Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023

PROJECT SETTING: The Rich-Haven
Specific Plan is comprised of 584.9
gross acres of land and is generally
bounded by Riverside Drive, Colony
High School and the SCE Mira Loma
Substation to the north, Hamner
Avenue/Mill Creek Avenue to the
east, Old Edison Avenue to the south,
and Haven Avenue to the west as
depicted in Figure 1: Project
Location. The majority of the specific
plan is presently vacant and was
primarily used for agricultural
purposes, including the raising of
livestock and dairy operations that
have recently ceased operations in
the last 2 to 5 years. The areas to the
northwest of Ontario Ranch Road are
under construction with residential
subdivisions, and several properties to
the south along Ontario Ranch Road
have been entitled for residential and
commercial land uses. The area
immediately south of the SCE Mira
Loma Substation is currently under
construction with an industrial
building. Additionally, Southern
California Edison (SCE) easements
containing power transmission lines
cross the site in an east to west
direction directly south of the Chino
Avenue alignment, transmission lines also run north/south along the east side of Mill Creek Avenue, and northeast to southwest diagonally across the site near the intersection of Mill Creek Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road.

The land uses surrounding the Rich Haven Specific Plan boundary, are as follows:
 The properties to the north are developed with the Creekside residential community, Colony High School, and the SCE Mira Loma Substation.  A portion of the properties to the south are located within the Esperanza Specific Plan and are vacant dairy and agriculture uses. The remaining properties to the south are developed with dairy and agriculture uses and are presently not part of any specific plan.

Figure 1: Project Location
517
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

 The properties to the east include Colony High School, the Edenglen residential community, the SCE Mira Loma Substation, and commercial and industrial uses located within the City of Eastvale.
 The properties to the west are located within portions of the West Haven Specific Plan and the Avenue Specific Plan and are developed with new residential subdivisions and commercial uses.

The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — On December 4, 2007, the City Council approved the Rich-Haven Specific Plan (File No. PSP05-004) and certified the related Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2006-051081). The Specific Plan established the land use designations, development standards, and design guidelines for approximately 512 acres of land, which included the potential development of 4,256 residential units and 889,200 square feet of commercial/office land uses.

On February 20, 2018, the City Council approved an Amendment to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan (File No. PSPA16-005) and an Addendum to the TOP for the annexation of

72.3 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road, into the Mixed-Use District of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan. The amendment included updates to the development standards, exhibits, and text changes to reflect the proposed annexation and overall compliance with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan (“Policy Plan”).

On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved an Addendum to The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008101140) in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA19-005) and an amendment to the Rich Haven Specific Plan (File No. PSPA19-006). The General Plan Amendment changed the land use designation on 181.77 acres of land to 23.41 acres of Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac), 24.16 acres of Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac), 57.83 acres of Medium Density Residential (11.1 – 25 du/ac), 20.46 acres of Mixed Use, 48.61 acres of Industrial, and 7.3 acres of Open Space – Non Recreation designated property. The Rich Haven Specific Plan amendment included map and text revisions to be consistent with the General Plan Amendment. The approvals allowed for the reduction of mixed-use acreage within the specific plan and the transfer of residential units from the mixed-use planning areas to residential planning areas that resulted in increased densities and the establishment of an industrial land use within the specific plan. The new industrial land use was established immediately south of the SCE Mira Loma Substation to create a land use buffer between the substation and future commercial development.
518
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

On August 16, 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) (File No. PGPA20-002) General Plan update. The TOP 2050 and SEIR, included the following land use changes within the Rich Haven Specific Plan boundary (see Figure 2: TOP Official Land Use Plan Comparison (TOP 2010/TOP 2050):
 Changing 8.1 acres of land from Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) to (MDR) Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0);
 Changing 23.4 acres of land from Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) to Industrial;
 Changing 21.4 acres of land from (MDR) Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0) to Industrial;
 Changing 22.3 acres of land from Mixed-Use to Industrial;  Changing 25.1 acres of land from Mixed-Use to General Commercial; and  Changing 20.4 acres of land from Mixed-Use to Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0).

Figure 2: TOP Official Land Use Plan Comparison (TOP 2010/TOP 2050) 519
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

On March 31, 2022, Richland Developers and Brookcal Ontario submitted an Amendment to the Rich Haven Specific Plan to bring the Specific Plan into compliance with TOP Policy Plan (General Plan) land uses.
(2) Amendment to the Rich Haven Specific Plan — The proposed Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) includes the following:
(a) TOP Policy Plan Land Use Map Consistency. To achieve consistency with the TOP 2050 Official Land Use Plan (Figure LU-01), the SPA proposes to amend the land uses within Areas 1 and 2 as shown in Figure 3: Rich Haven Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Existing/Proposed).
 Area 1 – The existing 61.5 acres of Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 12 du/ac) will be changed to 16.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (11.1- 25 du/ac) and 44.8 acres of Light Industrial. The new industrial land use designation was established by TOP to create a land use buffer between the SCE Mira Loma Substation and existing/future residential development.
 Area 2 – The existing 17.3 acres of Mixed-Use Stand-Alone Residential Overlay and 5 acres of Mixed-Use Overlay will be changed to 22.3 acres of Light Industrial. The new industrial land use designation was established by TOP to create a land use buffer between the SCE Mira Loma Substation and existing residential development.

Figure 3: Rich Haven Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Existing/Proposed) 520
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

(b) Restructuring the Planning Areas. The SPA includes the restructuring of planning areas that would reduce the number of subareas to align with the proposed land uses changes as shown in Figure 3: Rich Haven Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Existing/Proposed), below.
(c) Revisions to Light Industrial Development Standards. The proposed Planning Areas 2C, 3C and 5A are located adjacent to Residential Planning areas. To minimize impacts from future industrial development to the adjacent residential land uses the SPA included additional industrial design standards and setback requirements that are summarized below.
 Setbacks – The SPA included minimum industrial building and landscape setback requirements for interior property lines common with residential land uses that are depicted in Figure 4: Industrial/Residential Edge Condition. A minimum 100-foot building setback is required from a residential property line that includes a 40-foot landscape setback to allow for the installation of a double row of trees. Also, a 10-foot landscape setback is required between the building and drive-aisle. The multiple landscape setbacks will allow for the planting of multiple rows of trees between the residential properties and any proposed industrial building. The objective is to create an urban forest within the required landscaped setback areas and plant large evergreen trees to provide the maximum amount of screening year-round.
 Design Standards – The SPA includes separate industrial design standards that include: 1)Orienting truck courts away from residential areas to minimize noise impacts; 2) Enhanced second story elevations facing residential; and 3) Limit activity and evening hours of operation on drive aisles adjacent to residential land uses.

(d) Residential Unit Transfers. The SPA proposes to reduce the existing residential acreage by 77.8 acres. To maintain the total number of existing 7,194 residential dwelling units allocated within the Rich Haven Specific Plan the amendment will reassign units to different Planning Areas. The highlighted Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 within Figure 3 (Rich Haven Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Existing/Proposed)) shows the location of the existing and proposed land use changes affected by the proposed unit transfers. 521
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

(e) Document Changes. The SPA includes updates to the light industrial development standards and land use matrix, updates to the existing residential and mixed-use development standards and land use matrix, updates to various exhibits reflecting the restructuring of planning areas, along with text/map changes to reflect the proposed land use designation changes. All changes and additions to the Specific Plan (exhibits, tables, and development standards) are contained within the revised Specific Plan document, and are highlighted in red.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, the Project site was posted with one or more large public notification signs and notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A."
Figure 4: Industrial/Residential Edge Condition
522
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods  Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
 Encourage, Provide or Support Enhanced Recreational, Educational, Cultural and Healthy City Programs, Policies and Activities
 Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in the New Model Colony
(2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:
523
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

 Commercial and Residential Development
 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California. (3) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G 1-2. Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision. (4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 Goal LU-1 Balance: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Housing Element:
 Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. 524
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

 H-2.4 Ontario Ranch. We support a premier lifestyle community in the Ontario Ranch, distinguished by diverse housing, highest design quality, and cohesive and highly amenitized neighborhoods.
 H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.
 Goal H-5 Special Needs: A full range of housing types and community services that meet the special housing needs for all individuals and families in Ontario, regardless of income level, age, or other status.
 H-5.2 Family Housing. We support the development of larger rental apartments that are appropriate for families with children, including, as feasible, the provision of services, recreation, and other amenities.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.  Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
 CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.  CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.
525
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

Safety Element:
 Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
 S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.

Community Design Element:
 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
 CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.  CD-1.2 Growth Areas. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.
 CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.  Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion;
• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design. We create distinct residential neighborhoods that promote a sense of community and identity by emphasizing access, connectivity, livability, and social interaction through such elements as:
526
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

• A pattern of smaller, walkable blocks that promote activity, safety, and access to nearby amenities and services;
• Varied parcel sizes and lot configurations to accommodate a diversity of housing types;
• Traffic calming measures to slow traffic and promote walkability while maintaining acceptable traffic flows and emergency evacuation access; • Floor plans that encourage views onto the street and de-emphasize the visual and physical dominance of garages (introducing the front porch as the "outdoor living room"), as appropriate; and
• Landscaped parkways, with sidewalks separated from the curb and designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics for all users.  CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.  CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.
 CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field; • Structured parking: facade articulation, screening, appropriate lighting, and landscaping; and
• Garage parking: providing access to single-family residential garages through alley access, recessing garages from the frontage to emphasize front doors or active living spaces.
 CD-2.11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.
527
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

 CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented Place Types: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.
 CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm. We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and private property be designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks.
 CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.
 CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design. We require appropriate building and site design that complements existing development, respects the intent and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential conflicts.  CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
 CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure. We collaborate with developers and property owners to facilitate development that realizes the envisioned character and functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.
528
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.  CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.
 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Specific Plan is located in the City of Ontario in what was formerly the approximate 8,200-acre City of Ontario Sphere of Influence (SOI) area. On January 7, 1998, the City of Ontario adopted the New Model Colony (“NMC”) General Plan Amendment, setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the SOI. The NMC is generally bordered by Riverside Drive to the north, Milliken Avenue to the east, Euclid Avenue to the west and Merrill Avenue to the south. (1) The Ontario Plan Environmental Impact Report — On August 16, 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) (File No. PGPA20-002) General Plan update. The Ontario Plan (2050 Update) Supplemental EIR identified many areas that might have a potentially significant impact on the environment. These areas included: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. Through the EIR process these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant. Of the 20 areas analyzed by the SEIR, all but four of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant. The four remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant and the impacts would remain significant, unavoidable, and adverse after mitigation measures are applied. These areas include:
• Air Quality — Buildout of The Ontario Plan will cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the South Coast Air Basin (“SoCAB”), create shortterm emissions from construction activities that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) regional significance thresholds and cumulatively 529
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

contribute to the nonattainment designations, generate long-term emissions that would exceed SCAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB nonattainment designations, and could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (“TAC”); • Cultural Resources — Although protective regulations are in place and preservation policies are included in The Ontario Plan, implementation of the proposed Land Use Plan has the potential to impact Tier III historic resources. Major modification or demolition of Tier III resources may be appropriate under certain circumstances;
• Noise — Buildout of the Proposed Land Use Plan will result in impacts related to the proximity of construction activities to sensitive users, construction vibration impacts from individual development projects, and from excessive airport-related noise related impacts from traffic on local roadways and construction activities in the City. These activities will substantially increase noise levels and affect noise– sensitive uses; and
• Transportation — Total vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) would increase under the Proposed Land Use Plan due to increased residential development. Future development projects will need to consider transportation demand management (“TDM”) measures consistent with the Mobility Element.
(2) Rich Haven Specific Plan (2022 Amendment) Environmental Impact Report — A EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022100425) was prepared for this Project, in accordance with CEQA requirements. Through the Notice of Preparation and scoping meeting discussion, the following areas of potential impact were identified and addressed:
 Air Quality;
 Biological Resources;
 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
 Energy;
 Geology and Soils;
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
 Hydrology and Water Quality;
 Land Use and Planning;
 Noise;
 Transportation;
 Utilities and Service Systems
The Rich Haven Specific Plan (2022 Amendment) EIR evaluates each of these areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of impact.

With the implementation of the various mitigation measures, many of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Of the 12 areas considered by the EIR, all but two of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less 530
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

than significant. The two remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas include:
(a) Air Quality.

Impact AQ-1. The proposed Project would not be consistent with the applicable air quality plan. The proposed Project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Implementation of the Project construction-source emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of VOCs, NOx and CO. Implementation of the Project operational-source emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Although, Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.18 would incrementally reduce Project operational source emissions, the Project operational-source emissions would remain significant and contribute to, new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation.

Impact AQ-2. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal [national] or state ambient air quality standard. The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Project construction-source NOx emissions regional threshold exceedances; and operational-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions regional threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is non-attainment. Although Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.6 are applied the Project construction-source and operational-source emissions would still exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of mitigation. (b) Greenhouse Gases.

Impact GHG-1. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Project construction and operations would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Direct Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. As shown in Table 4.4-5 (Annual Project GHG Emissions) of the Draft EIR, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 129,314.95 MTCO2e/year, which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year.
531
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

The majority of the GHG emissions (approximately 72 percent unmitigated) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Responsibility and authority for regulation of vehicular-source emissions resides with the State of California (CARB, et al.).

Neither the Applicant nor the Lead Agency can affect or mandate substantial reductions in vehicular-source GHG emissions, much less reductions that would achieve no net increase condition or achieve the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. In effect, all Project traffic would need to be eliminated or be “zero GHG emissions sources” in order to achieve the SCAQMD threshold.

However, there are no feasible means to, or alternatives to eliminate all Project traffic, or to ensure that Project traffic would result in zero GHG emissions sources. In terms of its practical application, this would constitute a “no build” condition. Based on the preceding, even with the application of mitigation, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, even with the implementation of mitigation measures 4.3.2 through 4.3.18, this Project impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable.

The City of Ontario circulated the Draft EIR on February 24, 2023, through April 10, 2023, for public review. At the end of the public review period 6 comments were received.

Areas of concern include air quality and environmental impacts associated with industrial development. Refer to the Final Environmental Impact Report, Response to Comments.

While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the Staff believes that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan, as further described below:
 The Project will incorporate transitions and/or buffers between commercial/mixeduse and industrial areas and adjacent residential areas;  The Project will contribute to the regional jobs to housing balance by providing employment opportunities while minimizing development impacts on surrounding neighborhoods;
 The Project will create a high-quality industrial park development that attracts an array of businesses and provides employment opportunities within proximity to area residents; and
 The Project will infrastructure improvements that will provide utilities, safe and efficient access/circulation routes for the distribution/transportation of goods; As a result, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. 532
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures. The environmental documentation for this project is available for public review at the Planning Department public counter. 533
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site
SCE Easements,
agricultural and dairy
farms, vacant land, and
residential subdivisions
Open Space – NonRecreation, Open
Space Recreation, Low
Density Residential (2.1 –
5 du/ac), Low Medium
Density Residential (5.1 –
11 du/ac), Medium
Density Residential (11.1
– 25 du/ac), Industrial,
General Commercial
and Mixed Use – Rich
Haven
Rich-Haven Specific
Plan
See Rich Haven Specific
Plan Land Use Plan
North
Open Space (Creekside
Flood Control), Colony
High School and SCE
Mira Loma Substation
Open Space – NonRecreation, Public
School and Business
Park
Creekside Specific Plan,
Civic and Specific Plan
Agricultural Overlay
Zoning District
Recreational Open
Space
South Previous agricultural
and dairy farms
Medium Density
Residential (11.1 – 25
du/ac)
Esperanza Specific Plan
and Specific Plan
Agricultural Overlay
Zoning District
Residential (PA1 and
PA3)
East
Colony High School,
Edenglen Residential
Subdivision, SCE Mira
Loma Substation and
City of Eastvale
Medium Density
Residential (11.1 – 25
du/ac), Business Park
and Public School
Edenglen Specific Plan,
Civic and Specific Plan
Agricultural Overlay
Zoning District
Residential (PA3, and
PA8)
West
West Haven and The
Avenue residential
subdivisions, agricultural
and dairy farms
Low Density Residential
(2.1 – 5 du/ac), Low
Medium Density
Residential (5.1 – 11
du/ac), Medium Density
Residential (11.1 – 25
du/ac), Neighborhood
Commercial and Public
School
West Haven Specific
Plan and The Avenue
Specific Plan
West Haven Specific
Plan (PA1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
8) and The Avenue
Specific Plan
(Retail/Commercial,
Low Density Residential
and Medium Density
Residential)
534
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

Exhibit A: PROPOSED RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN 535
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

Exhibit B: RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT LAND USE SUMMARY 536
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-042

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE

PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022100425) AND ADOPT FINDINGS OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR FILE NO. PSPA22-001, THE RICH

HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, LOCATED WITHIN ONTARIO

RANCH AND GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVERSIDE DRIVE, COLONY

HIGH SCHOOL AND THE SCE MIRA LOMA SUBSTATION TO THE

NORTH, HAMNER AVENUE/MILL CREEK AVENUE TO THE EAST, OLD

EDISON AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, AND HAVEN AVENUE TO THE
WEST AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 218-161- 14, 218-016-06, 218-016-10, 218-016-11, 218-016-19, 218-016-15, 218- 016-07, 218-016-18, 218-203-08, 218-016-14, 218-016-12, 218-016-13, 218-203-07, 218-203-04, 218-203-03, 218-203-05, 218-203-06, 218-211- 39, 218-211-01, 218-211-21, 218-211-36, 218-211-37 and 218-211-15.

WHEREAS, RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC AND BROOKCAL ONTARIO, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA22-001, for which an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for File No. PSPA22-001, the Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of a Specific Plan Amendment (Rich Haven) to bring the Specific Plan into compliance with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) land use plan for 584.9 acres of land within Ontario Ranch, generally bounded by Riverside Drive, Colony High School and the SCE Mira Loma Substation to the north, Hamner Avenue/Mill Creek Avenue to the east, Old Edison Avenue to the south, and Haven Avenue to the west.

WHEREAS, the EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft EIR; and
537
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001 - EIR
May 23, 2023

WHEREAS, the EIR for File No. PSPA22-001 was circulated for a 45-day public review period and a notice of its availability was published in a local newspaper and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County; and
WHEREAS, a public notification was posted on the Project site for minimum of 20 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. The signs shall be removed within fourteen days of the Project’s final approval by City Council; and WHEREAS, copies of the EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies, and individuals; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR (SCH# 2022100425) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
538
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001 - EIR
May 23, 2023

(1) The Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts-associated with the implementation of the Rich Haven Specific Plan, and finds that, if the Specific Plan is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Air Quality – Impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
(b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

SECTION 3: Recommendation. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Project EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that the associated Mitigation Monitoring Program also be approved by the City Council.

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

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

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
539
540
541
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001 - EIR
May 23, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

Draft Environmental Impact Report and Appendices
(Draft Environmental Impact Report and Appendices to follow this page) The EIR and Appendices
are included in the
City Council Resolution
542
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-043

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PSPA22-001, AN AMENDMENT TO THE RICHHAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN TO BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN INTO

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN POLICY PLAN (GENERAL
PLAN) LAND USE PLAN THAT INCLUDE: [1] THE REDUCTION OF LOWMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ACREAGE FROM 102.1 ACRES TO 24.5 ACRES; [2] INCREASE THE MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ACREAGE FROM 96.7 ACRES TO 113.4
ACRES; [3] INCREASE THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE ACREAGE FROM 49.4 ACRES TO 116.5 ACRES; [4] A REDUCTION TO THE MIXEDUSE OVERLAY LAND USE ACREAGE FROM 29.4 ACRES TO 20.5 ACRES; [5] A REDUCTION TO THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND
USE ACREAGE FROM 74 ACRES TO 58.4 ACRES; [6] INCREASE THE

MIXED-USE STANDALONE RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY LAND USE
ACREAGE FROM 141.9 ACRES TO 144.1 ACRES; [7] INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE – NON-RECREATION LAND USE ACREAGE FROM 38.2
ACRES TO 55 ACRES; AND [8] VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE SPECIFIC

PLAN LAND USE MAP (PLANNING AREAS), DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS, EXHIBITS, AND TEXT MODIFICATION, TO REFLECT THE

PROPOSED LAND USES, GENERALLY LOCATED BY RIVERSIDE

DRIVE, COLONY HIGH SCHOOL AND THE SCE SUBSTATION TO THE

NORTH, HAMNER AVENUE/MILL CREEK AVENUE TO THE EAST, OLD

EDISON AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, AND HAVEN AVENUE TO THE
WEST, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 218- 161-14, 218-016-06, 218-016-10, 218-016-11, 218-016-19, 218-016-15, 218-016-07, 218-016-18, 218-203-08, 218-016-14, 218-016-12, 218-016- 13, 218-203-07, 218-203-04, 218-203-03, 218-203-05, 218-203-06, 218- 211-39, 218-211-01, 218-211-21, 218-211-36, 218-211-37 AND 218-211-

15. WHEREAS, RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC AND BROOKCAL ONTARIO, LLC ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), File No. PSPA22-001, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project")
WHEREAS, the Application applies to nine properties totaling 584.9 gross acres of land located within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, which is generally bounded by Riverside Drive, Colony High School and the SCE substation to the north, Hamner Avenue/Mill Creek Avenue to the east, Old Edison Road to the south, and Haven Avenue to the west. The Rich-Haven Specific Plan is presently improved with a combination of SCE Easements, vacant agricultural and dairy farms, and residential subdivisions; and 543
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan are within the Creekside Specific Plan, Civic and Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, and are developed with a flood control channel, Colony High School, and the SCE Mira Loma Substation. The properties to the east are within the Edenglen Specific Plan, Civic and the Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, and are developed with Colony High School, a Residential Subdivision, the SCE Mira Loma Substation and industrial warehouse and commercial uses within the City of Eastvale. The properties to the south are within the Esperanza Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District and are developed with agricultural and dairy farms. The properties to the west are within the West Haven Specific Plan and the Avenue Specific Plan and are developed with residential subdivisions and commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, to achieve consistency with the TOP 2050 Official Land Use Plan (Figure LU-01), the SPA proposes to amend the following land uses:
(1) Change 61.5 acres of Low Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 12 du/ac) to

16.7 acres of Medium Density Residential (11.1- 25 du/ac) and 44.8 acres of Light Industrial; and
(2) Change 17.3 acres of Mixed-Use Stand-Alone Residential Overlay and 5 acres of Mixed-Use Overlay to 22.3 acres of Light Industrial; and WHEREAS, the new industrial land use designation was established by TOP to create a land use buffer between the SCE Mira Loma Substation and existing/future residential development; and
WHEREAS, the SPA includes the restructuring of planning areas that would reduce the number of subareas to align with the proposed land uses; and WHEREAS, the proposed Planning Areas 2C, 3C and 5A are located adjacent to Residential Planning areas. To minimize impacts from future industrial development to the adjacent residential land uses the SPA included additional industrial design standards and setback requirements; and
WHEREAS, the SPA included minimum industrial building and landscape setback requirements for interior property lines common with residential land uses. A minimum 100-foot building setback is required from a residential property line that includes a 40- foot landscape setback to allow for the installation of a double row of trees. Also, a 10- foot landscape setback is required between the building and drive-aisle. The landscape setbacks will allow for the planting of multiple rows of trees between the residential properties and any proposed industrial building. The objective is to create an urban forest within the required landscaped setback areas and plant large evergreen trees to provide the maximum amount of screening year-round; and
544
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

WHEREAS, the SPA includes separate industrial design standards that include orienting truck courts away from residential areas to minimize noise impacts; enhanced second story elevations facing residential; and limiting vehicular activity and evening hours of operation on drive aisles adjacent to residential land uses; and WHEREAS, the SPA proposes to reduce the existing residential acreage by 77.8 acres. To maintain the total number of existing 7,194 residential dwelling units allocated within the Rich Haven Specific Plan the amendment will reassign units to different Planning Areas; and
WHEREAS, the SPA includes updates to the light industrial development standards and land use matrix, updates to the existing residential and mixed-use development standards and land use matrix, updates to various exhibits reflecting the restructuring of planning areas, along with text/map changes to reflect the proposed land use designation changes. All changes and additions to the Specific Plan (exhibits, tables, and development standards) are contained within the revised Specific Plan document, and are highlighted in red; and
WHEREAS, the Rich Haven Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan). Section 9 of the Specific Plan, “General Plan Consistency”, describes the manner in which the Rich Haven Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the Rich Haven Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2022100425), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Consideration have been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
545
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR (SCH# 2022100425) and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
(1) The EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and SECTION 2: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 above, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the following findings:
546
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

(1) The Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment, and finds that, if the Specific Plan Amendment is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Air Quality – Impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
(b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based on the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.

SECTION 4: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity.

As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the PLANNING COMMISSION, therefore, 547
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

finds and determines that the Project, is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan amendment will provide land use consistency with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan). The proposed amendments will accommodate the construction of future residential, industrial, and commercial developments and eliminate sensitive land uses within the southeast portion of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan which is consistent with goals, policies, plans and City Council priorities of The Ontario Plan. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan amendment will provide land use consistency with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The land use changes will provide a combination of residential, mixed-use, commercial, and light industrial uses within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, which is consistent with the type and intensity of development specified in The Ontario Plan.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed amendments will accommodate the construction of future residential, industrial, and commercial developments. The amendment will also eliminate residential sensitive land uses within the southeast portion of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan and establish a light industrial land use buffer between residential land uses and the existing SCE Mira Loma Substation in order to establish a harmonious relationship between the existing surrounding land uses and planned uses within the southeast quadrant of the specific plan.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development.

The subject site is physically suitable to accommodate future residential, commercial, mixed use and light industrial land uses. The Rich-Haven Specific Plan amendment 548
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

includes development standards to facilitate the proposed land uses, which will be developed with adequate lot sizes, access, and utilities to serve the project site.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7: 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 8: 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 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
549
550
551
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-001
May 23, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

File No. PSPA22-001
Rich Haven Specific Plan Document
(Rich Haven Specific Plan follows this page)
The Rich Haven Specific Plan
is attached to the
City Council Resolution
552
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE RICH-HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN, 2022 AMENDMENT (FILE NO. PSPA22- 001) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022100425), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, RICHLAND DEVELOPERS, INC AND BROOKCAL ONTARIO, LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), File No. PSPA22-001 to develop the (“Project”) with up to 7,194 dwelling units, up to 925,002 square feet of commercial space, and up to 2,767,148 square feet of light industrial uses on an 584.9 gross acres in the southern portion of the City of Ontario; and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 584.9 gross acres of land located within the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, which is generally bounded by Riverside Drive, Colony High School and the SCE substation to the north, Hamner Avenue/Mill Creek Avenue to the east, Old Edison Road to the south, and Haven Avenue to the west. The Rich-Haven Specific Plan is presently improved with a combination of SCE Easements, vacant agricultural and dairy farms, and residential subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the properties to the north of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan are within the Creekside Specific Plan, Civic and Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, and are developed with a flood control channel, Colony High School, and the SCE Mira Loma Substation. The properties to the east are within the Edenglen Specific Plan, Civic and the Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District, and are developed with Colony High School, a Residential Subdivision, the SCE Mira Loma Substation and industrial warehouse and commercial uses within the City of Eastvale. The properties to the south are within the Esperanza Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Agricultural Overlay Zoning District and are developed with agricultural and dairy farms. The properties to the west are within the West Haven Specific Plan and the Avenue Specific Plan and are developed with residential subdivisions and commercial land uses; and WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“TOP EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) in association with the 2009 General Plan Update (“GPA”) and certified the TOP EIR on January 26, 2010; and WHERAS, the City certified the Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Supplemental EIR”, State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update, in association of the General Plan Update, File No. PGPA20- 002, and certified the Supplemental EIR on August 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the TOP EIR is a Program EIR from which later specific plan EIRs, such as the EIR for this Project, are tiered; and
553

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City evaluated the Project by preparing an Initial Study, to evaluate whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was required; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural/Tribal Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Hydrology/Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Transportation; and Utilities and Service Systems; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City further determined that impacts to Aesthetics; Agriculture and Forest Resources; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation and Wildfire would be less than significant and thus need not be analyzed further in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment for which the public review period extended from October 17, 2022, through November 15, 2022. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and WHEREAS, the City received seven comment letters from multiple agencies on the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.9 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on October 27, 2022, where comments were received; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, tribal cultural resources; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on February 23, 2023; and
554

WHEREAS, after completing the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2022100425), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning February 24, 2023 and concluding April 10, 2023. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated along with the Draft EIR and was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies, and individuals; and
WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15086; and WHEREAS, the City received six written comment letters on the Draft EIR, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR on June 20, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed special public hearing on the Draft EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR was fully studied and concluded said hearing on that date. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No. PC23-042, recommending City Council certification of the Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, six written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing and several people spoke on the project at said hearing; and WHEREAS, June 8, 2023, the City released the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify a Environmental Impact Report to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and 555

WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV, B hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are described in Section IV, C hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant and which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, D hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, E hereof; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV, F hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts and significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, G hereof; and WHEREAS, because some environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite 556

the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore, render those impacts “acceptable.” The City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City, or any additional information submitted to the City, have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION I. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.

SECTION II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
557

SECTION III. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project.
 The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the proposed Project.  All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR.
 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR.  All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearings for the proposed Project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final EIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR.
 The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC §21167.6(e).

B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the proposed Project are at the City of Ontario - Planning Department, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, CA. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091 (e). 558

C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The broad vision of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is to create a community with a mixture of uses, connected through a series of trails, which provides opportunities for people to live, work and play. Supporting 2022 Specific Plan Amendment objectives are listed below.

General
• Implement TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan.
• Support TOP 2050 vision for urbanization of the Ontario Ranch area of the City. • Implement a Specific Plan development supporting office/commercial and light industrial uses providing a broad range of long-term employment opportunities. • Implement Specific Plan developments providing a broad range of additional construction employment opportunities.
• Establish new development that would further the City’s near-term and long-range fiscal goals.
• Improve the regional jobs/housing balance.

Specific Plan Uses
Livable Neighborhood Development
• Incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Design guiding principles during the design phase to provide for opportunities to achieve the Project’s vision statement, including:
o Connections. To provide a series of sidewalks and trails connecting community parks, civic uses, employment areas, mixed-use and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips. o Traditional Street Network. To design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, as well as creating a visually favorable and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
o Main Street Environment. To design commercial/retail areas to a human scale with storefronts oriented to the street providing a “Main Street” atmosphere for strolling and shopping, all within walking distance from most homes. o Public Spaces. To create plazas, parks, and community gathering places placed within centralized areas providing synergy between adjacent land uses. o Identifiable Neighborhoods. To design neighborhoods around a discernable center, which may include a small park, square, school, or mixed-use center, within a five-minute walking distance.
o Mix of Housing. To provide neighborhoods with a range of household types: a variety of single-family detached homes, attached units for young families, and live/work units for small at-home businesses.
• Design a mixed-use environment to ensure compatible uses that are cohesive and integrate a diversity of residential neighborhoods, with a range of commercial uses, and supporting open spaces.
559

• Utilize transportation, utility, and greenways/open space networks to establish clear edges and boundaries.
• Accommodate residential, commercial, open space, public, and other uses in accordance with the generalized distribution of uses depicted within the City’s TOP Land Use Plan.
• Implement elements that will ensure walkability throughout the Project Area to discourage automobile dependency and encourage walking, biking, and other forms of transportation. This is achieved through the incorporation of subarea greenways and pedestrian connections and through sensitive site design of mixeduse development. • Implement technological advances within residential communities, including internet access, to allow residents to shop and work from home and to decrease reliance on automobiles.
• Provide opportunity for at least one major public plaza/square as a centerpiece of community activities, including events and celebrations, outdoor performances, community meetings, picnics, farmers markets, and similar functions. • Establish a clearly defined “edge” for the City’s TOP area, where appropriate, that avoids the use of walls and creation of a “walled” enclave. • Incorporate electrical transmission corridors and similar elements to form “edges” for residential neighborhoods and centers and/or accommodate public greenways/trails/corridors.

Residential District Objectives
• Create a livable community with neighborhoods designed at a human scale and oriented for pedestrian access to mixed-use, educational, and recreational uses. • Provide for a range and diversity of housing products (detached single-family, detached and attached condominiums, and townhomes) that respond to a variety of homeownership needs and desires.
• Design residential projects to complement the character of adjacent neighborhoods.
• Encourage interaction among residents through the provision of an organized, simple, and “neo-traditional” system of streets, pathways, and entries to allow residents to walk or bike to parks, recreation, and public facilities (including schools).
• Promote outdoor activity and casual social contact among residents and neighbors by designing neighborhoods around a central park where they can gather. • Provide a focal point of activity within each residential planning area that may include a park, school, common area, or public meeting facility. • Encourage architectural styles and traditional design elements that reflect the historic and eclectic mixture of architecture, reflective of the greater Ontario area. • Increase densities adjacent to commercial centers.
• Establish clear, defined “edges” and “entries” that contribute to neighborhood identity.
560

• Avoid the use of walls to separate residential areas from arterials and other high traffic volume streets by expanded landscape setbacks, frontage roads, and other appropriate techniques.
• Include clustered multi-family housing within the Residential District, in order to create a diverse range of housing products and opportunities, while still in keeping with the overall low-density residential designation.
• Locate higher-density residential uses that provide population to support adjacent regional commercial centers.
• Provide sufficient on-site recreational amenities within higher density developments.
• Include community-oriented uses such as public meeting rooms, plazas and courtyards, and similar uses.
• Establish visual and physical links among the individual multi-family developments to create a cohesive and continuous corridor.
• Design building elevations to promote visual interest. • Provide linkages between community service facilities, multi-family corridors, and residential neighborhoods.

Regional Commercial/Mixed-Use District Objectives
• Accommodate a diversity of large-scale retail, community and neighborhood shopping, office, medical research, entertainment, hotel/motel, dining, housing, cultural, public, and similar uses that will serve the Project area and neighboring Planning Areas.
• Function with a high level of activity and/or employment. • Accommodate development of multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings that incorporate housing and retail/office, and live/work facilities. • Accommodate single-use buildings and mixed-use structures containing a variety of uses from residential over retail or office-to-office over retail. • Encourage traditional, mixed-use design of commercial buildings, by requiring a lower maximum floor area ration (FAR) for single-use buildings, and a higher maximum FAR for mixed-use buildings.
• Develop plaza areas and other amenities to provide places of social interaction. • Include one or more public “squares” to serve as gathering places. • Incorporate modulated building volumes, mass, height, and articulated facades to create individual spaces.
• Site a portion of the buildings on peripheral streets to provide connectivity to adjacent uses.
• Orient buildings towards the local streets whenever possible to create an urban edge and sense of arrival and place.
• Include sidewalks of sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian activity and outdoor restaurants, newsstands, and other uses.
• Create visual interest through the opening of streets and sidewalks/plazas towards building elevations.
• Incorporate landscaping to enhance the environment.
561

• Visually integrate parking structures to continue the intended design character of the district.
• Incorporate multi-family housing to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Ensure an appropriate mix of uses (residential and commercial) that are compatible.
• Encourage pedestrian access and ease of use within the mixed-use area by designing pedestrian and bike paths.
• Create a “Main Street” environment with buildings designed to a human scale where pedestrian activity is not overwhelmed by automobile traffic. • Utilize urban design to create a “Gateway” or portal to the Ontario Ranch.

Industrial District Objectives
• Incorporate transitions and/or buffers between commercial/mixed-use and industrial areas and adjacent residential areas.
• Contribute to the regional jobs to housing balance by providing employment opportunities while minimizing development impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
• Create a high-quality industrial park development that attracts an array of businesses and provides employment opportunities within proximity to area residents.
• Provide safe and efficient access/circulation routes for the distribution/transportation of goods.

Circulation Objectives
• Provide a circulation system designed to promote pedestrian activity through a network of off-street pedestrian walkways linking each neighborhood to parks, mixed-use commercial, and residential uses.
• Design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, creating a visually attractive, enhanced, and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Design streets to incorporate landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street to enhance safety and enjoyment of residents and visitors.
• Provide opportunities for transit connections and alternative modes of transportation.

Recreation/Trails Objectives
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of public and private parks.
• Provide a series of pedestrian trails connecting community parks, civic uses, mixed-use, and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips.
562

• Incorporate off-street multi-use trails within the Southern California Edison easements.
• Incorporate a system of on- and off-street bicycle pathways with access from the residences to mixed-use areas.
• Use landscaping and streetscape materials that are low maintenance in recreation and trail areas.
• Provide a system of on-street bikeways integrated throughout the Project to provide access to schools, parks, and commercial uses.
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of parks ranging in size.

Community Facilities Objectives
• Incorporate existing major utilities into the overall fabric of the community. • Provide opportunities for incorporation of community facilities (e.g., schools, fire station) as identified by affected agencies.

SECTION IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.], §15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Ontario, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (Project), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Project.

The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15091, and which are as follows:

A. INTRODUCTION
PRC §21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to §21081 of the PRC, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
563

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, §21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy §21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1.).

The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, §21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
564

Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287)
B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures, as identified in the Initial Study and the Draft EIR.

1. AESTHETICS
a. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant (Initial Study, pp. 3-6 - 3-7) Explanation: There are no scenic vistas within the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise adversely affect a designated scenic vista. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains, located to the north of the City, are the dominant scenic resource in the area. Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: Less than significant (Initial Study, p. 3-8)
Explanation: The City of Ontario is served by three freeways, including Interstate 10 (I-10), Interstate 15 (I-15), and State Route 60 (SR-60). The segments of these freeways located within the City are not designated as scenic highways by the California Department of 565

Transportation. There are no scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway located within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise substantially damage such resources.
c. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-6 - 3-7) Explanation: The Project is located in an urbanized area and would be subject to those provisions of TOP 2050 General Plan and City of Ontario Development Code governing scenic quality. TOP 2050 General Plan Community Development Element establishes multiple policies that protect scenic resources and promote high quality, visually compatible development. For example, TOP General Plan 2050 Community Design Element Policy CD-1.5 requires that “all major north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. Such views should be free of visual clutter, including billboards and may be enhanced by framing with trees”; Policy CD-2.1 encourages “all development projects to convey visual interest and character . . .”; Policy CD-2.15 supports “excellence in design and construction quality through collaboration with trade and professional organizations that provide expertise, resources and programs for developers, builders and the public” (TOP 2050 Policy Plan, p. 91).

TOP 2050 General Plan policies governing scenic quality, including those noted above, ensure protection of scenic resources and promote visually compatible and appealing development. These policies are implemented through the City of Ontario Development Code (Development Code Chapter 6.0 Development and
Subdivision Regulations, et al.). The City would assure that the Project as implemented would conform to applicable provisions of the Project including the Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines. The Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines would, at a minimum, be required to conform to provisions of TOP 2050 General Plan and Development Code. 566

Conformance with the Project would minimize the potential for the Project to adversely affect scenic resources or result in development that would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
d. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-8 - 3-9) Explanation: The Project would create new sources of lighting, including ground, building-mounted, wall-mounted, and pole-mounted lighting fixtures.

The Project would also provide illuminated exterior signs. The City would assure that the Project, as implemented, contains Development Regulations and Design Guidelines that would, at a minimum, conform to City regulations addressing lighting and light overspill (see: Development Code, Division 6.01 – District Standards and Guidelines, Lighting). All subsequent development within the Project area would be required to conform with the Project Regulations and Design Guidelines addressing light, glare and overspill. Conformance with the Project would minimize the potential for the Project to result in adverse light and glare impacts.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-10 - 3-12) Explanation: The California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring (FMMP) System designates properties within the Project site as: “Prime Farmland,” “Grazing Land,” and “Other Land.” The City of Ontario does not prohibit the transition of agricultural land to urban uses. While existing agricultural uses are allowed to persist and are accommodated as transitional uses under the City’s Agricultural Overlay District, the City Land Use Plan does not formally designate or allocate any areas of the City as “Agricultural” land uses.

The City of Ontario has acknowledged the planned transition of existing agricultural uses to urbanized uses pursuant to TOP 2050 Land Use Plan (Land Use Plan). As discussed in TOP 2050 DSEIR, 567

“because former agriculture areas within Ontario are now already designated for nonagricultural uses and the current TOP is the baseline for this SEIR, the Proposed Project [TOP 2050] would not conflict with agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.”
b. Williamson Contract
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-13 - 3-14) Explanation: The Project site is Zoned “Specific Plan.” The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would otherwise result in potentially adverse effects at agriculturally-zoned properties. Based on the preceding, Project impacts to or affecting agricultural-zoned properties would be less-than-significant. One property within the Project site (APN 0218-161-13) is currently under a Williamson Act Contract (Contract No. 71-235). Buildout of the Project site would require the cancellation or nonrenewal of Contract No. 71-235. c. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 3-14)
Explanation: There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land or timberland. Neither TOP 2050 General Plan nor the City’s Development Code provide such designations. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or result in the loss or conversion of forest land. d. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 3-14)
Explanation: As stated above, there is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land or timberland. Neither TOP 2050 General Plan nor the City’s Development Code provide such designations. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or result in the loss or conversion of forest land. Therefore, the Project would have no impact regarding loss of forest land.
568

e. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Finding: No impact. (Initial Study, p. 3-14)
Explanation: The Project does not involve other changes to the environment that could result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses beyond those identified under the preceding discussions.

3. AIR QUALITY
a. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-41 - 4.3-49) Explanation: Sensitive receptors nearest the Project site would not be subject to emissions exceeding SCAQMD LSTs. Nor would the Project create or result in localized CO hot spots as the Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot. The Project would also not generate or result in localized concentrations of TACs that would create or result in potentially significant health risks.

For the Residential Exposure Scenario, the Project HRA
substantiates that DPM emissions generated by Project operations would result in less-than-significant health risks at the maximally impacted residential land use (MEIR). More specifically, at the MEIR, the maximum carcinogenic risk is estimated at 4.77 in one million, which does not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, the non-cancer risks were estimated at 0.03, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. As such, Project operations would not cause or result in potentially significant cancer risks or noncarcinogenic risks at the MEIR. All other potentially affected residential receptors are located at greater distances from the Project site than the MEIR and would be exposed to fewer emissions and therefore less risk than would occur at the evaluated MEIR. The cancer and noncarcinogenic risks at these more distant residential receptors would also be lessthan-significant.

For the Worker Exposure Scenario, the Project HRA substantiates that DPM emissions generated by Project operations would have a less-than-significant health risk at the maximally impacted worker location. More specifically, for the maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW), the maximum cancer risk is estimated at 0.94 in one 569

million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, the non-cancer risks were estimated at 0.06, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. As such, Project operations would not cause or result in potentially significant cancer risks or noncarcinogenic risks at the MEIW. All other potentially affected worker receptors are located at greater distances from the Project site than the MEIW and would be exposed to fewer emissions and therefore less risk than would occur at the evaluated MEIW. The cancer and
noncarcinogenic risks at these more distant worker receptors would also be less-than-significant.

For the School Child Exposure Scenario, the Project HRA substantiates that DPM emissions generated by Project operations would have a less-than-significant health risk at the maximally impacted worker location. More specifically, for the maximally exposed individual school child (MEISC), the maximum cancer risk is estimated at 0.37 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, the non-cancer risks were estimated at 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0. As such, Project operations would not cause or result in potentially significant cancer risks or noncarcinogenic risks at the MEISC. All other potentially affected school receptors are located at greater distances from the Project site than the MEISC and would be exposed to fewer emissions and therefore less risk than would occur at the evaluated MEISC. The cancer and noncarcinogenic risks at these more distant school child receptors would also be less-than-significant.

In terms of construction, at the MEIR, the Project HRA substantiates that DPM emissions generated by Project operations would result in less-than-significant health risks at the maximally impacted residential land use (MEIR). More specifically, at the MEIR, the maximum carcinogenic risk is estimated at 1.21 in one million, which does not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, the non-cancer risks were estimated at <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of

1.0. b. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-16 - 3-17) Explanation: Temporary, short-term odor releases are potentially associated with Project construction activities. Potential sources of odors associated with construction activities would include, but not be limited to the 570

following: asphalt/paving materials, glues, paint, and other architectural coatings. Construction-source odor impacts are minimized through compliance with established regulations (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Subpart H-Materials Handling, Storage Use and Disposal, et al.) addressing construction materials storage, use, and disposal. In pertinent part the isolation/containment devices or mechanisms specified under these regulations prevent significant release of odors. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations.

Uses typically considered to be sources of odors or other emissions that could adversely affect a substantial number of people include agricultural operations, cement plants, wastewater treatment plants, and the like. The Project proposes none of these. Rather, the Project would implement contemporary residential, commercial, light industrial, parks, and open space uses.

Refuse generated by the Project uses could be a source of localized odors. Project refuse is required to be collected, contained, and disposed of as stipulated in the City of Ontario Municipal Code (see:

Municipal Code, Chapter 3: Integrated Solid Waste Management).

Per the Municipal Code, refuse is to be disposed of in covered receptacles and routinely removed, thereby limiting the escape of odors to the open air. Any odors generated would be temporary and transient, with little or no potential to adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Further, all Project construction activities, uses and occupancies would be required to conform to SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 provides in pertinent part that there shall be no “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18).

Explanation: The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, or temporary rain pools. No other wetlands, 571

riparian habitat or other sensitive communities exist within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantially or adversely affect any other off-site wetlands or riparian areas.
b. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18).

Explanation: The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, or temporary rain pools. No other wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive communities exist within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantially or adversely affect any other off-site wetlands or riparian areas.
c. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.10-18) Explanation: No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, most of which is ill suited for the purposes of wildlife movement (TOP SEIR, p. 5.4-33). No wildlife habitat linkages or movement corridors have been identified at the Project site (Project Biological Report, p. 30). Nor does the Project propose facilities or activities that would substantively and adversely affect any off-site designated wildlife habitat linkage or movement corridor. Impacts to potential nesting birds are addressed by Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, presented previously.
d. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-18 – 4.10-19) 572

Explanation: The Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, dumping, disturbance and agriculture. As a result of these historic disturbances and on-going urbanization of the site per the 2021 Specific Plan, the Project site does not contain or support high value habitats or protected species.

There are no protected trees within the Project site. The Project does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect any off-site protected trees. There are no parkway trees within the Project site. The Project does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect any off-site parkway trees. As part of the City’s standard development review process, the City would ensure that the final Specific Plan Landscape Plan and all development proposals within the Project conform to the Parkway Tree Regulations. There are no Natural Community Conservation Plans, or Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plans regulating the Project or that would be adversely affected by the Project. e. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-18 – 4.10-19) Explanation: The Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, dumping, disturbance and agriculture. As a result of these historic disturbances and on-going urbanization of the site per the 2021 Specific Plan, the Project site does not contain or support high value habitats or protected species.

There are no protected trees within the Project site. The Project does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect any off-site protected trees. There are no parkway trees within the Project site. The Project does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect any off-site parkway trees. As part of the City’s standard development review process, the City would ensure that the final Specific Plan Landscape Plan and all development proposals within the Project conform to the Parkway Tree Regulations. There are no Natural Community Conservation Plans, or Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plans regulating the Project or that would be adversely affected by the Project.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5?
573

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-12 – 4.11-14) Explanation: During the records search conducted for the Cultural Resources Assessment, five (5) potential historical resources were identified within the Project site. Potential resources included three (3) historical period residences and two (2) historical period transmission lines. These potential resources were evaluated for listing as “historically significant” as provided for at Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)).

Potential historical resources in the Project site were evaluated to determine if they are considered historical resources. None of the potential resources identified within the records search qualify as significant historical resources when evaluated against the criteria. b. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-20 - 3-21) Explanation: There are no known formal cemeteries or informal burial sites within the Project site or in off-site areas that would likely be affected by Project construction activities. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is therefore considered minimal. Further, as required under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (b) should human remains be encountered in the course of Project development, “there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined . . . that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.” Additionally, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 (c) provides that “[i]f the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American, or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission.” All Project activities would be required to comply with 574

provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code as summarized above, minimizing or avoiding the potential to disturb human remains. Therefore, the potential for the Project to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries would be less-than-significant.

6. ENERGY
a. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-15) Explanation: Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, and potential Project impacts in these regards would be less-than-significant.

Further, energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy-producing or energy transmission facilities and would not create or otherwise result in a potentially significant impact affecting energy resources or energy delivery systems.

Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed, as there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.

CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(2) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by local building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.

Diesel fuel would be supplied by regional commercial vendors.

Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved using bulk purchases, transport and use of construction materials. The 2021 IEPR released by the CEC has shown that fuel efficiencies are getting better within on and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements.

The Project operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excessive and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other similar land uses.
575

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT.

Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access.

Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and County requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations.

The Project proposes conventional land uses reflecting
contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other land use projects of similar scale and configuration. The Project’s compliance with applicable Title 24 standards would ensure that Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
b. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-16 through 4.5-18) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, regulatory measures, standards, and policies directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions would also act to promote energy conservation and reduce Project energy consumption.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-24) 576

Explanation: There are no active faults known with the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly AlquistPriolo Zone). The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions.
b. Seismic Ground Shaking
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-9)
Explanation: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates there are no active faults known within the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The Geotechnical Report determined that the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions.
c. Landslides
Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iv) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-25) Explanation: The Project site topography evidences little internal difference, with a moderate northeast to southwest downward trending slope, averaging between +2.0 % to -2.3% (Google Earth Imagery 2022).

The Project site is not considered internally susceptible to land sliding. Any slopes manufactured in the course of Project development would be subject to review and approval by the City Building Department to ensure their stability. Adjacent properties also present little topographic relief. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-25 – 3-26) Explanation: Project construction activities would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion. Potential 577

erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project’s mandated compliance with a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts in the area will be resolved, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established, overcovering previously exposed soils.

The Project does not propose altering existing topography in a manner that would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. All Project development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City. As part of this review, the City would ensure that permanent slopes and slope protection would conform to City requirements, thereby minimizing the potential for soil erosion over the life of the Project. City review and approval of development plans would also ensure that stormwater management systems are incorporated that would minimize potential erosion from stormwater runoff, both on-site and off-site.
e. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-10)
Explanation: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. “Based on the results of previous laboratory testing by others and our recent laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a ‘Very Low’ expansion potential [EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829]” (Project Geotechnical Report, p. 10). f. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-27) Explanation: Construction and Operations
The Project uses would be served by municipal sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed by the Project. No impact would occur.
g. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 578

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-11 – 4.9-12) Explanation: The geologic unit underlying the Project site are mapped as young Eolian sand and dune deposits from the Holocene period. Eolian units are considered to be of some preservation value, but any material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. The Western Science Center does not have any localities within the Project site or within a one-mile radius. The Cultural Resources Assessment determined that significant impacts in this regard would be unlikely.

As presented in the Project Geotechnical Report: . . . “the subject site is underlain by Holocene- to Pleistocene- age eolian (wind-blown) sedimentary deposits. The materials below the eolian deposits are young alluvial fan deposits…soils generally consisted of medium dense to dense sands with varying amounts of silt interbedded with thinner layers of stiff to very stiff fine-grained soils (i.e., silts and clays) to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade…Due to previous/current land use as farming, localized areas are underlain by near surface fill materials, topsoil, manure, etc.” (Project Geotechnical Report, p. 6).

These soil types are common within the City and Southern California, and do not comprise unique geological features as described above.

The Project does not propose uses or activities that would indirectly contribute to or result in potentially adverse impacts to a unique geological feature.

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-26 – 4.7-27) Explanation: Colony High School is located approximately 0.2 miles north of nearest light industrial uses proposed by the Project. The Project does not propose or require uses or facilities that would generate or use hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. The Project HRA substantiates that DPM emissions generated by the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts at vicinity schools. As a matter of course, the Lead Agency consults with potentially affected school districts throughout the EIR process for development proposals.
579

b. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-30 – 3-31) Explanation: The subject site is not included on the hazardous materials sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, ensuring that
hazards/hazardous materials impacts are maintained at levels that would be less-than-significant.
c. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-31) Explanation: The Project site is located within the area subject to provisions of the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP, July 2018). The ALUCP defines the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA) as an area in which current and future airport-related noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection factors may significantly affect land uses or necessitate restriction on those uses. The Project site is located outside the ONT safety zones (see: TOP 2050 DSEIR Figure 5.9-2, Airport Safety Zones). All Project development would be required to comply with ALUCP requirements, thereby precluding or minimizing potential airport/aircraft-related hazards. The Project does not propose or require uses that would contribute to potential airport/aircraft-related hazards. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-32) Explanation: The Project does not propose or require permanent alteration of vehicle circulation routes and would not interfere with any identified emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Consistent with 580

City policies, coordination with the local fire and police departments during pre-construction review of Project plans would ensure that potential interference with emergency response plans and evacuation plans are avoided.
e. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: No Impact. (Initial Study, pp. 3-32 - 33)
Explanation: The Project site is located in an urbanizing area, and no wildlands are located in the vicinity of the Project site. Fire protection services are provided to the City and the Project site by the Ontario Fire Department. Pre-construction coordination with Fire Department staff and adherence to local fire regulations during construction and operation of the Project would be required. The City and Fire Department would require that fire prevention/fire suppression measures are incorporated in the Project designs and that water delivery systems serving the Project site provide adequate fire flow.

Creation and maintenance of firebreaks and fire-defensible spaces adjacent to building and roadways as required by the City and Fire Department would further reduce the potential for exposure to wildland fires and the spread of wildland fires. The City would also enforce weed abatement measures, minimizing potential fire fuel loads. Additionally, development of the Project site would act to reduce fire hazards by eliminating existing fire fuel loads such as manure, hay, and weeds; while improving area fire protection infrastructure systems.

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-22 - 4.8-26) Explanation: All individual development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with all requirements of the City’s MS4 Permit, as well as the Trash Mandate adopted by the SARWQCB. All storm water discharges from individual development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Consistent with SARWQCB and City requirements, waste materials will not be discharged to drainage areas, 581

streambeds, or streams. Nor will spoil sites be located in areas that could result in spoil materials being washed into a water body.

Additionally, all development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with Standard City Conditions of Approval including implementation of development-specific WQMPs, thereby avoiding/minimizing potential water quality impacts.

The City, as one element of its established development review processes would ensure NPDES Permit compliance concurrent with application(s) for development permits within the Project site.

Implementation of the WQMPs and compliance with applicable NPDES and SARWQCB requirements will reduce potential
operational-source water quality impacts to levels that would be lessthan-significant. b. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-35) Explanation: Direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. Further, construction proposed by the Project will not involve substructures or other intrusions at depths that would significantly impair or alter the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. Water is provided throughout the City by the City of Ontario Utilities Department. Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City of Ontario, as a whole, would be recharged pursuant to the Department’s policies and programs. The Project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas.
c. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-36) Explanation: Project construction activities would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated 582

below the level of significance through the Project’s mandated compliance with a City-approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rules that prohibit grading activities and site disturbance during high wind events. At Project completion, potential soil erosion impacts in the area will be resolved, as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established, overcovering previously-exposed soils.

The Project does not propose altering existing topography in a manner that would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. All Project development plans would be subject to review and approval by the City. As part of this review, the City would ensure that permanent slopes and slope protection would conform to City requirements, thereby minimizing the potential for soil erosion over the life of the Project. City review and approval of development plans would also ensure that stormwater management systems are incorporated that would minimize potential erosion from stormwater runoff, both on-site and off-site.
d. Flooding and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-31)
Explanation: As shown at Policy Plan Figure S-2, Flood Hazards, the Project site is located within a 500-year flood plain and is within the San Antonio Creek Dam Failure Inundation Area. The Project site does not, however, lie within a designated 100-year floodplain or other areas known to be subject to moving or high-velocity floodwaters. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise impede or redirect flood flows.
e. Flood Hazard
Threshold: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.8-31)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within an area subject to tsunami, or seiche events. There is no potential for the Project to be adversely affected in these regards.

The Project site does, however, lie within a 500-year floodplain and is within the San Antonio Creek Dam Failure Inundation Area. There 583

is, therefore, the potential for the Project generally to be subject to inundation under 500-year flood conditions or in the event of the San Antonio Creek Dam failure. Either of these are relatively low probability events. Catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam when it is at or near capacity could spread water two to four feet deep over the western and central parts of the City. However, the City has never experienced such an event.

TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that the probability of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low. Furthermore, the City of Ontario Fire Department maintains a list of emergency procedures to be followed in the event of a dam failure (TOP 2050 SEIR, p. 5.10-26).

Because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City is prepared in the event of such failure, impacts related to potential release of pollutants under dam failure conditions are considered less-than-significant.

Potential for release of pollutants under 500-year flood conditions or in the event of dam failure is minimized through the location, orientation, and construction of Project facilities consistent with City Building Code requirements and implementation of the Project stormwater management system improvements described in this Section. Additionally, the Project commercial and light industrial uses would be required to develop and implement Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plans) that specifically address storage and use of hazardous materials so as to minimize their potential release, containment of hazardous materials and related pollutants that may be released under emergency conditions, and measures to reduce potential effects of hazardous materials and related pollutants if released. f. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-32 – 4.8-33) Explanation: The Project would implement water quality control measures consistent with City and SARWQCB requirements. The City of Ontario draws all of its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin.

Since 1978, the basin has been managed via ongoing court adjudication in the 1978 judgment Chino Basin Municipal Water District vs. City of Chino et al. The Project does not propose or require direct withdrawal of groundwater. Neither would the Project adversely affect designated groundwater recharge areas or groundwater recharge facilities. To the extent practical, individual 584

development proposals within the Project site would implement LID measures facilitating infiltration of treated stormwaters to the groundwater table.

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-37) Explanation: The developed Project would establish a pattern of cohesive and complementary land uses. The Project configuration and orientation of land uses, combined with integral development standards and design guidelines, act to preclude division or disruption of an established community, whether that community be internal or external to the Project site. Physical arrangement of surrounding areas would not be modified or otherwise affected by the Project. b. Conflict
Threshold: Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-10 - 4.1-24) Explanation: Land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects are established under the City of Ontario Policy Plan and the SCAG. Project consistency with applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Policy Plan and SCAG Connect SoCal 2020 are presented in Draft EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning.

The Project would establish Land Uses, Development Regulations, and Design Guidelines directing the ultimate buildout of the Project site. Land uses and development reflected within the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment can be feasibly implemented consistent with applicable provisions of the City General Plan and the City Development Code. Prior to issuance of development permits, the City would review the final development plans for individual projects within the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment area to ensure
consistency with the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment document as approved by the City, and where applicable, City Development Code requirements. Further, the Project would be consistent with applicable land use and planning provisions of the Policy Plan. 585

11. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-38 – 3-39) Explanation: Mineral resources in the City are limited to construction aggregates such as sand and gravel. There are currently no permitted mining operations located within the City (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.12-2). TOP 2050 DSEIR at Figure 5.12-1, Areas of Mineral Resource
Significance, indicates that the Project site is classified pursuant to the California Geological Survey as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ3). The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect the availability of locally important or regionally important mineral resources.
b. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-38 – 3-39) Explanation: Mineral resources in the City are limited to construction aggregates such as sand and gravel. There are currently no permitted mining operations located within the City (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.12-2). TOP 2050 DSEIR at Figure 5.12-1, Areas of Mineral Resource
Significance, indicates that the Project site is classified pursuant to the California Geological Survey as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ3). The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect the availability of locally important or regionally important mineral resources.

12. NOISE
a. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-30 – 4.6-31) Explanation: Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that groundborne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion.
586

Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration. The highest construction vibration levels are expected to range from 0.003 to 0.068 in/sec PPV and will satisfy the maximum acceptable vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec). Moreover, the impacts at the closest sensitive receivers are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter.
b. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-32)
Explanation: The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles southerly of the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area.

The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and surrounding land uses. Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established at Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP.

The Project site is located outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, residential, commercial, light industrial and community facilities land uses located outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land use, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL).

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-41) 587

Explanation: The Project proposes new and reconfigured residential uses that would directly contribute to population growth. Additionally, the Project light industrial and commercial uses would create additional employment opportunities that could indirectly contribute to population growth. Development proposed by the Project responds globally to existing and anticipated market demands of the City and region, and employment generated by the Project would be a byproduct of this anticipated growth. The Project represents a component of development and growth anticipated by the City, as reflected by the site’s TOP 2050 General Plan Land Use
designations.
b. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: Less than significant impact. (Initial Study, p. 3-42) Explanation: The Project would maintain net residential development within the Specific Plan Area when compared to land uses and development entitled under the 2021 Specific Plan. That is, under both the 2021 Specific Plan and the proposed 2022 SPA, 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types) would be entitled. Locations and configurations of entitled residential uses would however be amended under the 2022 SPA. These amendments would not eliminate housing, diminish the potential for new housing, or displace persons from existing housing.

14. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-43 – 3-44) Explanation: Fire suppression and emergency response services for the Project would be provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). TOP 2050 SEIR recognizes the potential for development pursuant to The Ontario Plan, including development of the area encompassing the Project site to result in increased demands for fire protection services (TOP 2050 DSEIR, p. 5.15-3). TOP 2050 SEIR also recognizes that 588

evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction or expansion of new or modified fire protection facilities would be speculative until such time the location(s) of such facilities are determined. The Project provides for potential location of a new fire station at the northwest corner of Ontario Ranch Road (E – W) at Mill Creek Avenue (N – S). Ultimate need for and location of this fire station would be subject to review and approval by the City and Fire Department. Environmental review of this facility would be conducted when and as required by the City.

Additionally, the Project would pay General City (GC) Development Impact Fees, a portion of which is available to offset incremental fire protection service demands generated by the Project. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s).

To the satisfaction of the OFD, the Project would comply with City and OFD fire prevention and suppression requirements, including building/site design requirements, substantiated fire flow adequacy, and provisions for emergency access, thereby reducing potential increased demands for fire protection services.
b. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
ii) Police Protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-44 – 3-45) Explanation: The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of police protection facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified police protection facilities. Incremental police protection service demands generated by the Project are offset through Project payment of City of Ontario General City (GC) Development Impact Fees. A portion of the City’s GC Development Impact Fees are allocated for police protection services. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent Development Impact Fees at issuance of building permit(s).

Additionally, the Project site plan concept and proposed building designs would be reviewed by the Ontario Police Department (OPD) to ensure incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements.

Such design features would include secure building designs, 589

defensible spaces, and area and facility security lighting. These design features would act to reduce Project demands for police protection services.
c. Schools
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Schools?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-45 – 3-46) Explanation: Occupancy of the Project residential uses would directly contribute to demands on school services. Indirectly, the Project may contribute to area demands for school services if Project employees and their school age children would relocate to school districts serving the City.

The Project does not propose or require construction or modification of school facilities. The Project site is not designated or proposed as the location for new or modified school facilities.

Project incremental impacts to school services would be offset through mandated payment of school impact fees. The Project Applicant would pay incumbent school impact fees at issuance of building permit(s). Payment of school impact fees would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to school services to levels that would be less-than-significant.
d. Parks
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Parks?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, pp. 3-46 – 3-47) Explanation: The Project includes parks and open space non-recreation areas that would complement and support development of the Specific Plan Area generally. Potential environmental effects of construction 590

of these facilities are reflected in the scope on analysis of environmental impacts of the Project in total.
e. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
iii) Other Public Facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-47) Explanation: Development of the Project would require established public agency oversight including, but not limited to, various plan check and permitting actions by the City. Impacts of the Project would fall within routine tasks of these agencies/departments and are paid for via plan check and inspection fees. Impacts of the Project would not be of such magnitude that new or physically altered facilities would be required. There are no known or probable other public facilities that would be substantially affected by the Project.

15. RECREATION
a. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-48) Explanation: The Project includes parks and open space non-recreation areas that would complement and support development of the Specific Plan Area generally. Potential environmental effects of construction of these facilities are reflected in the scope on analysis of environmental impacts of the Project in total. Of themselves, environmental impacts of parks and open space non-recreation areas that would be constructed as part of the Project are considered less-than-significant. New residential development within the City is required to pay GC Development Impact Fees, a portion of which would be allocated for parks facilities, acting to offset incremental demands on neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Applicant would pay all requisite GC Development Impact Fees.
591

b. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-48) Explanation: The Project includes parks and open space non-recreation areas that would complement and support development of the Specific Plan Area generally. Potential environmental effects of construction of these facilities are reflected in the scope on analysis of environmental impacts of the Project in total. Of themselves, environmental impacts of parks and open space non-recreation areas that would be constructed as part of the Project are considered less-than-significant. New residential development within the City is required to pay GC Development Impact Fees, a portion of which would be allocated for parks facilities, acting to offset incremental demands on neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Applicant would pay all requisite GC Development Impact Fees.

16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-10 - 4.2-20) Explanation: City of Ontario programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system are established under TOP 2050. The Project would be consistent with applicable provisions of TOP 2050 as summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.2-6. Additionally, the Project is consistent with the goals of the 2020-2045 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) as summarized in Draft EIR Table 4.2-7.

Prior to the issuance of Building Permits, the City would review the final Project designs to ensure consistency with City Policy Plan circulation system programs, plans and policies. Consistency with applicable City ordinance requirements is required as a matter of law.

The Project does not propose facilities or activities that would otherwise potentially conflict with City circulation system programs, plans, policies and ordinances.
592

b. Design Hazards and Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-21 - 4.2-22) Explanation: All Project circulation improvements, the final design of the Project site plan, to include locations and design of proposed driveways, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. In addition, representatives of the City’s Police and Fire Departments will review the Project’s plans in regard to emergency access. Traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed Project construction plans. Sight distance at each Project access point would be reviewed with respect to Caltrans and City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

It is also recognized that temporary and short-term traffic detours and traffic disruption could result during Project construction activities.

Management and control of construction traffic would be addressed through the preparation and submittal of a construction area traffic management plan, to be reviewed and approved by City prior to or concurrent with Project building plan review(s).

The Project would generate passenger car trips and truck trips typical of the proposed uses. As part of established site and Building Permit review processes, the City would require implementation of on-site truck and passenger car travel paths, signing, and traffic controls to ensure that conflicts between trucks and passenger cars are minimized or avoided. Trucks accessing the Project site would use designated truck routes, thereby avoiding or minimizing off-site passenger car/truck traffic conflicts. Land uses proximate to the Project site are planned for or are being developed with urban uses similar to those proposed by the Project. These uses would generate urban traffic types similar to traffic generated by the Project and would generate traffic that would be incompatible with the Project traffic types.

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater 593

drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-12 - 4.12-23) Explanation: Utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines serving the Project would be constructed pursuant to approved City Infrastructure Master Plans and would be located within existing improved streets or otherwise disturbed properties, thereby limiting or avoiding potential impacts. Construction and operation of all Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines would conform with all City and purveyor standards and requirements, further limiting potential environmental effects.

This EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations, including but not limited to construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines described in this Section would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in this EIR.

Each individual development project within the Specific Plan area would be required to pay applicable utilities/service system connection and service fees, which act to offset the Project incremental demands on utilities and service systems. Utilities and service systems improvements would be implemented so as to provide adequate service/capacity for each increment of development. The City would verify service/capacity adequacies prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy for the affected increment of development.
b. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-23 - 4.12-24) Explanation: Water service to the Project would be provided by OMUC. OMUC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) includes
detailed information about City water demand, supply and reliability for the next 25 years. The 2020 UWMP substantiates that sufficient 594

water supplies are available to meet City water demands under normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for the period 2020 – 2045.

Consistent with SB 610 requirements, a WSA was prepared and approved for the site’s current (2021 Specific Plan) entitlements. The City of Ontario, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has determined that based on the types and scopes of land uses reflected in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, and water demands of each of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment land uses, water demands of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment uses would be reduced when compared to water demands evaluated in the currently approved WSA.
c. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-24 - 4.12-25) Explanation: Wastewater treatment services for the Project would be provided by IEUA. Sufficient residual treatment capacity exists at IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 5 (IEUA Plant No. 5) to serve the Project’s projected wastewater treatment demand in addition to IEUA current wastewater treatment demands. The Project would not generate wastewater that would require treatment processes or protocols not currently provided by IEUA.
d. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-25 - 4.12-30) Explanation: The City of Ontario Integrated Waste Department provides refuse collection services to the residents and businesses in the City of Ontario. The predominance of collected City refuse is transported for disposal at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and/or El Sobrante Landfill. Receiving landfill statistical information is provided at Draft EIR Table 4.12-1. Solid waste would be generated by Project construction/demolition activities as well as Project operations. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050. TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that buildout of the City would not result in potentially significant solid waste management impacts.
595

The Project would be required to comply with the above solid waste management statutes and regulations. The City and CalRecycle would oversee and monitor compliance with applicable solid waste management statutes and regulations. Impacts to solid waste services and facilities from new development are addressed through the payment of development impact fees as outlined in the City of Ontario Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Fee Schedules.

Solid waste management is guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. To reduce waste disposal, AB 939 requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills. Residential, commercial and governmental waste recycling programs in support of the SRRE have been implemented by the City. The City is currently meeting or exceeding all AB 939 solid waste diversion targets. The Project would be required to comply with AB 939 as implemented by the City.

18. WILDFIRE
a. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-55) Explanation: CAL FIRE maintains California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including maps for State responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas. As shown on the State responsibility map for southwestern San Bernardino County, the City of Ontario is located within a local responsibility area. According to the local responsibility map, Ontario is located in a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

As such, the Project is not located within or near a state responsibility area, or within an area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. All development would be required to comply with City building and Fire Codes. All building plans within the City are reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s fire code.
596

b. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-55) Explanation: CAL FIRE maintains California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including maps for State responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas. As shown on the State responsibility map for southwestern San Bernardino County, the City of Ontario is located within a local responsibility area. According to the local responsibility map, Ontario is located in a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

As such, the Project is not located within or near a state responsibility area, or within an area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. All development would be required to comply with City building and Fire Codes. All building plans within the City are reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s fire code.
c. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-55) Explanation: CAL FIRE maintains California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including maps for State responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas. As shown on the State responsibility map for southwestern San Bernardino County, the City of Ontario is located within a local responsibility area. According to the local responsibility map, Ontario is located in a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

As such, the Project is not located within or near a state responsibility area, or within an area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. All development would be required to comply with City building and Fire Codes. All building plans within the City are reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s fire code.
597

d. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Initial Study, p. 3-55) Explanation: CAL FIRE maintains California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps, including maps for State responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas. As shown on the State responsibility map for southwestern San Bernardino County, the City of Ontario is located within a local responsibility area. According to the local responsibility map, Ontario is located in a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (Non-VHFHSZ).

As such, the Project is not located within or near a state responsibility area, or within an area classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. All development would be required to comply with City building and Fire Codes. All building plans within the City are reviewed by the Ontario Fire Department to ensure their compliance with the City’s fire code.

C. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT

CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-15 - 4.10- 17)
Explanation: Although no nesting birds were observed on-site, raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 has been incorporated to ensure avoidance of any potential impacts, in accordance with MBTA requirements.
598

Additionally, although on-site activities have reduced the suitability of habitat to support special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity, the following special status-species may be affected by the Project:
• California horned lark;
• Loggerhead shrike;
• San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit; and
• Burrowing owl.

Although the California horned lark, Loggerhead shrike, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit are listed as state Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California, they are not federally, or state listed as threatened or endangered. These species and their habitats are considered widespread and relatively common throughout coastal southern California. Due to the presence of suitable habitat throughout southern California and the widespread and common nature of these species, impacts of the Project on these species would not be considered significant. Potential nesting California horned larks and Loggerhead shrikes would be protected by Mitigation Measure 4.10.1.

Mitigation Measures:

4.10.1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed, and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department.

If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete, or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed.

4.10.2 Avoidance of Nesting Burrowing Owls: No more than 72 hours prior to any site disturbances, focused surveys for the burrowing owl shall 599

be conducted. If absence of this species is confirmed, Project work can proceed. If, however, burrowing owl is located on site, the appropriate resource agencies (CDFW and USFWS) shall be contacted. The Project Applicant shall consult with the wildlife agencies regarding the most appropriate methods and timing for removal of owls. As necessary, owls will be actively evicted following agency approved protocols (i.e., placing a one-way door at the burrow entrance to ensure that owls cannot access the burrow once they leave). Any such active eviction shall occur outside of the breeding/nesting season. That is, active eviction shall be accomplished between September 1 and February 15. If more than 30 days has elapsed between owl eviction and completion of clearing and grubbing activities, a subsequent survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted to ensure that owls have not re-populated the site. Any reoccupation by owls will require subsequent protocol active eviction.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 and 4.10.2, the Project’s potential impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are considered less-thansignificant.

2. CULTURAL/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Archaeological and Tribal Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC §5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC §5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-14 - 4.11- 19)
Explanation: Although no archeological resources were identified as part of the Project Cultural Resources Assessment, ground-disturbing activities 600

have the potential to reveal buried resources not observed during the field survey.

Potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are presumed to be potentially significant. Based on previous similar environmental analyses conducted in the City, the following measures are recommended for incorporation. These measures establish monitoring protocols, and provisions for avoidance, protection, or curation of TCRs.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.3 ensures proper protocol is undertaken and a treatment plan is developed, should archaeological resources be discovered during ground-disturbing activities and that TCRs would be avoided, or would be appropriately collected, documented, and curated.

Mitigation Measures:

4.11.1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities:

A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
601

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

4.11.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects:

A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods discovered or recognized on the project site, then all construction activities shall immediately cease. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and all ground-disturbing activities shall immediately halt and shall remain halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe they are Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 shall be followed.

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Construction activities may resume in other parts of the project site at a minimum of 200 feet away from discovered human remains and/or burial goods, if the Kizh determines in its sole discretion that resuming construction activities at that distance is acceptable and provides the project manager express consent of that determination 602

(along with any other mitigation measures the Kizh monitor and/or archaeologist deems necessary). (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).)
E. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin (non-TCR) shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

F. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

4.11.3 Procedures for Burials and Funerary Remains:

A. As the Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”), the Koo-nas-gna Burial Policy shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term “human remains” encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the preparation of the soil for burial, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains.

B. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the discovery location shall be treated as a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created.

C. The prepared soil and cremation soils are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure complete recovery of all sacred materials.

D. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed.
603

E. In the event preservation in place is not possible despite good faith efforts by the project applicant/developer and/or landowner, before ground-disturbing activities may resume on the project site, the landowner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects.

F. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

G. The Tribe will work closely with the project’s qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be prepared and shall include (at a minimum) detailed descriptive notes and sketches. All data recovery data recovery-related forms of documentation shall be approved in advance by the Tribe. If any data recovery is performed, once complete, a final report shall be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive and/or destructive diagnostics on human remains.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 and 4.11.3, the Project’s potential impacts to archeological resources are considered less-than-significant.

3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Liquefaction and Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-9 - 4.9-10) Explanation: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates that the potential at the site for landslides, lateral spreading, and/or liquefaction is low. 604

However, existing near-surface soils include fill materials, topsoil, manure, etc. These loose and compressible soils are not suitable for development. As such, the Report presents recommendations for site improvements to preclude impacts in this regard. These recommendations include site preparation, earthwork, remedial grading depths, and foundation recommendations. Compliance with the recommendations presented in the Project Geotechnical Report are required by Mitigation Measure 4.9.1.

Mitigation Measure:

4.9.1 All proposed development within the Specific Plan Area shall, at a minimum, comply with recommendations and standards identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Report at Section 4.0,
Recommendations. If further recommendations are developed as part of future site- and design-specific geotechnical investigations they shall prevail.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9.1, the Project’s potential impacts would be considered less-than-significant.

4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-46 - 4.4-49) Explanation: The primary purpose of the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.

The 2022 CCAP Update builds on and updates the 2014 CAP and furthers the City efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The 2022 CCAP Update includes updated
emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of 605

the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B-55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. Under the 2022 CCAP Update, mixed use developments that garner at least 100 Screening Table points would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction targets in the City’s 2022 CCAP Update.

Means to achieve the required 2022 CCAP Update 100 Screening Table points are dependent on Project final site plan and building plan designs, approved by the City. These designs have not yet been finalized at this concept stage of Project development. There is therefore the potential for the Project to not achieve the requisite 2022 CCAP Update 100 Screening Table points, and therefore conflict with City of Ontario 2022 CCAP Update plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a potentially significant impact. To assure compliance with the City of Ontario 2022 CCAP Update, and plans, policies, and regulations contained (or incorporated by extension) therein, the following mitigation measure is required. Implementation of the design features and operational measures outlined at Tables

4.4-6, 4.4-7 would ensure that the Project is consistent with and supports the 2022 CAP Update. Project development proposals shall implement Screening Table Measures identified at Tables 4.4-6, 4.4- 7 or equivalent measures acceptable to the City. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving a minimum of 100 points are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented.

Mitigation Measure:

4.4.1 Development proposals within the Specific Plan Area shall implement Screening Table Measures to achieve a minimum of 100 points per the City’s 2022 CCAP Update Screening Tables. The City shall verify minimum 100-point attainment prior to issuance of site plans and building permits.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.1, the Project’s potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation 606

adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases would be considered less-than-significant.

5. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-21 - 4.7-26) Explanation: Existing On-Site Hazards
Hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions affecting the subject site have been previously and extensively analyzed as part of the 2007 Rich-Haven Specific Plan EIR (2007 EIR). In summary, the 2007 EIR concluded that development of the site could result in potentially significant hazards/hazards materials impacts due to structure demolition, potential presence of methane gas, presence of organic materials, and general hazards or hazardous conditions associated with current and historic agricultural and dairy farming uses. As noted previously in this Section, hazardous/hazardous conditions affecting the Project site are materially the same as those identified in the 2007 EIR. Mitigation Measures that would reduce the above-noted hazards/hazardous materials impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant were identified in the 2007 EIR. For ease of reference, the 2007 EIR Mitigation Measures (HM-1 through HM-6) are excerpted below.

Subsequent to Certification of the 2007 EIR, Methane Gas investigation and remediation of the former Scritsmier Hog Ranch (13571 Haven Avenue) per Mitigation Measure HM-3 has been successfully accomplished and accepted by the City. Mitigation Measure HM-3 has been implemented and is no longer required.

Additionally, per Mitigation Measure HM-6, the required Phase I ESA for the “Hillardis Property” (APNs 218-161-04, 218-161-05, 218-161- 10, 218-161-11) has been completed. The Hillardis Property Phase I ESA recommends that a Phase II Environmental Assessment be conducted for that site to address the following items:
• Agricultural/orchard usage of the southern portion of the Property,
607

• Methane Gas Testing for the northern portion of the Property, • Soils in the areas of unregulated dumping, and
• Soils in the area of the leaking air compressors in the garage [in the northern portion of the property].

The requirement to conduct a Phase II Assessment and comply with its provisions is added as mitigation to this EIR (see Mitigation Measure 4.7.4).

Based on the previous analyses conducted for the Project site, as updated by the site’s current condition, the City’s incumbent Methane Gas Investigation Protocol, and recommendations of the Hillardis Property Phase I ESA, the following Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 through 4.7.4 are incorporated in this EIR.

Construction and Operation
The Project would not result in or cause exposure(s) to hazards or potentially hazardous conditions. That is, uses proposed by the Project are not considered hazardous. Nor does the Project propose or require facilities or operations involving inherent substantial hazards.

During the normal course of construction and operation activities, there would be limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. However, the Project would be required to comply with all City and County Hazardous Materials Management Plans and regulations addressing transport, use, storage and disposal of these materials. Further, any occupancies that would store or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with California Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements.

Therefore, this would be considered less than significant and not require mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

HM-1 Prior to the issuance of permits by the City of Ontario for any structural demolition activities on the project site, the project developer will be required to submit documentation to the City of Ontario Building Department that asbestos and lead-based paint issues are not applicable to their property or that appropriate remediation actions will be undertaken to correct any lead-based paint or asbestos issues, in conformance with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State of California, Division of Occupational Health and Safety. 608

HM-1 Subsequent to grading activities, testing for the presence of methane in the soil shall be performed. This testing shall conform to applicable City of Ontario standards. If methane is detected, mitigation would include the installation of under-slab methane vents, methane barrier, and sealing utilities in locations where they enter a structure and penetrate the methane barrier.

HM-3 Post-grading methane gas investigation should take place near the former Scritsmier Hog Ranch (13571 Haven Avenue) where
subsurface methane levels exceed 5,000 ppm. A passive vent system and gas membrane beneath the floor slab should be installed, along with utility trench dams and conduit seals.

HM-4 Careful clearing, grubbing, segregation, and stockpiling or proper disposal of the near surface organic-rich soils at the site prior to the initiation of mass grading activities should occur.

HM-5 Identification and segregation/stockpiling or proper disposal of deeper soils which contain elevated levels of organic material should be conducted.

HM-6 Prior to approval of a discretionary permit or approval for development of proposed residential uses on the Hillardis Property, such as a parcel map or tentative tract map, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted and the results of that ESA implemented. The Phase I ESA shall be provided to the City of Ontario and shall be included in any CEQA analysis prepared in connection with the consideration of a discretionary approval for development of the eastern half of the project site.

4.7.1 Prior to the issuance of permits for any structural demolition activities on the Project site, the Project developer(s) shall submit documentation to the City of Ontario Building Department that asbestos and lead-based paint issues are not applicable to their property or that appropriate remediation actions have been undertaken to correct any lead-based paint or asbestos issues. Any required remediation shall conform with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the State of California, Division of Occupational Health and Safety.

4.7.2 Testing for methane gas shall be conducted subsequent to mass grading of any site within the Specific Plan Area. Methane gas testing shall conform to requirements of “City of Ontario Building Department Methane Gas Assessment for Projects in the New Model Colony.” Project designs shall conform to the Assessment’s Methane Design Guidelines or other requirements stipulated by the City of Ontario Building Department.
609

4.7.3 Site grubbing, clearing, and stockpiling and disposal of soils shall conform to City grading permit requirements. Such requirements may include, but would not be limited to, identification and segregation/stockpiling or proper disposal of soils that contain elevated levels of organic material.

4.7.4 Prior to approval of tract maps or approval for development of any uses on the Hillardis Property (APNs 218-161-04, 218-161-05, 218- 161-10, 218-161-11), the Applicant or successor interest shall complete a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for that property. Prior to issuance of the first development permit for the site, the Applicant or successor interest shall comply with requirements of the Phase II ESA, and shall provide documentation to the City of Ontario to that effect.

With implementation of the above measures, the potential for the Project to create or result in a significant hazard due to existing onsite conditions would be reduced to levels that would be less-thansignificant.

6. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Flooding and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8- 26 - 4.8-31)
Explanation: The Project Hydrology Report concludes that under postdevelopment conditions, peak stormwater flow rates from Specific Plan Planning Areas 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 3C, 5A, 6A, 6B could exceed capacities of the receiving MPD Haven and Mill Creek storm drains.

The Project could therefore create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. This is a potentially significant impact. Stormwater flow discharges from the affected Planning Areas need to be reduced to ensure adequate storm water conveyance and flood protection along the mainlines upstream of the County Line Channel. 610

In combination, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8.1 through

4.8.3, and mandated compliance with City Conditions of Approval and regulatory requirements act to preclude potentially adverse drainage and stormwater runoff impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

4.8.1 General: In conjunction with all development proposals within the Specific Plan Area, peak flow mitigation measures for each development shall be implemented such that discharges to receiving MPD storm drain mainlines do not exceed the maximum allowable flow rates identified at Project Hydrology Report, Appendix A, Exhibit

3. Ultimate design, location, and configuration of peak flow mitigation measures are site-and use-specific. Design, location, and configuration of peak flow mitigation measures shall be approved by the City as part of site plan review and approval processes.

4.8.2 Haven Storm Drain Mitigation: Measures (e.g., detention basins or similar) to control peak flows to the Haven Storm Drain shall be implemented to address increased stormwater discharges resulting from development of Planning Areas 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, and 3C. Please refer to Figure 4.8-5. Locations for these measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final site plan approval(s) for development within Planning Areas 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, and 3C.

4.8.3 Mill Creek Storm Drain Mitigation: Peak flow mitigation measures shall be implemented for stormwater discharges resulting from development of Planning Areas 2C, 3C, 5A, 6A, and 6B. Please refer to Figure 4.8-5. Locations for these measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to final site plan approval(s) for development within Planning Areas 2C, 3C, 5A, 6A, and 6B.

With implementation of the above measures, the potential for the Project to: substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that would result in flooding on- or offsite; or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would 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 is determined to be less-than-significant.

7. NOISE
a. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the 611

Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6- 18 - 4.6-30)
Explanation: Construction
Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that, when combined, can reach high levels. As indicated at Draft EIR Table 4.6-4, peak received construction-source noise levels would range from 52.5 to 63.8 dBA Leq. These levels would not exceed the applicable threshold of 80 dBA Leq. Constructionsource noise levels that comply with applicable standards do not comprise a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, or a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.

Vehicular
As indicated in Draft EIR Section 4.6, Noise, Project traffic would not result in increased noise levels that would exceed the thresholds. As such, off-site land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less-than-significant noise level increases due to the Project-related traffic. However, on-site residential uses proposed along Haven Avenue, Mill Creek Avenue, Hamner Avenue, Riverside Drive, Chino Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road may be subject to noise levels above 65 dBA. Therefore, on‐site residential land uses located along these roadways would require additional noise attenuation to ensure that noise levels comply with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL.

Operational
As shown at Draft EIR Table 4.6-10, Project operational/area-source noise levels would not exceed the City of Ontario 65 dBA Leq daytime or 45 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise standards. As such, the potential for Project operational noise to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies is considered less-than-significant.

As indicated at Draft EIR Tables 4.6-11 and 4.6-12, Project contributions to the ambient noise environment would not exceed the threshold conditions. On this basis, the potential for Project 612

operational noise to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is considered less-than-significant.

Conclusion
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 act to further reduce already less-than-significant construction noise levels.

Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 requires the preparation of project-specific acoustical analysis for residential uses upon submittal of final site design plans to reduce potentially significant vehicular-source impacts.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6.3 through 4.6.7 would act to further reduce already less-than-significant operational noise levels.

Mitigation Measures:

4.6.1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the Project complies with the following:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the Noise Control Officer;
• During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers to the satisfaction of the City Planner; and • During construction and to the satisfaction of the City Planner, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities.

4.6.2 Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. is prohibited. The City Planner may approve additional hours when it can be found that such additional hours will not generate additional disturbance, or that mitigation measures will ensure compatibility with nearby residential areas.

4.6.3 Prior to the construction of residential development along Riverside Drive, Haven Avenue, Mill Creek Avenue, Edison Avenue, and Milliken Avenue, an acoustical noise analysis shall be prepared prior to the submittal of final tentative tract maps to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels are met. The acoustical analysis shall demonstrate that the buildings have been designed to limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL and exterior noise (backyards and habitable balconies and patios) to less than 65 dBA CNEL. Individual 613

developments shall, to the extent feasible, implement site‐planning techniques.

4.6.4 Prior to final development plan approval, on a project‐by‐project basis and to the discretion of the Ontario Planning Department, subsequent noise studies shall be prepared, which demonstrates the site placement of stationary noise sources would not exceed criteria established in the City of Ontario Municipal Code. The analysis shall verify that loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to comply with the City’s noise standards.

4.6.5 Prior to Building Permit issuance and to the satisfaction of the Ontario Planning Department, the Project Applicants, on a project‐ by‐project basis, shall demonstrate compliance with the following with respect to mechanical equipment:
• Mechanical equipment shall include specifications of quiet equipment;
• Mechanical equipment shall be properly selected and installed, and shall include sound attenuation packages;
• To the extent possible, mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from the nearest noise sensitive receptors; and
• The need for sound attenuation measures, and design of, such measures shall be determined as part of the final engineering design on a project‐by‐project basis.

4.6.6 Where a commercial zone abuts a residential zone or residential use, the following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all non-residential buildings: All deliveries of goods and supplies; trash pick‐up, including the use of parking lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment which emits noise levels in excess of 65 dBA, as measured from the closest property line to the equipment, shall only be allowed between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., unless otherwise specified in an approved conditional use permit or other discretionary approval.

4.6.7 Prior to final development plan approval, on a project‐by‐project basis, a subsequent noise analysis shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the Ontario Planning Department, which demonstrates that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the parking areas (i.e., landscaping and brushed driving surfaces), such that noise from parking areas has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable.
614

D. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT

CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

1. AIR QUALITY
a. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-24 - 4.3-27) Explanation: Even after implementation of mitigation measures, Project construction-source emissions would exceed regional significance thresholds for NOX and CO emissions. As such, Project constructionsource emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Project operational-source emissions would exceed regional significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.18 would incrementally reduce Project operational-source emissions. However, such reductions cannot be meaningfully quantified in CalEEMod. As such, no emissions reduction credit that may be assigned to these measures has been taken in the analysis.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation.
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-27 - 4.3-40) Explanation: As indicated in Draft EIR Table 4.3-5, even after implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.6, Project construction emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds for NOx and CO. Additionally, the proposed Project will exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO for Phase 1, and VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 at Project Buildout.

Mitigation Measures 4.3.7 through 4.3.18 shall be implemented as means of reducing operational-source emissions to the extent feasible. In CalEEMod, there is no way to meaningfully quantify potential emissions reductions that would result from application of the proposed mitigation. Therefore, no emissions reduction credit for mitigation has been taken.
615

It is noted here that Project operational-source NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions exceedances are largely the product of traffic (mobile sources) accessing the Project site. Neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions from these mobile sources. No feasible mitigation measures beyond the measures identified herein exist that would reduce operational-source NOx and CO emissions to levels that would be less-than-significant.

With regard to VOC emissions, it is recognized that approximately 50 percent of operational-source VOC emissions would be generated by on-site sources, including natural gas usage, consumer products, landscape equipment, gasoline dispensing, and onsite equipment usage associated with the industrial portion of the Project. Approximately 60% of onsite VOC emissions are generated through the use of consumer products by future residents and building users. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products through mitigation.

Mitigation Measures:

4.3.1 Fugitive dust control measures surpassing SCAQMD Rule 403 minimum requirements shall be implemented. Such measures may include: use of nontoxic soil stabilizers, applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities and tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.

4.3.2 Construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 3 or higher exhaust emission limits shall be utilized.

4.3.3 Construction equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.

4.3.4 Non-essential idling of construction equipment shall be limited to no more than five consecutive minutes.

4.3.5 Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces shall be used whenever possible.

4.3.6 Construction contractors shall use off-road diesel construction equipment that complies with EPA/CARB Tier 4 Interim or better emissions standards during all construction phases.

4.3.7 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti-idling regulations. At a minimum, each sign shall include:
1) instructions for truck drivers to shut off engines when not in use; 2) instructions for drivers of diesel trucks to restrict idling to no more than five (5) minutes once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is 616

set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged; and 3) telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and the CARB to report violations. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the City shall conduct a site inspection to ensure that the signs are in place.

4.3.8 Industrial building occupants/tenants shall be provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment.

4.3.9 Non-residential building plans and site designs shall include natural light, passive heating, and passive cooling measures. Typical measures would include efficient window designs, use of overhangs, and skylights.

4.3.10 Building and site plans for non-residential uses shall provide electrical service accessible to landscaped areas.

4.3.11 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all non-residential buildings: “Building tenants shall utilize electric equipment for landscape maintenance to the extent feasible, through requirements in the lease agreements.”

4.3.12 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all industrial buildings: “Tenants shall utilize only electric or natural gas service yard trucks (hostlers), pallet jacks and forklifts, and other onsite equipment, through requirements in the lease agreements. Electric-powered service yard trucks (hostlers), pallet jacks and forklifts, and other onsite equipment shall also be required instead of diesel-powered equipment, if technically feasible.

Yard trucks may be diesel fueled in lieu of electrically or natural gas fueled provided such yard trucks are at least compliant with California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2010 standards for on-road vehicles or CARB Tier 4 compliant for off-road vehicles.”

4.3.13 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all industrial buildings: “Tenants that do not already operate 2010 and newer trucks shall apply in good faith for funding to replace/retrofit their trucks. Funding mechanisms include Carl Moyer, VIP, Prop 1B, SmartWay Finance, or other similar funds. If awarded, the tenant shall be required to accept and use the funding.

Tenants shall be encouraged to consider the use of alternative fueled trucks as well as new or retrofitted diesel trucks. Tenants shall also be encouraged to become SmartWay Partners, if eligible.” Note: This measure shall not apply to trucks that are not owned or otherwise controlled by the facility owner or facility tenant.

4.3.14 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all industrial buildings: Tenants who employ 250 or 617

more employees on a full- or part-time basis shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 2202, On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options.

The purpose of this rule is to provide employees with a menu of options to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions. Tenants with less than 250 employees or tenants with 250 or more employees who are exempt from SCAQMD Rule 2202 (as stated in the Rule) shall either (a) join with a tenant who is implementing a program in accordance with Rule 2202 or (b) implement an emission reduction program similar to Rule 2202 with annual reporting of actions and results to the City. The tenant-implemented program would include, but not be limited to the following:
 Appoint a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
coordinator who would promote the TDM program, activities and features to all employees.
 Create and maintain a “commuter club” to manage subsidies or incentives for employees who carpool, vanpool, bicycle, walk, or take transit to work.
 Inform employees of public transit and commuting services available to them (e.g., social media, signage).
 Provide on-site transit pass sales and discounted transit passes.  Guarantee a ride home.
 Offer shuttle service to and from public transit and commercial areas/food establishments, if warranted.

4.3.15 Loading docks shall be designed to be compatible with SmartWay trucks.

4.3.16 Non-residential use site plans shall include signs or other directional indicators delineating required site access and on-site circulation plan.

4.3.17 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all non-residential buildings: Tenants shall install (a) sign(s) on their respective property(ies) with telephone, email, and regular mail contact information for a designated tenant representative who would receive complaints about excessive noise, dust, fumes, or odors. The sign shall also identify contact data for the City for perceived Code violations. The representative shall keep records of any complaints received and actions taken to communicate with the complainant and resolve the complaint. The representative shall endeavor to resolve complaints within 24 hours.

4.3.18 Industrial building designs and site plans shall incorporate electrical supply lines and panels sized to support anticipated future requirements for heavy truck charging facilities. Such designs and 618

plans shall be based on reasonable predictions derived from the most recent available truck manufacturer’s data.

Despite implementation of the above measures, the project’s impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

2. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-40 - 4.4-45) Explanation: Project construction and operations would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Other GHGs that may be
generated are not of sufficient quantity to affect the analysis presented here. Direct Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation.

Construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 129,314.95 MTCO2e/year, which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year.

Mitigation Measures:

No feasible mitigation. The majority of the GHG emissions (approximately 72 percent unmitigated) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Neither the Applicant nor the Lead Agency can affect or mandate substantial reductions in vehicularsource GHG emissions, much less reductions that would achieve no net increase condition or achieve the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. In effect, all Project traffic would need to be eliminated or be “zero GHG emissions sources” in order to achieve the SCAQMD threshold.

Development proposals within the Specific Plan Area would be required to attain a minimum of 100 Screening Table Points, thereby complying comply with GHG emissions control and reduction strategies implemented through the City 2022 CCAP Update.

Additionally, Mitigation Measures 4.3.2 through 4.3.18 identified above and at Draft EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality would incrementally reduce Project-source air pollutant emissions and in so-doing would also act to generally reduce GHG emissions. However, there are no feasible means to, or alternatives to eliminate all Project traffic, or to ensure that Project traffic would result in zero GHG emissions sources. In terms of its practical application, this would constitute a “no build” condition. Based on the preceding, even with the application of mitigation, the Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment.

Despite implementation of the above measures, the project’s impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
619

E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

1. AIR QUALITY
The cumulative impact area for air quality considerations is generally defined by the encompassing Air Basin and boundaries of the jurisdictional air quality management agency. In this case, the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), respectively. Project emissions within the context of SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds provide an indicator of potential cumulative impacts within the jurisdictional Air Basin. Due to the defining geographic and meteorological characteristics of the Air Basin, criteria pollutant emissions that could cumulatively impact air quality would be, for practical purposes, restricted to the Air Basin.

Accordingly, the geographic area encompassed by the Air Basin is the appropriate limit for this cumulative air quality analysis.

Construction-Source Air Quality Impacts: Even with application of mitigation, Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and would therefore be significant and unavoidable. Per SCAQMD criteria, significant Project-level impacts are also cumulatively considerable. The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (VOC and NOx are both ozone precursors; NOx is a precursor to PM10/PM2.5).

Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in the criteria pollutant ozone for which the Project region is non-attainment. This is a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact. Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize construction-source air pollutant emissions consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

Operational-Source Air Quality Impacts: Even with application of mitigation, Project operational-source VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (VOC and NOx are both ozone precursors; NOx is a precursor to PM10/PM2.5). Project operational-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is nonattainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize operational-source air pollutant emissions consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

AQMP Consistency Impacts: Project construction-source and operational-source regional threshold emissions exceedances noted above are inconsistent with AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 1. On this basis, the Project would conflict with the AQMP. This is a cumulatively significant air quality impact.
620

CO Hotspot Impacts: The potential for the Project to cause or result in potential CO hotspot impacts would be less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-thansignificant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. The potential for Project CO emissions to result in or cause cumulatively significant CO hotspot impacts is therefore considered less-than-significant. Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential CO hotspot impacts consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts.

Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

Health Risk Impacts: Potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risk impacts resulting from Project construction and operations would be less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. The potential for Project air pollutant emissions to result in or cause cumulatively significant health risk impacts is therefore considered less-than-significant.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential health risk impacts consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-16 – 5-18)

2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cumulative impact areas for biological resources are generally defined by available habitat, species’ range(s), physical constraints, and other limiting factors as discussed within the Project Biological Report.

Special-Status Plant Species: There are no historic site records for any special status plant species onsite. Based on a review of CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and field surveys, a few special-status species were identified for additional analysis, although none are expected to occur onsite. No special-status plants were observed on the Project site during the 2022 site surveys.

Special-Status Wildlife Species: The Project could result in potentially significant impacts to the burrowing owl. The EIR incorporates mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to the burrowing owl to levels that would be less-than-significant.

Nesting Birds: Project implementation could affect nesting birds that may be present at the time of Project construction activities. This is a potentially significant impact. The EIR incorporates mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to levels that would be less-than-significant.

Jurisdictional Areas, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural Community:

The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, or temporary rain pools. No other wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive communities exist within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantially or adversely affect any other off-site wetlands or riparian areas.

The potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on any jurisdictional areas, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural community is considered less-than-significant.
621

Wildlife Movement Corridors: The Project site is bounded by traveled roadways and developed or developing properties. The Project site does not represent a connecting link between significant habitat for wildlife areas. Based on its location within an urban context, the potential for the site to function as a significant wildlife movement corridor is considered low. Project impacts to wildlife movement corridors would be less-thansignificant.

Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources; Habitat Conservation Plans: The Project site is not subject to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No significant impacts in this regard would occur.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding biological resources is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-26 – 5-28)

3. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cumulative impact area for prehistoric, archaeological, and historic resources includes the City of Ontario and surrounding areas of San Bernardino County. As discussed at EIR Section 4.11, there are no known or probable significant historical resources within the Project site, or that would otherwise be adversely affected by the Project. On this basis, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historic resources as defined at CCR §15064.5 is considered lessthan-significant.

The Project’s other potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts consistent with City and State regulatory requirements, thereby minimizing potential cumulative cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contributions to cumulative impacts regarding cultural resources/tribal cultural resources would not be considerable, and these cumulative effects would be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, p. 5-28)

4. ENERGY
The geographic scope of cumulative energy impacts is limited to the energy provider service area(s). The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. These plans and policies address developmentlevel and cumulative impacts to energy resources. Project consistency with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstrates that the Project energy impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be less-than-significant.
622

As with the Project, other developments within the energy provider service areas would be required to demonstrate compliance with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding energy is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, p. 5-20)

5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Project site and all Southern California lie within a seismically active area, generally subject to earthquake hazards, and in this sense, Southern California is considered the cumulative impact area for geology and soils considerations. As discussed at EIR Section

4.9, Geology and Soils, Project impacts related to geology and soils would be less-thansignificant as mitigated. The Project would not exacerbate any existing adverse geologic/soils conditions.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize geology/soils impacts consistent with City and CBC regulatory requirements, thereby minimizing potential cumulative geology/soils impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable. Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding geology and soils is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, p. 5-26)

6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)). The Project Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis is by nature a cumulative analysis. Because GHG emissions and climate change are global issues, any approved project regardless of its location has the potential to contribute to a cumulative global accumulation of GHG emissions. The geographic context of the cumulative contributions to GHGs and climate change is worldwide.

Practically however, lead agencies and responsible agencies are only able to regulate GHG emissions within their respective jurisdictions. Accordingly, the cumulative impact area for GHG/Global Climate Change considerations is the City of Ontario and the encompassing SCAQMD jurisdictional area.

Even after application of mitigation, Project GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD GHG emissions screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. On this basis, the Project could directly or indirectly generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. On this basis, the Project’s potential to contribute considerably (either individually or cumulatively) to global climate change impacts through GHG emissions is therefore considered significant and unavoidable.

As also discussed in the EIR, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050, and GHG emissions modeling reflected in TOP 2050 – 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). The 2022 CCAP Update provides guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. The 2022 CCAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The 2022 CCAP Update, requirements of AB 32, SB 623

32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions encompass and comprise the range and scope of “applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” As substantiated in the EIR, with application of mitigation, the Project is determined to be consistent with the 2022 CCAP Update and by extension is also consistent with and supports other noted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is therefore considered less-than-significant.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential GHG emissions impacts consistent applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, thereby minimizing potential cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-18 – 5-20)

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The cumulative impact area when considering potential hazards and hazardous materials issues includes the area to be developed within the Project site, as well as off-site locations that might be affected by or contribute to hazards or hazardous conditions resulting from the Project and its operations. The cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impact analysis evaluates the effects of Project construction and operations and reflects long-term buildout conditions within the cumulative impact area.

The Project does not propose uses or activities that would require substantial handling or use of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous waste that could result in potential adverse effects. The EIR mitigation measures require remediation of any preexisting hazardous conditions to levels that would be less-than-significant. The mitigation measures also ensure that subsequent development and operation of Project land uses would not create or result in potentially significant hazardous conditions. As mitigated, Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less-thansignificant.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with hazards/hazardous material regulatory requirements. Mitigation would be incorporated, if necessary. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-23 – 5-24)

8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative impact area for hydrology/water quality impact considerations is generally defined as the area encompassed by the jurisdictional Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), in this case the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Local oversight is also provided by the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County.

Development of the Project site would incrementally increase impervious surfaces within the cumulative impact area, with related potential increases in the rate and quantity of local storm water discharges. The Project’s potential hydrology/water quality impacts 624

would be less-than-significant as mitigated. In this regard, the Project would implement storm water management components, and structural and non-structural Best Management Practices, which collectively act to ensure that post-development storm water discharge rates are adequately conveyed within available system capacities.

The Project drainage concept would maintain the site’s primary drainage patterns and would implement drainage systems and detention areas to accept developed storm water discharges. The Project would implement all necessary drainage and storm water management systems and would be required to comply with all storm water system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated under the City Municipal Code. The Project drainage and storm water management systems would also be required to comply within regulations established by other jurisdictional agencies including SARWQCB, San Bernardino County, and California Department of Water Resources. Additionally, consistent with established building code regulations, approved site-specific drainage studies reflecting precise pad locations, proposed drainage structures, detention facilities, etc., would be required prior to the issuance of building permits within the Project site.

Storm water management systems implemented by the Project, mandated compliance with City, SARWQCB, County, and State storm water management requirements and policies, collectively ensure that adequate storm water conveyance and treatment facilities would be provided to support development and operations of the Project.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with stormwater management and water quality regulatory requirements. Mitigation would be incorporated, if necessary. Thus, contribution to cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-24 – 5-25)

9. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative land use and planning issues includes areas that are currently under City jurisdiction, and subject to provisions of TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan), City of Ontario Zoning Ordinance, and/or other City Special Planning Documents (e.g., Specific Plans). The analysis presented here also considers the Project in the context of the land use/planning guidance included in the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020).

The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project land uses are consistent with the site’s TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan. The Project does not propose or require amendment of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan. Further, as substantiated at EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, land uses and development concepts proposed by the Project would not 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.

The existing Zoning designation of the Project site is “Specific Plan” as established by the current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan. The Specific Plan zoning designation is maintained under the Project, though land use designations and configuration of Specific 625

Plan land uses would be amended per the proposed 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment. The 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment) is presented in its entirety at EIR Appendix B. If adopted by the City, the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would comprise the zoning for the subject site and would regulate all development within the site. Where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, regulations and requirements of the City Development Code would prevail.

The proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would establish land use plans, development standards, and design guidelines directing the ultimate buildout of the Project site. Land uses and development concepts reflected within the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment can be feasibly implemented consistent with applicable provisions of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Element and City Development Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City would review the final development plans for individual developments within the Project site to ensure consistency with the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment land use plans, development standards, design guidelines; and where applicable, City Development Code requirements.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with requirements of necessary land use and planning discretionary actions and permits.

Mitigation would be incorporated, if necessary.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative land use and planning impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 – 5-14)

10. NOISE
The cumulative impact area for noise/vibration considerations is generally defined as surrounding properties that could receive Project-generated noise/vibration (either construction or operational) and would also include roadway corridors affected by Projectrelated traffic and associated vehicular noise/vibration.

Construction-Source Noise/Vibration: Project construction-source noise and vibration levels received at area land uses would be less-than-significant and on this basis are not cumulatively considerable.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to mitigate construction‐source noise and vibration impacts that could affect sensitive receptors, thereby minimizing potential cumulative construction-source noise impacts.

Project construction-source vibration levels received at area land uses would be lessthan-significant. There are no known or probable related projects that would interact with the Project’s less-than-significant construction-source vibration impacts and thereby result in cumulatively significant impacts.

Operational Noise/Vibration - Area Sources: The Project’s area-source operational noise levels would be less-than-significant. EIR mitigation measures would reduce potential vehicular-source noise impacts at the Project residential uses to levels that would be less-than-significant.
626

Further, Project operational-source noise in combination with ambient noise would not result in cumulatively significant noise impacts. In this latter regard, the peak mitigated Project operational-source noise levels when added to ambient conditions would not exceed the maximum acceptable day/night ambient condition.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to mitigate operational area‐source noise impacts that could affect sensitive receptors, thereby minimizing potential cumulative operational-source noise impacts.

Operational Noise - Mobile Sources: Cumulative effects of mobile-source noise are demonstrated by comparing noise levels under Existing Conditions (2022) without the Project, to noise levels with the completed Project under Horizon Year Conditions (2050).

Cumulative mobile-source noise increases within the Study Area are summarized in Draft EIR Table 5.1-2.

As indicated at Table 5.1-2, along all Study Area roadway segments projected to experience cumulatively significant vehicular-source noise impacts, the Project contributions would be less than the 1.5 dBA threshold at sensitive land uses, and less than the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold at non-sensitive land uses. On this basis, Project contributions to cumulative vehicular-source noise would not be cumulatively considerable and Project impacts would not be cumulatively significant.

As indicated at Table 5.1-1, ambient noise levels along all Study Area roadway segments already exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Along these roadway segments, cumulative noise increases of 1.5 dBA CNEL or more, if received at sensitive land uses, would exceed applicable thresholds and would be considered cumulatively significant. Along roadway segments where ambient conditions exceed 70 dBA CNEL, cumulative noise increases of 3.0 dBA CNEL or more, if received at non-sensitive land uses, would exceed applicable thresholds and would be considered cumulatively significant. (Draft EIR, p. 5-20 - 5-23)

11. TRANSPORTATION
The Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment cumulative impact area coincides with relevant Transportation Analysis Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). evaluation of the Project VMT impacts is guided by Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, OPR) December 2018. The Technical Advisory notes that “. . . metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact” (Technical Advisory, p. 6). As substantiated herein, the Project-level VMT impacts are less-than-significant per the City VMT Guidelines efficiency-based threshold. Per the Technical Advisory guidance, the Project cumulative VMT impacts would also be lessthan-significant.

To ensure appropriate design and implementation of all Project circulation improvements, the final design of the Project site plan, to include locations and design of proposed driveways, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. In addition, representatives of the City’s Police and Fire Departments will review the Project’s plans 627

regarding emergency access. Efficient and safe operations of the Project would be provided by on-site and localized circulation and intersection improvements to be developed as the Project individual site and building designs are finalized. The City would ensure that all on-site and localized circulation and intersection improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and pursuant to City site plan and Building Permit review processes and requirements.

Traffic signing and striping would be implemented in conjunction with detailed Project construction plans. Sight distance at each project access point would be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.

It is also recognized that temporary and short-term traffic detours and traffic disruption could result during Project construction activities. These interim and transient impacts are considered potentially significant for the duration of Project construction activities.

Management and control of construction traffic would be addressed through the preparation and submittal of a construction area traffic management plan, to be reviewed and approved by City prior to or concurrent with Project building plan review(s). The Project Construction Area Traffic Management Plan (Plan), also summarized within the EIR Project Description, would identify traffic controls for any street closures, detours, or other potential disruptions to traffic circulation during Project construction. The Plan would also be required to identify construction vehicle access routes, and hours of construction traffic.

The Project would generate passenger car trips and truck trips typical of the proposed uses. As part of established site and Building Permit review processes, the City would require implementation of on-site truck and passenger car travel paths, signing, and traffic controls to ensure that conflicts between trucks and passenger cars are minimized or avoided. Trucks accessing the Project site would use designated truck routes, thereby avoiding or minimizing off-site passenger car/truck traffic conflicts. Land uses proximate to the Project site are planned for, or are developed with, urban uses similar to those proposed by the Project. These uses would generate urban traffic types similar to traffic generated by the Project and would not generate traffic that would be incompatible with the Project traffic types.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would similarly be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable circulation system programs, plans, ordinances, and policies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts.

Based on the preceding, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to increased circulation system hazards, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access are not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less-thansignificant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-14 – 5-16)

12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts comprises affected purveyor service areas including service sources/supplies, and service conveyance/distribution/treatment facilities. 628

The Project would implement all necessary on-site infrastructure improvements and would also construct area-serving off-site master plan infrastructure improvements.

Utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines implemented by the Project would be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to purveyor requirements and consistent with applicable infrastructure master plans. Infrastructure improvements would be located within existing improved streets or otherwise disturbed properties, thereby limiting or avoiding potential environmental impacts. The Draft EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations, including but not limited to construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in this EIR The EIR discussion of potential utilities and services impacts also substantiates the following:
• Water supplies would be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. • There exists sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Landfills serving the Project have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs; and
• The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize utilities and services impacts consistent with City, State, and service purveyor requirements, thereby minimizing potential cumulative utilities and services impacts.

Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable. Based on the preceding, Project contributions to cumulative impacts regarding utilities and service systems would not be considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project would be less-than-significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-28 - 5-30).

13. OTHER IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT CUMULATIVELY SIGNFICANT For certain other areas of consideration, Project impacts are substantiated to be lessthan-significant (please refer to the Initial Study, EIR Appendix A). Project contributions to these impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and the Project impacts would not be cumulatively significant. These topics include:

AESTHETICS. Potential to:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.  In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or 629

quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.  Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area.

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Potential to:
 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.
 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.  Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.  Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

AIR QUALITY. Potential to:
 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Potential to:
 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Potential to:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.  Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides.
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Potential to:
 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. 630

 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 the people residing or working in the project area.
 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Potential to:
 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
 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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

LAND USE AND PLANNING. Potential to:
 Physically divide an established community.

MINERAL RESOURCES. Potential to:
 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the state.
 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

POPULATION AND HOUSING. Potential to:
 Induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure).
 Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

PUBLIC SERVICES. Potential to:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts for any of the public services:
631

 Fire Protection
 Police Protection
 Schools
 Parks
 Other public facilities
RECREATION. Potential to:
 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

WILDFIRE. Potential to:
 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
 Exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.  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.
 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.

F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA. 632

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines relating to the alternatives’ analysis (§15126.6 et seq.) are summarized below:
 “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (§15126.6[b]).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (§15126.6[e][1])
 “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (§15126.6[e][2])
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (§15126.6[f])  “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (§15126.6[f][1])
 “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (§15126.6[f][2][A])
 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (§15126.6[f][3])

1. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The alternatives must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or 633

substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)([1]) are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

The Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the EIR.
a. Alternative Sites
As stated at CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 (f)(1)(2)(A), the “key question and first step in [the] analysis [of alternative locations] is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 (f) (1) also provides that when considering the feasibility of potential alternative sites, the factors that may be taken into account include: “site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). None of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.”
634

As discussed below, relocation of the Project would not avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Further, there are no feasible alternative sites under control or likely control of the Applicant that would allow for relocation of the Project in a manner that could substantially reduce the Project’s significant environmental impacts.

Significant Air Quality Impacts Not Substantially Reduced at Alternative Site • Relocation to an Alternative Site would not likely achieve any measurable reduction in the Project’s regional construction-source and operational-source air quality impacts and contributions to nonattainment conditions. AQMP inconsistencies tied to the Project significant air quality impacts similarly would not be reduced by relocation of the Project. Relocation of the Project anywhere within the South Coast Air Basin would not alter or diminish the significance of these impacts.

Significant GHG Emissions Impacts Not Substantially Reduced at Alternative Site • GHG emissions impacts are, by definition, cumulative and global in their effects.

Relocation of the Project would not alter or diminish the significance of its GHG emissions impacts.

Based on the preceding considerations, analysis of an Alternative Site as means of reducing the Project’s significant environmental impacts was not further considered (Draft EIR, pp. 5-41 – 5-42)
b. “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant Air Quality Impacts Operational-Source Emissions
In order to reduce Project operational-source air quality emissions to levels that would preclude exceedance of all SCAQMD thresholds, the Project scope would need to be reduced by approximately 92.4 percent (this may achieve the most restrictive threshold [VOC] and all subordinate thresholds). At such a reduction in scope, the Project Objectives would not be realized in any meaningful sense. As such, potential alternatives with the specific goal of avoiding all significant operational-source air quality impacts resulting from the Project were rejected from consideration and are not further evaluated in this discussion.

Project operational-source emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non-attainment. For the same reasons noted above, there are no feasible means or alternatives to avoid this impact or reduce the impact to levels that would be less-thansignificant. However, this impact and all operational-source air quality impacts would be diminished under the EIR Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Construction-Source Emissions
In order to reduce Project construction-source air quality emissions to levels that would preclude exceedance of all SCAQMD thresholds would require use of construction equipment or construction technologies that are not currently available or that would be available in the near-term. In this regard, use of alternative fuel construction equipment, 635

including electric-powered equipment, is not feasible at this time as such equipment is not commercially available, and is not expected to be in the near-term. Alternatively, the duration of Project construction activities would need to be protracted by an estimated additional 67 percent of the current Project construction schedule. This may achieve the most restrictive construction-source emissions threshold [NOx], but in so doing would only prolong the duration of air quality emissions, the duration of construction-source equipment noise, and the duration of general disturbances associated with construction activities. The Lead Agency has determined that the benefits of the Project’s current construction schedule outweigh the potential benefit in a temporary decrease in air quality emissions that may be achieved through a protracted Project construction schedule.

Moreover, accepted air quality modeling parameters do not provide for such an assumed extended construction period. For these reasons, there are no feasible means or alternatives to avoid this impact or reduce the impact to levels that would be less-thansignificant. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-42 – 5-43) c. “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for GHG Emissions Impacts As discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, quantified Project-source GHG emissions would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year; and the Project cannot feasibly achieve the SCAQMD screening-level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. The SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening-level threshold is the most conservative metric available and is employed in this analysis in of GHG emissions significance. On this basis, Project GHG emissions have the potential to either directly or indirectly result in a significant impact on the environment.

The majority (approximately 72 percent) of the Project GHG emissions would be generated by Project vehicular sources. Responsibility and authority for regulation of vehicular-source emissions resides with the State of California (CARB, et al.). Neither the Applicant nor the Lead Agency can affect or mandate substantial reductions in vehicularsource GHG emissions, much less reductions that would achieve no net increase condition or achieve the SCAQMD screening-level 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. In effect, all Project traffic would need to be eliminated or be “zero GHG emissions sources” in order to achieve the SCAQMD threshold. There are no feasible means to or alternatives to eliminate all Project traffic, or to ensure that Project traffic would comprise zero GHG emissions sources. In terms of its practical application, this would constitute a “no build” condition.

The Project would however implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions as outlined under the City of Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). Under the 2022 CCAP Update, mixed use developments that garner at least 100 Screening Table points would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction targets in the City’s 2022 CCAP Update. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would attain more than 100 Screening Table points. The Project is therefore determined to be consistent with the 2022 CCAP Update. (Draft EIR, p. 5-44)

3. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the Project objectives listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives which have the potential to 636

feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections.
 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative: No Build
 Alternative 2: No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses
 Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
a. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative: No Build
Description: The No Project Alternative: No Build scenario assumes the site remains in its current undeveloped condition. If this scenario were maintained, its comparative environmental impacts would replicate the existing conditions discussions for each of the environmental topics evaluated in this EIR; and comparative impacts of the Project would be as presented under each of the EIR environmental topics. A No Build condition would achieve none of the basic Project Objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-39)
Impacts: Air Quality
Under this Alternative existing air quality conditions would be maintained (see: EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, 4.3.3, Setting). This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional air pollutant emissions. This Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts when compared to the Project. No air quality impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Biological Resources
Under this Alternative, existing biological resources conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would have no incremental effects on biological resources. This Alternative would result in reduced biological resources impacts when compared to the Project. Biological resources impacts under this Alternative would be lessthan-significant.

Cultural Resources
Under this Alternative, existing cultural resources/tribal cultural resources conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts when compared to the Project. No cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Energy
Under this Alternative, existing energy conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would not result in 637

increased energy demands. This Alternative would result in reduced energy impacts when compared to the Project. As with the Project, energy impacts would be less-than-significant.

Geology and Soils
Under this Alternative, existing geology and soils conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional geology and soils impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced geology and soils impacts when compared to the Project. As with the Project, geology and soils impacts would be less-thansignificant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under this Alternative, existing GHG emissions conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional GHG emissions. This Alternative would result in reduced GHG emissions impacts when compared to the Project. No GHG impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under this Alternative, existing hazards/hazardous materials conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional hazards/hazardous materials impacts.

Existing adverse hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the subject site and surrounding areas would persist. This Alternative may therefore result in increased hazards/hazardous conditions impacts when compared to the Project. That is, under the Project, adverse hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the site would be comprehensively remediated as part of the Project development - such remediation would not occur under this Alternative. No hazards/hazardous materials impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this Alternative, existing hydrology/water quality conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional hydrology and water quality impacts. Existing adverse hydrology/water quality conditions affecting the subject site (e.g., lack of storm sewers, lack of storm water quality treatment systems, degraded water quality due to dairy farming operations) would persist. This Alternative may therefore result in increased hydrology and water quality impacts when compared to the Project. That is, under the Project, adverse hydrology and water quality conditions affecting the site and surrounding areas would be comprehensively addressed through implementation of the Project stormwater management systems. These stormwater management system improvements would not be implemented under this Alternative. No 638

hydrology/water quality impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Land Use and Planning
Under this Alternative, existing land use/planning conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would require no land use or planning discretionary actions or permits. In this respect, land uses and planning impacts would be decreased when compared to the Project. However, this Alternative would not support the City’s long-range vision for the subject site, under which the site would be developed with Specific Plan Residential, Office/Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses. Comparative Land Use and Planning impacts under this Alternative would be reduced when compared to the Project. Under both the Project and this Alternative, Land Use and Planning impacts would be less-than-significant.

Noise
Under this Alternative, existing noise/vibration conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional noise or vibration. This Alternative would result in reduced noise and vibration levels when compared to the Project. No noise or vibration impact mitigation would be required or would be implemented under this Alternative.

Transportation
VMT Impacts
This Alternative would maintain existing VMT conditions. This Alternative would result in decreased total VMT when compared to the Project.

Because the intensity and scope of uses is diminished under this Alternative, the Service Population would also be decreased. On this basis, this Alternative may not substantially alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from the Project. Under the Project and this Alternative, VMT impacts would be less-than-significant.

Other Transportation Topics
No new traffic would be generated, and no new or additional impacts related to other transportation topics would result under this Alternative. As with the Project, airport land use compatibility, traffic hazards, and emergency access impacts would be less-than-significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
Under this Alternative, existing utilities and service systems conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional utilities and service systems impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced utilities and service 639