general project area. However, the City currently has no agricultural land use or zoning designations. Figure

5.2-2 of TOP EIR indicates there are a number of Williamson Act contracts in the City, but they are in the southern portion of the City which also is transitioning to suburban land uses. The project area has been transitioning to urban light industrial land uses for some time, and no Williamson Act contracts are active in 3218
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 30 of 86 ends

this area at present. In this regard, no significant impacts were anticipated in TOP EIR and no mitigation was recommended.

The project site is not zoned for agricultural use; the site is designated within the CCC SP for light industrial uses which are permitted under TOP. Future development will be consistent with the development standards and land uses allowed under TOP and CCC SP.

Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with Williamson Act contracts. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any forest land on the project site.

Therefore, there are no impacts and no mitigation is required.

TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses in the City, including the light industrial uses of the project site, would not result in any impacts related to rezoning of forest or timberland to non-forest use.

The project proposes nine warehouse buildings consistent with the light industrial land uses allowed under TOP and CCC SP. The project would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production because such land use designations do not exist within the City.

Therefore, no impacts to forest or timberland are anticipated and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any forest resources on the site.

TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the light industrial uses of the project site, would not result in any impacts related to the conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p. 5.2-13).

There is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), including the project site. Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land anywhere in the City.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: The CCC SP EIR did not identify any agricultural zoning or current agricultural uses on the project site (i.e., in 1981) although it did indicate the site supported vineyards in the past. The CCC SP EIR did not identify any forest resources on the site. The EIR stated the project would remove prime agricultural soils but did not make a conclusion if that impact was significant and did not recommend any mitigation in that regard.

TOP EIR indicated future development would not conflict with agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. It also concluded there is no forest land in Ontario, and therefore the project would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p. 5.2-14). TOP 3219
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 31 of 86 ends

envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the light industrial uses of the project site, would not result in any cumulative impacts related to loss of forest land.

Implementation of the project would not result in changes to the existing environment other than those previously addressed in TOP EIR. While conversion of farmland increases the potential for adjacent areas to also be converted from farmland to urban uses, there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite or in the vicinity and the project will not directly or indirectly result in conversion of farmland. No new cumulative impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR would result from project implementation. As a result, the project will not result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Additionally, there is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land.

Based on available data, the proposed project would not result in changes to the existing environment that would affect forest land. There will be no impacts and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: Section VI.A of the CCC SP EIR addressed air quality but did not refer to any air quality management plan in place at that time (1981). In addition, the EIR did not make a specific conclusion regarding the significance of project-related air pollutant emissions compared to any significance thresholds from any air quality planning document.

The project site was analyzed in the current (2022) and previous (2010) TOP EIR as industrial land uses surrounded on the north, east, and south by industrial uses and on the west by the OIA. TOP EIR concluded future land uses, including the proposed project, may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) issued by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). TOP EIR concluded that future development and the cumulative air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. As noted in the previous TOP EIR (Section 5.3) from 2010, pollutant levels in the City already exceeded Federal and State standards at that time. To reduce pollutant levels, the City is actively participating in efforts to enhance air quality by implementing Control Measures in the AQMP for local jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of 87,620 residential units, 40,356,075 square feet of mixed-use development, 34,934,684 square feet of retail/service uses, 22,116,283 square feet of business park use, 159,998,711 square feet of industrial use, and 257,405,754 square feet of other uses within the area bounded by the current proposed project.

The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designations upon which the AQMP is based.

Page 32 of 86 ends

Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is quired. The following measures from TOP EIR are applicable to the proposed project:

AQ 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
− Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. − Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. − Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards • Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.

AQ 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).

AQ-3-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD– adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485). 3221
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 33 of 86 ends

• Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures). • Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures). • Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: Section VI.A of the CCC SP EIR concluded the overall project would emit a substantial amount of air pollutant emissions over the short- and long-term and considered them as a percentage of regional (basin-wide) emissions. The EIR did not make a specific conclusion regarding the significance of project-related air pollutant emissions compared to any significance thresholds, it simply presented the emissions in pounds/day before any of the recommended mitigation measures were applied.

The EIR recommended six (6) mitigation measures to help limit short-term emissions during construction and seven (7) measures to help limit long-term emissions. However, the language of the measures was permissive rather than mandatory and all of them have since been incorporated into regulatory compliance and standard conditions of approval by the City (see Table A for CCCSP EIR Measures 1-6 and 7-13, respectively, in column 1 of the table).

TOP EIR concluded that air pollutant emissions from future development within the City consistent with TOP land uses, including the proposed project, would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. TOP EIR evaluated the development of 87,620 residential units, 40,356,075 square feet of mixed-use development, 34,934,684 square feet of retail/service uses, 22,116,283 square feet of business park use, 159,998,711 square feet of industrial use, and 257,405,754 square feet of other uses within the area bounded by the current proposed project. Table 6 summarizes the operational air quality emissions that would result from the currently approved land uses on the proposed project site. Table 6 demonstrates that the land uses on the project site under the approved TOP would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOC and NOx while TOP EIR indicates emissions of all land uses would exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds and a statement of overriding considerations was required.

Table 6: Currently Approved Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Pollutant Characteristics
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Transportation Sources 29,625 27,829 222,058 582 4,557 4,512 Area Sources 23,781 3,548 46,604 127 7,019 6,757
Maximum Daily Emissions 53,406 31,367 157,662 709 11,576 11,269 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES YES YES YES
Source: Table 1, Urban Crossroads, March 2022
Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 as outlined in Section 3.a have already been adopted by the City that would facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce short-term construction emissions, help promote regional air quality improvement goals and energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and implement transportation demand strategies. However, TOP EIR 3222
CEQA Addendum to The Ontario Plan EIR
File No.: PDEV21-047

Page 34 of 86 ends

Ontario City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

Ontario City Council
March 21, 2023