Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 5 of 32)

systems impacts when compared to the Project. No utilities and service systems impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

Ability to Reduce Impacts
This Alternative would potentially result in increased impacts to hazards and hazardous materials when compared to the impacts under the Project. This alternative will have similar or reduced impacts compared to the proposed Project related to air quality, biological resources, cultural/tribal resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
This Alternative would realize none of the stated Project Objectives.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and would not provide any of the Project benefits that would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.
b. Alternative 2: No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses
Description: The No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses (Existing Specific Plan Land Uses) scenario represents foreseeable development of the subject site pursuant to the site’s current Policy Plan Land Use designations. Draft EIR Table 5.2-1 compares the composition and scope of uses under the Project with development that could result under the Existing Specific Plan Land Uses scenario. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-39 – 5-40)
Impacts: Air Quality
Under this Alternative, similar construction activities and use of construction equipment would be similar to that occurring under the Project. The maximum daily area of disturbance would be the same under both scenarios. Construction-source emissions impacts under the Project and this Alternative would be comparable and would be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

When compared to the Project, this Alternative would likely result in comparable total development within the Specific Plan Area, though the types and configuration of uses would be amended under the Project.

Operational-source emissions under this Alternative would be comparable to the Project operational-source emissions and would be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.
640

Page 89 of 108 ends

Construction-source and operational-source emissions threshold exceedances under this Alternative would impede air quality attainment strategies and goals outlined in the AQMP. On this basis, this Alternative would be inconsistent with the AQMP. This is a significant and unavoidable impact. Per SCAQMD criteria, Project-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable.

All other air quality impacts under this Alternative would be less-thansignificant, or less-than-significant as mitigated.

Biological Resources
Development realized under this Alternative would result in disturbance of the subject site similar to that occurring under the Project. Potential impacts to biological resources would also likely be similar to those of the Project.

As with the Project, potential biological resources impacts would be lessthan-significant as mitigated.

Cultural Resources
Site disturbance and potential impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those of the Project. This Alternative would incorporate mitigation that would reduce potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Energy
As with the Project, this Alternative would be provided energy from existing sources. It is assumed that this Alternative would comply with applicable energy conservation and energy efficiency regulations and policies; and that this Alternative would not implement facilities or operations that would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption. When compared to the Project, energy consumption would likely be comparable under this Alternative. As with the Project, energy impacts would be less-thansignificant.

Geology and Soils
It is assumed that this Alternative would not propose or require facilities or operations that would result in adverse geology/soils conditions or exacerbate any existing adverse geology/soils conditions. As with the Project, this Alternative would be subject to requirements of the CBC, City of Ontario Building Code, site- and development-specific geotechnical studies, and any necessary mitigation measures. Geology and soils impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant.
641

Page 90 of 108 ends

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
When compared to the Project, this Alternative would likely result in comparable total development within the Specific Plan Area, though the types and configuration of uses would be amended under the Project. GHG emissions under this Alternative would be comparable to the Project GHG emissions and would exceed the SCAQMD screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. On this basis, GHG emissions under this Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact.

This Alternative would implement GHG emissions mitigation per the 2022 CCAP Update. Compliance with the 2022 CCAP Update ensures that this Alternative would not conflict with any applicable plan or strategy for controlling or reducing GHG emissions. Impacts of this Alternative in this regard would be less-than-significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As with the Project, existing hazards or potentially hazardous conditions affecting the subject site would be remediated and related impacts reduced to levels that would be less-than-significant. This Alternative use would not result in hazards and hazardous materials impacts different than those resulting from the Project. This Alternative would not implement uses or programs that would exacerbate any existing adverse hazards/hazardous materials conditions. As with the Project, potential hazards/hazardous materials impacts would be less-than-significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
This Alternative would implement all necessary storm drain infrastructure improvements. The area subject to development with impervious surfaces under this Alternative and the Project would be comparable. This Alternative and Project would therefore result in comparable rates and quantities of post-development storm water runoff. This Alternative would be required to implement on-site storm water management systems, reducing impacts to storm drain capacities to levels that would be less-than-significant. This Alternative would be required to comply with applicable SWPPP and WQMP provisions, thereby reducing potential water quality impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant. Stormwater management systems implemented under this Alternative would act to improve existing hydrology and water quality conditions. Potential hydrology and water quality impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be lessthan-significant as mitigated.

Land Use and Planning
This scenario assumes development of the subject site consistent with the site’s Existing (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan Land Use designations.

This Alternative would not require amendment of the existing Rich-Haven Specific Plan, as proposed by the Project. It is noted here that the proposed 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with TOP 2050 642

Page 91 of 108 ends

Policy Plan Land Use Plan, whereas the 2021 Rich-Haven Specific Plan is not. That is, for the 2021 Specific Plan to be maintained, it would require amendment of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan; in this respect, implications of Policy Plan (General Plan) amendments are generally broader in scope and more fundamental when compared to an amendment of an existing Specific Plan. No Project Alternative would likely result in Land Use and Planning impacts equal to or greater than impacts of the Project.

Noise
Under this Alternative, areas affected by construction activities and the types and operations of construction equipment employed would be substantially the same as would occur under the Project. Maximum received construction-source noise/vibration levels would be unchanged and would be less-than-significant.

This Alternative would not generate or result in operational area-source noise/vibration substantially different than would result from uses proposed by the Project. Under this Alternative and the Project, operational areasource noise/vibration impacts would be comparable and would be lessthan-significant.

As with the Project, certain of the residential uses under this Alternative could be exposed to potentially significant vehicular-source noise levels.

Mitigation would be included to reduce this impact to levels that would be less-than-significant.

As with the Project, this Alternative would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive aircraft or airport-source noise levels.

Transportation
VMT Impacts
When compared to the Project, this Alternative would likely result in comparable total development within the Specific Plan Area, though the types and configuration of uses would be amended under the Project. The Specific Plan Service Population would also likely be comparable. On this basis, this Alternative would 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
As with the Project, required Study Area traffic improvements would be constructed or proportionally funded under this Alternative. As with the Project, airport land use compatibility impacts would be less-thansignificant. It is assumed that like the Project, development of the subject site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would incorporate those site adjacent and on-site circulation system improvements necessary to avoid 643

Page 92 of 108 ends

or mitigate development-specific traffic impacts. As a matter of law, this Alternative would be required to comply with City ordinances addressing the Study Area circulation system. As with the Project, transportation systems improvements would be designed and implemented consistent with City and Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements.

Under this Alternative, as with the Project, “other” transportation impacts would be less-than-significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
This Alternative would result in development intensities comparable to the Project. It is assumed that this Alternative would implement all necessary on-site and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements.

Utilities and service system impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant.

Ability to Reduce Impacts
This Alternative would potentially result in increased impacts to air quality, GHG emissions, and land use and planning when compared to the impacts under the Project. This alternative will have similar impacts compared to the proposed Project related to biological resources, cultural/tribal resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
This Alternative would likely realize the stated Project Objectives regarding design and implementation of Specific Plan Land Uses. To these ends, this Alternative would provide a mix of residential, commercial-office, light industrial and community facilities uses similar to the Project. However, uses would be configured and oriented in a manner differing from the Project.

This Alternative would however fail to achieve or would impede attainment the following Project Objectives:
• Implement TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan; Support TOP 2050 vision for urbanization of the Ontario Ranch area of the City. This Alternative proposes land uses that are inconsistent with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan and would require amendment of TOP Policy Plan Land Use Plan. This alternative would therefore conflict with, rather than support, implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) This Alternative would provide no reduction in significant environmental impacts when compared to the Project; (2) this Alternative may increase the severity of, or create additional impacts not otherwise occurring under the Project; and (3) due to its comparative reduction in 644

Page 93 of 108 ends

scope, the Alternative would likely impede or substantially restrict attainment of the Project Objectives.
c. Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
Description: The Reduced Intensity Alternative focuses on a development scenario that would reduce the significant operational-source air quality impacts otherwise occurring under the Project.

For purposes of the EIR Alternatives Analysis, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement the Project uses at an approximately 25 percent reduction in overall development intensity. The mix of land uses proposed by the Project would be proportionally maintained under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-40 – 5-41) Impacts: Air Quality
Construction activities and use of construction equipment would be similar to the Project. The maximum daily area of disturbance would be the same under both scenarios. Construction-source emissions impacts under the Project and this Alternative would be comparable and would be individually and cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

The 25 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would translate roughly to a 25 percent reduction in operational-source air pollutant emissions when compared to the Project.

When compared to the Project, operational-source emissions would be incrementally reduced for all pollutants under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. As with the Project, operational-source VOC, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. As with the Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative’s VOC, NOx, and PM10 and regional threshold exceedances would contribute to existing Basin ozone and PM10/PM2.5 nonattainment conditions.

Page 94 of 108 ends

All other air quality impacts under this Alternative would be diminished when compared to the project and would be less-than-significant, or less-thansignificant as mitigated.

Biological Resources
The reduction in overall site development realized under the Reduced Intensity Alternative could result in a portion of the site remaining, for the time being, in an undeveloped condition. Realistically, however, potential impacts to biological resources would likely be similar to those of the Project, given the extent of construction activities and subsequent occupancies that would result from the site’s development. Biological resources impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Energy
The reduction in development scope under the Reduced Intensity Project Alternative would tend to reduce total energy demands and total energy consumption. As with the Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative uses would be required to implement energy-efficient facilities, and to otherwise demonstrate effective energy use. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, proposed development would also be required to substantiate compliance with state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be similar to the Project.

Geology and Soils
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement the Project uses at a reduced scale within the same site developed under the Project. It is assumed that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not propose or require facilities or operations that would result in adverse geology/soils conditions, or exacerbate any existing adverse geology/soils conditions. As with the Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be subject to requirements of the CBC, City of Ontario Building Code, site- and development-specific geotechnical studies, and any necessary mitigation measures. Geology and soils impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project and would be less-than-significant. 646

Page 95 of 108 ends

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
When compared to the Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in diminished GHG emissions due to the reduced scope of facilities, reductions in building/facility energy demands, and reduced trip generation.

Assuming a reduction in GHG emissions comparable to the 25 percent reduction in scope under this Alternative, GHG emissions would total approximately 0.75 x of the Project GHG emissions, or 0.75 x 129,314.95 MTCO2e/yr. = 96,986.21 MTCO2e/yr.

As with the Project, the GHG emissions generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. On this basis, GHG emissions generated by the Reduced Intensity Alternative would represent a significant and unavoidable environmental impact.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As with the Project, existing hazards or potentially hazardous conditions affecting the subject site would be remediated and related impacts reduced to levels that would be less-than-significant. The Reduced Intensity Alternative land uses would be similar to the Project and would not result in hazards and hazardous materials impacts different than those resulting from the Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not implement uses or programs that would exacerbate any existing adverse hazards/hazardous materials conditions. Potential hazards/hazardous materials impacts of the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement all necessary storm drain infrastructure improvements. When compared to the Project, the area subject to development with impervious surfaces under the Reduced Intensity Alternative may be reduced. The Reduced Intensity Alternative may therefore result in reduced rates and quantities of post-development storm water runoff. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to implement on-site storm water management systems, reducing impacts to storm drain capacities to levels that would be less-than-significant. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to comply with applicable SWPPP and WQMP provisions, thereby reducing potential water quality impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant. Stormwater management systems implemented under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would act to improve existing hydrology and water quality 647

Page 96 of 108 ends

conditions. Hydrology and water quality impacts of the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-thansignificant as mitigated.

Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would require amendment of Policy Plan Land Use designations similar to the Project. Other discretionary actions, consultations, and permitting required under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project would be the same. Under either the Project or the Reduced Intensity Alternative, land use and planning impacts would be less-than-significant.

Noise
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the types of construction activities and equipment employed would likely be similar to those associated with construction of the Project. Maximum received construction-source noise/vibration levels would be unchanged. As with the Project, construction-source noise/vibration levels received at area land uses would be less-than-significant.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not generate or result in operational area-source noise/vibration substantially different than would result from the Project. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project, operational area-source noise/vibration impacts would be lessthan-significant.

As with the Project, certain of the residential uses under this Alternative could be exposed to potentially significant vehicular-source noise levels.

Mitigation would be included to reduce this impact to levels that would be less-than-significant.

As with the Project, this Alternative would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive aircraft or airport-source noise levels.

Transportation and Traffic
VMT Impacts
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce Project development intensity, associated trip generation, and VMT by an estimated 25 percent.

The reduction in Service Population would also likely be comparable.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced total VMT when compared to the Project. Because the intensity and scope of uses would be decreased under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Service Population would also likely be decreased. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would therefore not substantially alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from the Project.
648

Page 97 of 108 ends

Other Transportation Topics
Based on the 25 percent reduction in trip generation, the extent of Study Area traffic improvements required under this Alternative would likely be reduced when compared to the Project. Because the Reduced Intensity Alternative would generate less traffic than the Project, fair share fee responsibilities, (which are based on proportional traffic contributions), would be reduced when compared to the Project. Required DIF payments (which are based on development building areas) would also be reduced. It is assumed that, like the Project, development of the subject site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would incorporate those site adjacent and onsite circulation system improvements necessary to avoid or mitigate development-specific traffic impacts.

As a matter of law, this Alternative would be required to comply with City ordinances addressing the Study Area circulation system. As with the Project, transportation systems improvements would be designed and implemented consistent with City and Manual on MUTCD requirements.

Under this Alternative, as with the Project, “other” transportation impacts would be less-than-significant.

Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in development of similar land uses but at a lower intensity than the Project. It is assumed that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement all necessary on-site and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. Utilities and service systems impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant.

Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts regarding air quality and GHG emissions. More specifically:
• The magnitude of operational-source air quality impacts (VOC, NOx, CO, PM10) would be diminished but would remain significant and unavoidable. PM2.5 emissions impacts would be reduced below significance thresholds.
• Total GHG emissions would be reduced. However, GHG emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold.

Impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would implement the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Uses and development concepts at an approximately 25 percent reduction in overall development intensity. Due to its comparative reduction in scope, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would 649

Page 98 of 108 ends

likely impede or substantially restrict attainment of the following Project Objectives.
• Implement a Specific Plan development supporting office/commercial and light industrial uses providing a broad range of employment opportunities. The comparative 25 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would diminish the number and diversity of potential employment opportunities otherwise provided by the Project. The noted reduction in scope would also restrict potential synergy between uses at this location and other vicinity uses. • Implement Specific Plan developments providing a broad range of additional construction employment opportunities. The comparative 25 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would diminish the number and diversity of potential construction employment opportunities otherwise provided by the Project. The noted reduction in scope would also restrict potential synergy between uses at this location and other vicinity uses. • Support TOP 2050 vision for urbanization of the Ontario Ranch area of the City. The comparative 25 percent reduction in development intensity under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would limit development potential of prime urban properties within the City. In this respect, the subject site is designated and anticipated for development types and intensities such as are proposed by the Project; is bounded by similar compatible urban development; and is served by all necessary services and utilities. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would fail to take advantage of these site attributes. Further, this Alternative would conflict with or impede TOP Policy Plan vision for urbanization of the Ontario Ranch area of the City. Potential contrary effects would include:
• A reduction in residential, commercial-office, light industrial, and community facilities development opportunities otherwise available under the Project.
• A reduction in the range and variety of residential, commercial-office, light industrial developers and tenants that would be attracted to the City.
• Diminished potential for development of the site with uses and at an intensity the City considers to be the highest and best use for the subject property.
• Diminished fiscal benefits available to the City of Ontario. • Diminished job creation. Related diminished potential for improvement of the regional jobs/housing balance condition. • Diminished residential opportunities. This Alternative would reduce residential product types and the total quantity of available housing within the City. To these ends, this Alternative would conflict with 650

Page 99 of 108 ends

residential goals, strategies, and opportunities outlines in TOP 2020 Housing Element. By reducing the potential for residential development there is also the potential for this Alternative to conflict with SB 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) based on the reduction in overall development scope, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would broadly restrict attainment of all Project Objectives; (2) the Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts regarding air quality and GHG emissions; and (3) the Alternative is infeasible, as qualitatively, development of the subject site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative fails to optimize use of a significant vacant property, and is not considered by the Lead Agency to represent the highest and best use of the subject site. (DEIR p. 5-79).

This Alternative would provide no reduction in significant environmental impacts when compared to the Project; (2) this Alternative may increase the severity of, or create additional impacts not otherwise occurring under the Project; and (3) due to its comparative reduction in scope, the Alternative would likely impede or substantially restrict attainment of the Project Objectives.

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as the “environmentally superior” alternative.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in potential incremental reduction in certain significant environmental impacts otherwise occurring under the Project, but would not eliminate these impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would allow for limited attainment of the Project Objectives.

Countering its potential environmental benefits, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would broadly and substantially diminish attainment of the Project Objectives, with related diminishment of socio-economic benefits to the City and region. CEQA indicates that socioeconomic effects (while not lone determinants) are important considerations for decision-makers in evaluating and considering EIR Alternatives. With respect to socioeconomics, the Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would each have beneficial effects for the area. Either of these scenarios would contribute to area employment and the City’s overall tax base. However, as noted previously, because the scope and variety of land uses would be reduced by approximately 25 percent under the 651

Page 100 of 108 ends

Reduced Intensity Alternative, the resulting effective realization of the Project Objectives, to include economic benefits to the City and region, would likely be similarly diminished.

Additionally, at an approximate 25 percent reduction in the Project’s development scope, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not recognize the site’s value as one of the remaining undeveloped properties within the City; or take advantage of the site’s available acreage and consequently would not result in development of the subject site in a manner considered to be its highest and best use
CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[c]).

G. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

1. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
The CEQA Guidelines § § 15126, subd. (c), 15126.2, subd. (c), 15127, require that for certain types or categories of projects, an EIR must address significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented. As presented at CEQA Guidelines §15127, the topic of Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes need be addressed in EIRs prepared in connection with any of the following activities:
(a) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency;
(b) The adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolution making determinations; or
(c) A project which will be subject to the requirements for preparing of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.

The Project qualifies under Guidelines §15127 (a) in that an amendment to the current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan is required in order to implement the Project. As such, this EIR analysis addresses significant irreversible environmental changes which could be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented [Guidelines, Sections 15126(e) and 15127]. An impact would fall into this category if:

A project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The primary and secondary impacts of a project would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
652

Page 101 of 108 ends

 A project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project; or  The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy).

With regard to the above considerations, various natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the Project, but their use is not expected to result in shortfalls in the availability of these resources. Development of the site with the Project uses will commit the property to such uses for the foreseeable future, and thereby limit the site’s prospective alternative uses.

Notwithstanding, given the following, commitment of the site to uses proposed by the Project is considered appropriate.
 The Project site is currently zoned for Specific Plan development. The Project proposes Specific Plan development.
 The Project and the Project development intensities are consistent with development intensities envisioned under TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations.
 Urbanization of the subject site as proposed under the Project is a compatible infill continuation of urbanizing surrounding properties.

The Project presents no significant possibility of irreversible environmental damage “from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project.” That is, the Project does not propose facilities or uses that would result in potentially significant environmental incidents. Moreover, all feasible mitigation is incorporated in the Project to reduce its potential environmental effects. As discussed herein, the Project would not result in or cause unwarranted or wasteful use of resources, including energy. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-84 - 5-86)

2. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to address the growthinducing impact of the Project. DEIR Section 5.0 evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to affect economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growthinducing effect if it would:
 Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
 Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);  Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
653

Page 102 of 108 ends

 Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines state that growth inducement must not be assumed.

The Project could induce growth through the construction of housing, commercial-office uses, light industrial uses, job creation, and economic stimulus. The Project land uses, and associated development are consistent with and anticipated under TOP 2050.

Growth inducement resulting from the Project would not exceed projections developed under TOP 2050. Any Project-induced growth would not result in environmental impacts not already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

The Project would not otherwise encourage and facilitate known or probable activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. To the satisfaction of the City, as-yet unknown activities or developments that may derive from the Project would be independently required to evaluate and address their potential environmental impacts.

SECTION V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines §15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the FEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines §15093 [b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City identifies the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, which would continue to be applicable upon implementation of the proposed project:

Air Quality
 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
 Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
654

Page 103 of 108 ends

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the proposed Project that outweigh the project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the Project acceptable even though the FEIR has indicated that there will be three significant and unavoidable project impacts even with the mitigation measures implemented.

Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, as set forth below, has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the Project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the proposed Project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein, and balancing the benefits of the proposed Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the following reasons:

1. Implements the Objectives Established for the Proposed Project The primary goal of the Project is the development of the subject site with a productive mix of Specific Plan residential, commercial, light industrial and community facilities.

Attainment of the Project Objectives collectively outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts by directly and indirectly contributing to benefits of the Project.

2. Provides Employment Opportunities
The Project high-quality commercial, retail, and industrial uses would increase business and employment opportunities for City and area residents acting to further City economic prosperity.

3. Provides Substantial Infrastructure Improvements
The Project will be responsible for the construction of area-wide infrastructure construction within the Ontario Ranch area, including roadway, water, and sewer and storm drains as set forth in the Draft EIR and Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment.

The Project would construct improvements and infrastructure consistent with the 2050 TOP and the City’s various master plans for roadways and sewers, among others.

4. Consistency with the Regional Goals in the RTP/SCS
SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was adopted September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is to provide for a plan that allows the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and 655

Page 104 of 108 ends

abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms of active transportation; and preserve more of the region’s remaining natural lands.

The proposed Project would create an economic engine to drive future growth in Ontario Ranch, spur infrastructure improvements in the area, and would allow for the development of urban uses on currently underutilized land. The implementation of the proposed Project would facilitate the construction of roads and other major infrastructure investments that will ensure that mobility accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. The Specific Plan would expand Ontario’s industrial uses in proximity to local airports and regional networks, and the vehicular and pedestrian improvements called for in the Specific Plan would be implemented and maintained to meet the needs of employees and visitors. Additionally, all modes of public and commercial transit throughout the Project area would be required to follow safety standards set by state, regional, and local regulations. The proposed Specific Plan would preserve and ensure access to the local public transportation near the Project site. The proposed project would improve and maintain local and area-serving transportation systems to maximize efficiency and productivity. Moreover, the proposed Project would incorporate energy efficiency and sustainability strategies.

5. Consistency with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan The Project will implement GHG emissions reduction measures specified in the Draft EIR and will comply with the City’s adopted CAP, which strives to achieve GHG reductions City-wide that comply with the State’s reduction requirements. The primary purpose of the City’s Community CAP is to design a feasible strategy to reduce GHG emissions generated by community activities that is consistent with statewide Scoping Plan GHG reduction efforts. The GHG emissions reduction target established under the CAP is 30 percent under year 2020 business-as-usual (BAU) levels. To meet this goal and to supplement statewide initiatives, the City has identified a series of reduction measures to be implemented by the City before 2020. These reduction measures include programs that improve building energy efficiency, increase use of public and active transit and decrease VMT, increase use of alternative-fueled vehicles, increase use of renewable energy, reduce water consumption, and reduce waste.

Implementation of the design features and operational measures outlined at Draft EIR 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.

C. CONCLUSION
The City Council of Ontario has balanced the Project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the proposed Project’s benefits, which aim to meet the goals and policies of the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) 2050, 656

Page 105 of 108 ends

outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in the light of the Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable impact.

SECTION VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Pursuant to PRC §21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control.

SECTION VII. PROJECT APPROVAL
Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, City Council hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION VIII. STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval.
657

Page 106 of 108 ends

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
658

Page 107 of 108 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. ____ was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held June 20, 2023, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. ____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held June 20, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
659

Page 108 of 108 ends

EXHIBIT A
Final Environmental Impact Report, Response to
Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan
(To follow this page)
660
Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the
Rich-Haven Specific Plan
2022 Amendment
(File No. PSPA22-001)
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1C-310
Corona, CA 92883
February 23, 2023
661

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
for the
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

Applied Planning, Inc.
11762 De Palma Road, 1-C 310
Corona, CA 92883
February 23, 2023
662
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Elements ................................................................................................ 1-5

1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 1-15

1.4 Discretionary Approvals and Permits ......................................................... 1-15

1.5 Initial Study ...................................................................................................... 1-17

1.6 Impacts Not Found to be Potentially Significant ....................................... 1-17

1.7 Areas of Concern or Controversy ................................................................. 1-29

1.8 EIR Topical Issues ........................................................................................... 1-32

1.9 Summary of Significant Project Impacts ...................................................... 1-33

1.10 Alternatives to the Project .............................................................................. 1-34

1.11 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................... 1-43

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 EIR Purpose and Authorization ...................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Lead and Responsible Agencies ..................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Project Applicant ............................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 EIR Process ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 EIR Content and Format .................................................................................. 2-5

2.7 Intended Use of this EIR .................................................................................. 2-7

2.8 Documents Incorporated by Reference ......................................................... 2-8 663
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page ii
Section Page

3.0 Project Description ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Background and Project Overview ................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................... 3-5

3.3 Project Operations/Occupancy Summary ................................................... 3-16

3.4 Development Concept .................................................................................... 3-17

3.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................ 3-26

3.6 Discretionary Approvals and Permits ......................................................... 3-32

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.2 Transportation ................................................................................................ 4.2-1

4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 4.4-1

4.5 Energy .............................................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.6 Noise ................................................................................................................ 4.6-1

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................. 4.7-1

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................... 4.8-1

4.9 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 4.9-1

4.10 Biological Resources .................................................................................... 4.10-1

4.11 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................ 4.11-1

4.12 Utilities & Service Systems ......................................................................... 4.12-1

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis ........................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Alternatives Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-30

5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action .................................... 5-80

5.4 Significant Environmental Effects ................................................................ 5-83

5.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ....................................... 5-85

6.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................... 6-1

7.0 References ...................................................................................................................... 7-1 664
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Initial Study, NOP, and NOP Responses
Appendix B: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment
Appendix C: Traffic Analysis/VMT Assessment
Appendix D: Air Quality Impact Analyses
Appendix E: Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix F: Energy Assessment
Appendix G: Noise Impact Analysis
Appendix H: Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I: Hydrology Analysis
Appendix J: Geotechnical Report
Appendix K: Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix L: Cultural Resources Investigation
Appendix M: Water Supply Assessment
665
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page iv
List of Figures
Figure Page

1.1-1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 1-2

3.1-1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3-2

3.2-1 Existing Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 3-7

3.2-2 Site Photos ..................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.2-3 Site Photos ..................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2-4 Site Photos ................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.2-5 Site Photos ................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.3-1 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Designations ....................................................... 3-13

3.3-2 Comparison of 2021 Specific Plan Land Uses and 2022 SPA Land Uses ........... 3-14

4.1-1 Existing Land Uses ................................................................................................... 4.1-5

4.1-2 TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Designations ........................................................ 4.1-7

4.1-3 Comparison of 2021 Specific Plan Land Uses and 2022 SPA Land Uses ............. 4.1-8

4.3-1 Sensitive Receptor Locations .................................................................................. 4.3-43

4.6-1 Typical Noise Levels .................................................................................................. 4.6-3

4.6-2 Noise Monitoring Locations ..................................................................................... 4.6-9

4.6-3 Receiver Locations ................................................................................................... 4.6-17

4.7-1 Mapped Properties .................................................................................................... 4.7-4

4.8-1 Flood Hazard Zones .................................................................................................. 4.8-6

4.8-2 Project Location within MPD ................................................................................... 4.8-8

4.8-3 Planned Backbone Storm Drains ........................................................................... 4.8-11

4.8-4 Project Backbone Storm Drain System .................................................................. 4.8-12

4.8-5 Storm Drain Control Measures .............................................................................. 4.8-29

4.10-1 Project Site Soils Map .............................................................................................. 4.10-4

4.10-2 Project Site Vegetation Map ................................................................................... 4.10-6

4.12-1 Project Location within Pressure Zones 1010, 925 .............................................. 4.12-4

4.12-2 Project Location within Master Planned Recycled Water System .................... 4.12-5

4.12-3 Project Location within Master Planned Sewer System ..................................... 4.12-7 666
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page v
Figure Page

4.12-4 Project Location within Master Plan of Drainage ............................................. 4.12-10

4.12-5 Potable Water Plan Concept ................................................................................. 4.12-15

4.12-6 Recycled Water Plan Concept .............................................................................. 4.12-17

4.12-7 Sanitary Sewer Plan Concept ............................................................................... 4.12-18

5.1-1 Related Projects ............................................................................................................. 5-7 667
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page vi
List of Tables
Table Page

1.1-1 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Planning Area ............. 1-4

1.1-2 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Development Type ..... 1-5

1.7-1 List of NOP/AB 52 Respondents and Summary of Comments ............................ 1-30

1.9-1 Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ............................................... 1-33

1.10-1 Site Development Comparison, No Project Alternative and Project Land Uses 1-36

1.10-2 Site Development Comparison, Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative ..... 1-37

1.11-1 Impacts and Mitigation Summary ............................................................................ 1-44

3.1-1 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Planning Area ............. 3-4

3.1-2 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Development Type ..... 3-5

4.1-1 Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis ..... 4.1-11

4.1-2 Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 ..................................................... 4.1-21

4.2-1 TOP 2050 General Plan Buildout, VMT/SP ............................................................ 4.2-6

4.2-2 City Average VMT/SP Estimates: 2012, 2019, 2040 ............................................... 4.2-6

4.2-3 Project SED Inputs ..................................................................................................... 4.2-6

4.2-4 Project VMT/SP Summary-OD Method .................................................................. 4.2-7

4.2-5 General Plan Buildout Boundary VMT .................................................................. 4.2-8

4.2-6 TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis ............................................................................. 4.2-11

4.2-7 Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 ..................................................... 4.2-18

4.3-1 Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status Designations ............................................ 4.3-13

4.3-2 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary .................................................. 4.3-14

4.3-3 Maximum Daily Emissions Regional Thresholds ............................................... 4.3-22

4.3-4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ............................................................ 4.3-29

4.3-5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – With Mitigation ............................ 4.3-30 668
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page vii
Table Page

4.3-6 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions – Phase 1 (2024) ............................... 4.3-32

4.3-7 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions – Project Buildout (2027) ................ 4.3-32

4.3-8 LST Summary – Peak Construction....................................................................... 4.3-37

4.3-9 LST Summary – Operations ................................................................................... 4.3-37

4.3-10 2003 Los Angeles Study-Hot Spot Analysis Results ........................................... 4.3-38

4.3-11 2003 Los Angeles Study Hot Spot Analysis-Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....... 4.3-39

4.3-12 Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volumes ...................... 4.3-40

4.4-1 GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs .................................................. 4.4-4

4.4-2 GHGs, Characteristics, Sources, and Health Effects ............................................. 4.4-5

4.4-3 Global GHG Emissions by Major GHG Source Countries .................................. 4.4-9

4.4-4 City of Ontario GHG Emissions, Existing Land Uses ........................................ 4.4-10

4.4-5 Annual Project GHG Emissions ............................................................................. 4.4-41

4.4-6 Representative CAP Screening Table Measures (Residential) .......................... 4.4-48

4.4-7 Representative CAP Screening Table Measures (Commercial/Industrial) ...... 4.4-48

4.6-1 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements ...................................................... 4.6-8

4.6-2 Operational Noise Standards ................................................................................. 4.6-11

4.6-3 Noise Impact Thresholds ........................................................................................ 4.6-14

4.6-4 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ................................................ 4.6-19

4.6-5 Existing Conditions With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ....................... 4.6-21

4.6-6 OYC With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ................................................. 4.6-22

4.6-7 HY (2050) With Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ........................................ 4.6-23

4.6-8 Daytime Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Levels ................................... 4.6-26

4.6-9 Nighttime Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Levels ................................ 4.6-26

4.6-10 Operational/Area-Source Noise Level Compliance ............................................ 4.6-27

4.6-11 Daytime Noise Level Contributions ...................................................................... 4.6-28

4.6-12 Nighttime Noise Level Contributions ................................................................... 4.6-29

4.6-13 Construction Vibration Levels ............................................................................... 4.6-31

4.7-1 Pesticide Screening Level Thresholds ................................................................... 4.7-17

4.8-1 Serving MPD Storm Drains ...................................................................................... 4.8-9

4.11-1 Potential On-Site Cultural Resources .................................................................. 4.11-13 669
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page viii
Table Page

4.12-1 Receiving Landfills Information .......................................................................... 4.12-11

5.1-1 Related Projects ............................................................................................................. 5-2

5.1-2 Cumulative Mobile-Source Noise Increases ........................................................... 5-22

5.1-3 Vehicular-Source Noise Thresholds ......................................................................... 5-23

5.2-1 Development Comparison, No Project Alternative and Project Land Uses ...... 5-40

5.2-2 Development Comparison, Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative ............ 5-41

5.2-3 Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative, Operational-Source Emissions ...... 5-50

5.2-4 Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic ... 5-72 670

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
671
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. Location of the 2021 Specific Plan is presented at Figure 1.1-1. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

The 2021 Specific Plan entitlements allow for development of up to 7,194 dwelling units (all residential types), up to 990,902 square feet of commercial/office space, up to 1,183,525 square feet of light industrial uses, approximately 27 acres of public parkland, and approximately 20 acres of Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements. The 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment, Project) evaluated in this EIR proposes a new amendment of the RHSP as described herein.

Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR or EIR) evaluates and discloses the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (Project).
672
Figure 1.1-1
Specific Plan Location
Source: Google Earth; Applied Planning, Inc.

NOT TO SCALE
Ontario Ranch Road
Riverside Drive
Mill Creek Avenue
Hamner Avenue
Haven Avenue
60 Specific Plan Boundary
City of Ontario
City of Eastvale
673
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-3
Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed 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. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of entire buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment.1 In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

1. Total residential development within the Specific Plan Area would be maintained at 7,194 dwelling units. Residential units and residential densities would however be reassigned within the Specific Plan Area.

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. A summary of the land uses and development by Planning Area is provided at Table 1.1-1. 1 Potential environmental impacts of the Rich Haven Specific Plan were initially evaluated in Rich Haven Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 3, 2007 (SCH No. 2006051081). Subsequent Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendments: 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 have been evaluated as Addendums to Certified EIRs.

While the City could have continued tiering off previous environmental documents in evaluation of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, in order to provide a contemporary and comprehensive analysis of the Project’s impacts, a new Project-level EIR has been developed. 674
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-4
Table 1.1-1
2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Planning Area Planning
Area Land Use Acres(Gross)
Dwelling Units
(Maximum)
Residential Density
(Gross)
Comm./ Office (sf)
(Maximum)
Light Industrial (sf)
(Maximum)
1A Low Density Residential 25.5 128 5.0 - -
1B Low Medium Density Residential 24.5 270 11.0 - -
1C Medium Density Residential 60.6 1,055 17.4 - -
SCE 1 Edison Parcel 20.0 - - - -
2A Public Park 27.0 - - - -
2B Medium Density Residential 8.1 190 23.5 - -
2C Light Industrial 23.4 - - - 560,617
3A Medium Density Residential
Open Space-Non-Recreation

36.1 8.3
560 15.5 - -
3B Medium Density Residential 8.6 190 22.1 - -
3C Light Industrial
Open Space-Non-Recreation

21.4 8.5 - - - 512,701
4A Stand Alone Residential Overlay 45.0 1,099 24.4 - -
4B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non-Recreation

5.0 35.2

0.4 1,150 32.7 166,182 -
5A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non-Recreation

21.3 3.7 - - - 510,305
5B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non-Recreation

5.0 26.6

7.5 1,150 43.2 76,320 -
5C Regional Commercial 1.0 - - 7,500 -
6A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non-Recreation

49.4 6.6 - - - 1,183,525
6B Regional Commercial 25.1 - - 300,000 -
7 Mixed Use Overlay 20.5 552 26.9 162,500 -
8 Regional Commercial 20.5 - - 162,500 -
9 Stand Alone Residential Overlay 20.4 300 14.7 - -
10A Stand Alone Residential Overlay 16.9 550 32.5 - -
10B Regional Commercial 2.8 - - 50,000 -
Total 584.9 7,194 - 925,002 2,767,148
Source: 2022 Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment
A condensed summary of land uses by Development Type is provided at Table 1.1-2. 675
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-5
Table 1.1-2
2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Development Type Land Use
Development Type Code Acres(Gross)
Dwelling Units
(Maximum)
Light Industrial (sf)
(Maximum)
Comm./ Office (sf)
(Maximum)
Low Density Residential LDR 25.5 128 - -
Low-Medium Density
Residential LMDR 24.5 270
- -
Medium Density Residential MDR 113.4 1,995 - -
Light Industrial LI 115.5 - 2,767,148 -
Mixed Use MU 20.5 552 - 162,500
Mixed Use w/ Standalone
Residential Overlay MU/Res 144.1 4,249 - -
Regional Commercial Regional Comm. 59.4 - - 762,502
Open Space - Non-Recreation OS-NR 55.0 - - -
Park Park 27.0 - - -
Total 584.9 7,194 2,767,148 925,002
Source: 2022 Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment
This EIR Section provides an overview of the Project and its Objectives, and summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the proposal. Table 1.12-1, Impacts and Mitigation Summary, presented at the conclusion of this Section, lists these impacts and presents mitigation measures recommended to eliminate or reduce effects of those impacts determined to be potentially significant. For a full description of the Project, its impacts, recommended mitigation measures, and considered Alternatives to the Project, please refer to EIR Sections 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0, respectively.

1.2 PROJECT ELEMENTS
Primary elements comprising the Project are summarized below. Please refer also to the expanded characterization of Project facilities and operations presented at EIR Section

3.0, Project Description.

1.2.1 Site Preparation
Vacant/undeveloped portions of the Project area would be cleared of all surface features, grubbed, rough-graded, and fine-graded in preparation of building construction. Any debris generated during site preparation activities would be disposed of and/or recycled consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Existing grades within the Project site would be modified to establish suitable building pads and to facilitate site drainage. Based on preliminary development concepts, project grading will 676
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-6
balance on site – that is, grading activities would not require substantial import or export of soil.

1.2.2 Development Concept
All development within the Project site would be required to conform to provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. In instances where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, development proposals within the Specific Plan Area would be required to conform to applicable provisions of the City Development Code. The following discussions reflect preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment information available to date.

1.2.3 Access and Circulation
Access to, and within, the Specific Plan Area is summarized below. Please also refer to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.1, Circulation Plan. All final Project access plans would be subject to review and approval by the City.

1.2.3.1 Roadways
Regional access to the City and the Specific Plan Area is provided by State Route 60 (E – W) and Interstate 15 (N – S). State Route 60 (SR-60) interchanges with Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area. Local access to the Specific Plan Area is provided by existing vicinity roadways. These roadways include Riverside Drive to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Mill Creek Avenue (partial) to the east, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Ontario Ranch Road which traverses the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area.

Ultimate designs of roadway alignments, roadway configurations, and site access would be required to conform to applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and City Conditions of Approval; and would be subject to City review and approval. 677
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-7
Roadways within and abutting the Project site would be constructed to their respective ultimate cross-sections pursuant to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment design standards and City requirements.2

1.2.3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
The Project would construct bicycle and pedestrian access improvements consistent with the City Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan.

Within the Project site, streets would be constructed with sidewalks, providing pedestrian access and inter-connectivity between various residential and mixed-use areas. Trail access would be provided to the various park facilities. As part of the City’s Master Plan of Trails, the SCE Corridor Trail within the Project site would be extended within the linear park areas located within the existing SCE easements. Access to the SCE Corridor Trail would be provided at key points throughout the Project. On-street curb adjacent 5-foot bike lanes would be provided on both sides of the proposed modified/enhanced Chino Avenue section.

1.2.3.3 Bus Service
Bus service is available to the City via Omnitrans and the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). No bus routes currently provide proximate service (within one-quarter mile) of the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Transit service providers periodically review and update schedules and routes to address ridership, budget, and community demands. The Applicant and City would coordinate Project final designs with Omnitrans and RTA to evaluate the potential for provision of bus services and bus amenities serving the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Omnitrans bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://omnitrans.org. RTA bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/maps-schedules. 2 The Specific Plan Amendment proposes modified design standards for Chino Avenue within the Project site, to include enhanced roadway sections with raised landscapes and roundabouts. These modified design standards would be subject to City review and approval as one component of the Specific Plan Amendment. 678
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-8

1.2.4 Parking
The Project would be required to adhere to parking requirements established under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City of Ontario Development Code. Parking assignments and design of parking areas within the site would be subject to City review and approval.

1.2.5 Landscape/Streetscape
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Landscape Concept is presented in detail at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 7, Landscape Plan. All landscaping/streetscaping implemented under the Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City Municipal Code. The implemented landscape/streetscape concept would act to enhance perception of the site as developed under the Project, and to screen views of the site interior from off-site vantages.

Landscape and streetscape elements would provide shade and visual interest, define entry/access points, and accentuate site and architectural features.

1.2.6 Lighting
All Project lighting would be required to conform to provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment (lighting standards and guidelines for the various land uses are provided through the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment document). Lighting and lighting plans for individual developments within the Specific Plan Area would be subject to review and approval by the City.

1.2.7 Signs
All Project signs would be required to conform to provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment (sign standards and guidelines for the various land uses are provided throughout the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment document). Signs and sign plans for individual developments within the Specific Plan Area would be subject to review and approval by the City.
679
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-9

1.2.8 Infrastructure/Utilities
Infrastructure and utilities that would serve the Project site are summarized below.

1.2.8.1 Water Service
Potable (Domestic) Water
Potable water would be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).3 The Project lies within the OMUC 925 and 1010 Pressure Zones. Serving the Project site and surrounding areas is an 18-inch (1010 Pressure Zone) water main, extending from Riverside Avenue to Chino Avenue. There is also a 16-inch (1010 PZ) water main located in Mill Creek Avenue, extending from Riverside Avenue to Chino Avenue.

Within the Project site, water service would be provided by a system of 8-inch to 12-inch water mains constructed within the backbone roadway system. Connecting 8-inch service lines would be provided to individual developments.

The on-site public water system sizing would be required to comply with provisions of a City-approved hydraulic analysis to be conducted at the project-level design stage. All water mains and wells internal to site would be constructed by the merchant builder(s).

Recycled Water
The Project site is located in the OMUC 930/1050 Pressure Zones for recycled water.

Serving the Project site and surrounding areas is a 16-inch (930 PZ) recycled water main extending from the upper limits of the 930 PZ to Ontario Ranch Road. 3 Additionally, as discussed in the Specific Plan Amendment, “the Chino Basin Water Master Water Quality Map identifies the Rich-Haven [Project] area within an optimum water quality zone and requires that the owner/developer dedicate a total of two wells within the Specific Plan area to the City of Ontario for production of potable water.” Well dedications within the Project site would be provided if/as required by the City/OMUC.
680
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-10
The Project would construct all necessary recycled water system improvements consistent with City Condition of Approval. All Master Plan recycled water improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Recycled Water Master Plan. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.2, Recycled Water, Regional Recycled Water Plan.

The Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 8c: Recycled Water Use.4 Within the Project area,recycled water would be used for all approved applications, including but not limited to irrigation of parks, schools, street landscaping, recreational trails, HOA-maintained common areas and landscaping. An engineering report approved by the City and the California Department of Public Health is required prior to the use of recycled water.

Within the Project area, the backbone recycled water system would comprise 8-inch to 12-inch lines and would be located in the backbone street system. In-tract recycled water system design would be provided at the time of subdivision. It is noted here that no [emphasis added] recycled water can be used on single-family single lot ownership properties. Per the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, a clear physical separation between potable and recycled water systems is required, such separations may comprise walls, fences, sidewalks, or mow strips. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.2, Recycled Water, Local Backbone Recycled Water Plan.

1.2.8.2 Sewer Services
Sewer service would be provided by the City of Ontario. Master Plan sewer system improvements serving the Project and surrounding areas would be constructed consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan. All Master Plan sewer improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Sewer System Master Plan. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section

4.3, Sewer Master Plan.
4 See also: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-44580#JD_6-8.714 681
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-11

1.2.8.3 Stormwater Management System
Storm Drains
Multiple City Master Plan of Drainage storm drain facilities would serve the Project site.

All Master Plan storm water management system improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Master Plan of Drainage.

Under post-development conditions, existing southerly trending on-site drainage patterns would be maintained. Development within the Project site would be required to control drainage volumes and runoff rates such that capacities of receiving Master Plan of Drainage storm drains would not be exceeded.

Within the Project site, individual developments would implement required stormwater management systems. On-site storm stormwater management system designs would be provided concurrent with development plan submittals. Final designs of stormwater management systems serving the Project would be required to conform to City requirements. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.4, Drainage Master Plan, Regional Backbone Drainage Plan.

Water Quality Management Plan
On a regional level, stormwater quality management would be available via the regional Mill Creek Wetlands system. Within the Project site, complementary on-site stormwater management systems would be implemented that would detain and treat stormwater discharges. Stormwater discharges from the Project would be required to comply with requirements and performance standards established under the incumbent San Bernardino County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). To these ends, developments within the Project site would implement Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutant transport and increase on-site stormwater infiltration. Additionally, all Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Project site would be required to comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit. 682
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-12
Non-structural and structural Source Control BMPs would be documented in the Project WQMPs. Final WQMPs, as approved by the City, would ensure that the Project stormwater management systems have been designed to convey and treat stormwater discharges and limit the post-development peak flows consistent with available storm drain capacities. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.4, Drainage Master Plan, Stormwater Quality Measures.

1.2.8.4 Solid Waste Management
The City of Ontario provides solid waste collection services for the City and will service the Project.

1.2.8.5 Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the site from existing vicinity facilities. SCE facilities located within and adjacent to the Project site consist of 115kV, 66kV, 12kV, towers/power lines and attached communication lines. Facilities less than 34.5kV will be located underground if they are located adjacent to any streets proposed to be improved in conjunction with site improvements.

1.2.8.6 Natural Gas
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the site. All proposed connections and modifications to Gas Company facilities would conform to Gas Company and City requirements.

1.2.8.7 Fiber Optics System
A backbone fiber optics system (conduits, tracer wire, and fiber) would be constructed within the Project backbone street system. Backbone fiber optic components (conduits, hand holes, tracer wire, and fiber) would be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed in a joint trench. In-tract fiber and conduit would be installed per the City’s in-tract fiber optic design guidelines (see:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Information-Technology/2014 -12-16_in-tract_designguidelines.pdf).
683
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-13

1.2.8.8 Communications Services
Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an as-needed basis. To the extent practical and consistent with City Conditions of Approval, existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground.

Any necessary surface-mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements.

1.2.8.9 Utilities
The Project would also be provided natural gas, electrical, telecommunications services.

Service providers available to the Project are listed below:
• Natural gas (Southwest Gas Corporation);
• Electricity (SCE); and
• Telecommunications (various private services, including AT&T, Time Warner Communications, and Frontier Communications).

All modification of, and connection to, existing services would be accomplished consistent with City and purveyor requirements. It is noted that to allow for, and facilitate Project construction activities, provision of temporary utilities services improvements would be required. The scope of such temporary improvements is considered to be consistent with, and reflected within the total scope of development proposed by the Project. Similarly, impacts resulting from the provision of temporary services would not be substantively different from, or greater than, impacts resulting from development of the Project in total.

1.2.8.10 Public Services
Fire protection and emergency medical services for the Project would be provided by the Ontario Fire Department. Police protection services for the Project would be provided by the Ontario Police Department. The City also provides or facilitates provision of a range 684
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-14
of other services that would be generally available to the Project patrons and employees.

These services include, but are not limited to: educational, library, and arts and entertainment services.

1.2.8.11 Energy Efficiency/Sustainability
Energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated in all facilities developed pursuant to the Project. The Project would be required to comply with incumbent energy efficiency and performance standards established under the incumbent CALGreen Code and City of Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update).

1.2.8.12 Construction Area Traffic Management Plan
Temporary and short‐term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during construction activities including implementation of access and circulation improvements noted above. Accordingly, the Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan (Plan). Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include, but not be limited to:
• Name of on-site construction superintendent and contact phone number. • Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation, and quantity of soil import/export (if any).
• Identification and Description of Truck Routes - to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any).
• Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). • Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). • Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the 685
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-15
occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. • Identification and Description of Parking - Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles.
• Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control).

The Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit and encroachment permit, as applicable. The Plan and its requirements would also be required to be provided to all contractors as one component of building plan/contract document packages.

1.3 PROJECT 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 in detail at Section 3, Project Description.

1.4 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
Discretionary actions, permits, and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following. 686
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-16

1.4.1 Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 states in pertinent part that if “a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA should be listed…” Requested decisions, or discretionary actions, necessary to realize the Project would include the following:
• EIR Certification;
• Approval of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment;
• Approval of Tentative Parcel Maps;
• Approval of Development Agreements; and
• Approval of Development Plans.

1.4.2 Other Agency Consultation and Permits
Anticipated consultation and permits necessary to realize the Project would or may include the following:
• Permitting by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• Permitting by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented pursuant to the Project.
• Permitting (i.e., utility construction and connection permits) from affected utility purveyors, notably the City of Ontario, IEUA, and SCE.

Other ministerial permits necessary to realize all on- and off-site improvements related to the development of the Project.
687
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-17

1.5 INITIAL STUDY
The City of Ontario, through the Initial Study process, has determined that the Project has the potential to cause or result in significant environmental impacts, and warranted further analysis, public review, and disclosure through the preparation of an EIR. The Initial Study (IS) and associated EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP), dated October 2022, were forwarded to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH), and circulated for public review and comment. The State Clearinghouse established the public comment period for the NOP/IS as October 20, 2022 through November 19, 2022. The assigned State Clearinghouse reference for the Project is SCH No. 2022100425. The Initial Study, NOP, and NOP Responses are presented at DEIR Appendix A.

1.6 IMPACTS NOT FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
The following discussions identify and list those environmental issues that have been determined pursuant to the IS/NOP and associated public review processes to pose no potentially significant impacts, or where compliance with standard mitigation or conditions of approval would reduce certain potentially significant impacts to levels that are less-than-significant. The specific issues listed are not substantively discussed within the body of this EIR. Please refer also to related discussions and analyses presented within the Initial Study, EIR Appendix A.

Aesthetics
There are no scenic vistas within the Project site, nor would the Project otherwise adversely affect a designated scenic vista. The Project would implement contemporary uses that would be required to conform to City design guidelines and development standards. All Project lighting would also be required to conform to City requirements.

The Project would therefore have less-than-significant impacts for the following aesthetic considerations:
• Substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista;
688
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-18
• Substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and
• Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area.

Agriculture and Forest Resources
The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and with land uses and development anticipated under TOP 2050 SEIR. Further, the Project would implement provisions of the Project and requirements of the City Development Code that support buffering of, and separation between, agricultural and urban uses. The Project site is not designated as forestland or timberland. The Project does not propose or require uses that would affect off-site agriculture or forest resources. As such, the Project will have less-than-significant or no impacts under the following considerations:
• Conversion of 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; or 689
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-19
• 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
The Project does not propose facilities or on-going operations that would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. On this basis, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact in regard to the following consideration:
• Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

Cultural Resources
There are no known formal cemeteries or informal burial sites within the Project site. The likelihood of encountering human remains in the course of Project development is therefore considered minimal.

As required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be found, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are found to be prehistoric, the coroner would coordinate with the California Native American Heritage Commission as required by state law. As such, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact for the following cultural resources consideration:
• Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Geology and Soils
No active fault zones are located within the City; nor are any active faults known with the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly 690
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-20
Alquist-Priolo Zone). The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions.

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.

Project construction activities would temporarily expose underlying soils, thereby increasing their susceptibility to erosion. Potential erosion impacts incurred during construction activities are mitigated below the level of significance through the Project’s mandated compliance with a 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.

The Project uses would be served by municipal sewer services. No septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed by the Project. 691
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-21
Based on the preceding, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for the following geology and soils considerations:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 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;
• 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; or • 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
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.

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. 692
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-22
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 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.

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.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have less-than-significant impacts under the following considerations:
• 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; • 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;
693
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-23
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hydrology and Water Quality
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.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-24
systems are incorporated that would minimize potential erosion from stormwater runoff, both on-site and off-site.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for the following hydrology and water quality considerations:
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin; or
• 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
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.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact for the following land use consideration:
• Physically divide an established community.

Mineral Resources
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. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would affect the availability of locally important or regionally important mineral resources. As such, the 695
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-25
Project would result in less-than-significant impacts for the following mineral resources considerations:
• Loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the state; and
• 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
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.

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.

Amendments proposed under the Project would not eliminate housing, diminish the potential for new housing, or displace persons from existing housing.

On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project would have less-than-significant impacts for the following population and housing considerations:
• 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);
696
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-26
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Public Services
Fire suppression and emergency response services for the Project would be provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). 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.

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.

Occupancy of the Project residential uses would directly contribute to demands on school services. 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 697
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-27
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).

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.

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.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have less-than-significant impacts for the following public services considerations:
• 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 fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

Recreation
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 698
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-28
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.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have less-than-significant impacts for the following recreation considerations:
• 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; and
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Wildfire
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.

Based on the preceding, the Project would have less-than-significant impacts for the following wildfire considerations:
699
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-29
• 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; and
• 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.

1.7 AREAS OF CONCERN OR CONTROVERSY
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR summary identify areas of potential concern or controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Issues of concern were identified by the Lead Agency, through responses to the Project Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP), and other communications addressing the Project and the Project EIR.

Responses received pursuant to distribution of the NOP and the Public Scoping Meeting are presented at EIR Appendix A. Table 1.7-1 presents a list of NOP respondents, and a corresponding summary of NOP comments, indicated by italicized text. Responses to comments, together with correlating EIR references, are indicated in subsequent statements. Unless otherwise noted, all NOP respondent comments are addressed within the body of the EIR.
700
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-30
Table 1.7-1
List of NOP/AB 52 Respondents and Summary of Comments
Respondent Summary of Comments
State Agencies
State of California Office of
Planning and Research,
State Clearinghouse (SCH)
SCH provided receipt and record of distribution of the NOP/IS and established the NOP review and comment period of October 20, 2022 through November 19, 2022.

EIR Appendix A includes a copy of the Project IS/NOP and NOP Responses.

State of California
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
NAHC provides procedural guidance in evaluating and determining potential impacts to cultural resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs).

The EIR evaluates potential impacts to cultural resources consistent with NAHC guidelines and requirements. Please refer to EIR Section 4.11, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, and EIR Appendix L, Cultural Resources Investigation.

State of California
Department of
Conservation (DOC)
The Department of Conservation (DOC) provides comments regarding the potential for the Project to: result in agricultural land conversion, adversely impact agricultural operations, result in cumulative adverse impacts to agricultural lands, adversely impact agricultural preserve(s), or affect Williamson Act contract properties.

The Project’s potential impacts to farmland and agricultural resources, including the DOC’s above-noted topics of concern, are addressed in the Initial Study (IS) (see: EIR Appendix A, Initial Study, Section 3.7, Initial Study Checklist and Substantiation, II. Agriculture and Forest Resources). As substantiated in the IS, all potential Project impacts related to Agriculture and Forest Resources would be less-than-significant, and therefore are not further discussed in the EIR.

More specifically, the Project is consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), and would not result in impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR (TOP 2050 SEIR, SCH No. 2021070364). As discussed in TOP 2050 SEIR, “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” (TOP 2050 SEIR, p. 5.2-14).

Further, the Project would implement provisions of the Project and requirements of the City Development Code that support buffering of, and separation between, agricultural and urban uses. These requirements support the City’s planned orderly transition of existing agricultural uses to urban uses. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
701
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-31
Table 1.7-1
List of NOP/AB 52 Respondents and Summary of Comments
Respondent Summary of Comments
• Project setback and screening standards that act to buffer and separate potentially incompatible uses.
• City of Ontario Development Code requirements including a minimum 100-foot separation between “a new residential, commercial or industrial development or structure used for public assembly and an existing animal feed trough, corral/pen or an existing dairy/feed lot including manure stockpiles and related wastewater detention basins” (Development Code Chapter 6 Development and Subdivision Regulations, p. 6.01-63).

Regional Agencies
Southern California
Association of
Governments (SCAG)
SCAG requests that the Draft EIR include an analysis of the Project’s consistency with regional plans; specifically, with SCAG’s 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020). SCAG also requests that a copy of the Project EIR be emailed to SCAG at mailto:[email protected].

Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal 2020) Goals is provided at EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, Table 4.1-2. SCAG has been provided a copy of the EIR.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
SCAQMD provides direction and guidance in evaluation of the Project’s potential air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts.

All Project air quality, health risk, and GHG impact analyses have been completed consistent with SCAQMD protocols. Project air quality and health risk impacts are addressed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality; GHG emissions impacts are addressed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Detailed analyses and quantified emissions modeling are provided at EIR Appendix D, Air Quality Impact Analyses, and EIR Appendix E, Greenhouse Gas Analysis. As requested by SCAQMD, all appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadsheets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files have been provided to SCAQMD.

County Agencies
Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission
(ALUC)
ALUC notes the Project may be influenced by the Ontario Airport (ONT), and suggests the City contact ONT in this regard. ALUC notes further that the Project lies outside ALUC jurisdiction.

ALUC’s determination that the Project is located outside their jurisdiction is noted. Potential impacts related to public airports and public use airports are discussed in the EIR Initial Study (IS) (see: EIR Appendix A, Initial Study, Section 702
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-32
Table 1.7-1
List of NOP/AB 52 Respondents and Summary of Comments
Respondent Summary of Comments

3.7, Initial Study Checklist and Substantiation, II. Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

As substantiated in the IS, all potential Project impacts related to public airports and public use airports would be less-than-significant, and therefore are not further discussed in the EIR. ONT provided no comment on the IS.

Public Utilities
Southern California Edison
(SCE)
SCE notes that the Project could interfere with easement rights, and/or facilities held by SCE within or adjacent to the subdivision boundaries.

The Project concept does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect SCE easements or SCE facilities. As the Project is further defined, the Applicant and City will coordinate with SCE to ensure that all site and facilities designs comply with SCE requirements. As requested by SCE, the Applicant will provide scaled plans (1 inch = 50 ft. maximum, hard copies or emailed in pdf format) including: grading, drainage, landscape and street improvement plans. SCE facilities and the easements shall be plotted on the above-referenced maps/plans. The Applicant shall (as necessary) state proposed method(s) to eliminate any potential interference to/with SCE easements and facilities.

1.8 EIR TOPICAL ISSUES
Based on the Initial Study analysis, and comments received pursuant to circulation of the NOP, the EIR analyses have been focused on the following topics:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural 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.
703
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-33
Additionally, EIR Section 5.0, Other CEQA Considerations, presents discussions of other mandatory CEQA topics, including:
• Cumulative Impact Analysis;
• Alternatives Analysis;
• Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action;
• Significant Environmental Effects; and
• Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes.

1.9 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS
Implementation of the Project, as proposed, would result in certain impacts which are determined to be significant and unavoidable. These impacts are discussed in detail in the body of the EIR text under their associated topical headings, and are summarized at Table 1.9-1.

Table 1.9-1
Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Environmental Topic Comments
Air Quality
Construction-Source Air Pollutant Emissions
Even with application of mitigation, Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, significant Project-level impacts are also cumulatively considerable. Project operational-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.

Operational-Source Air Pollutant Emissions
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, and 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, and PM2.5) for which the Project region is non-attainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.

AQMP Consistency
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.
704
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-34
Table 1.9-1
Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Environmental Topic Comments
GHG Emissions
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.

All other potential environmental effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant as substantiated within this EIR and accompanying Initial Study, or are reduced below levels of significance with application of mitigation measures identified herein. A summary of all Project impacts and proposed mitigation measures is presented at EIR Section 1.11, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

1.10 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Consistent with provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR Alternatives Analysis (EIR Section 5.2) presents and evaluates alternatives to the Project that would lessen its significant environmental effects while allowing for attainment of the basic Project Objectives. The rationale underlying the selection of alternatives is presented together with a summary description of each alternative. Merits of the alternatives compared with the Project are described and evaluated. Alternatives to the Project considered in detail within this analysis include:
• No Project Alternatives (No Build, and Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses); and
• Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Alternatives considered and rejected include:
• Alternative Sites;
• “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant Air Quality Impacts; and • “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant GHG Emissions Impacts. 705
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-35
The above-listed Alternatives to the Project are summarized below, and are described in greater detail at Section 5.2.2, Description of Alternatives. Please refer also to the detailed discussions of Alternatives to the Project presented at EIR Section 5.2, Alternatives Analysis.

1.10.1 No Project Alternatives

1.10.1.1 Overview
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require that an EIR include evaluation of a No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative should make a reasoned assessment as to future disposition of the subject site should the Project under consideration not be developed.

In this latter regard, the CEQA Guidelines state in pertinent part:
“If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the “no project” alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this “no project” consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means “no build” wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (e)(3)(B)).

Within this analysis, two No Project scenarios are considered – “No Build” and “Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses.”
706
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-36
No Project Alternative: No Build
The No Project Alternative: No Build scenario assumes the site remains in its current undeveloped condition. If a No Build 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.

No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses The No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses (Existing Specific Plan Land Uses) scenario represents foreseeable development of the subject site pursuant to the site’s current Policy Plan Land Use designations. Table 1.10-1 compares the composition and scope of uses under the Project with development that could result under the Existing Specific Plan Land Uses scenario.

1.10.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative focuses on a development scenario that would reduce the significant operational-source air quality impacts otherwise occurring under the Project.

Of the total operational-source emissions generated by the Project, approximately 77 percent (by weight) would be generated by Project mobile sources (traffic). An effective way to reduce the Project operational-source emissions would therefore be an Table 1.10-1
Site Development Comparison
No Project Alternative and Project Land Uses
No Project Alternative
Existing (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan Land Uses
Gross Acres Max. Dwelling Units Max. Commercial/ Office SF Max. Light Industrial SF 584.9 7,194 990,902 1,183,525
Project
2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment Land Uses
Gross Acres Max. Dwelling Units Max. Commercial/Office SF Max. Light Industrial SF 584.9 7,194 925,002 2,767,148
Delta -- --- (65,900 SF) + 1,583,623 SF
Sources: 2021 Rich-Haven Specific Plan; 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment 707
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-37
Alternative that would reduce the total amount of traffic generated by the Project. Based on the reduction in total traffic, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would also reduce the scope and/or intensity of significant air quality impacts, and GHG emissions impacts that would otherwise result from implementation of the Project.

Table 1.10-2
Site Development Comparison
Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative
Project
Gross Acres Max. Dwelling Units Max. Commercial/Office SF Max. Light Industrial SF 584.9 7,194 925,002 2,767,148
Reduced Intensity Alternative
Gross Acres Max. Dwelling Units Max. Commercial/Office SF Max. Light Industrial SF 584.9 5,396 693,752 2,075,361
Delta --- (1798 DU) (231,250 SF) (691,787 SF)
Sources: 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment; Reduced Intensity Alternative-Applied Planning, Inc.

1.10.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Alternative Sites Considered and Rejected
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 708
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-38
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.”
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. 709
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-39
“No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant Air Quality Impacts Considered and Rejected
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-than-significant. 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, 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 710
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-40
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-than-significant.
“No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for GHG Emissions Impacts Considered and Rejected
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 effect or mandate substantial reductions in vehicular-source 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 711
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-41
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.

1.10.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
No Project Alternative: No Build Eliminated from Consideration The No Project Alternative: No Build scenario would achieve none of the Project Objectives, and under certain topics, may increase the severity of, or create additional impacts not otherwise occurring under the Project. This Alternative is therefore eliminated from consideration as the “Environmentally Superior Alternative.” No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Eliminated from Consideration
The No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses scenario would provide no significant reduction in environmental impacts when compared to the Project, and may increase the severity of, or create additional impacts not otherwise occurring under the Project. It is specifically noted that Land Use designations under this Alternative are inconsistent with TOP 2050, and this Alternative would require amendment of TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. This Alternative is therefore eliminated from consideration as the “Environmentally Superior Alternative.”
Reduced Intensity Alternative Considerations
The Reduced Intensity Alternative scenario would incrementally reduce certain of the Project’s environmental impacts. Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts under the Project would persist under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, though the degree of these impacts would be diminished. Relative merits of the Reduced Intensity Alternative are summarized below:
712
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-42
Reduced Intensity Alternative Would Reduce but Would not Eliminate Significant Impacts
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce, but not eliminate, the Project’s significant impacts regarding air quality and GHG emissions. More specifically:
• The magnitude of operational-source air quality impacts (VOC, NOx, CO, PM10) would be diminished but would remain significant and unavoidable. PM2.5 emissions impacts would be reduced below significance thresholds. • Total GHG emissions would be reduced. However, GHG emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e screening threshold. Impacts in this regard would remain significant and unavoidable.

Reduced Intensity Alternative Would Marginalize Attainment of Project Objectives Based on the reduction in overall development scope, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would broadly restrict attainment of all Project Objectives. Where quantifiable (e.g., additional sales tax revenues, job creation, incremental property tax revenues), this reduction in attainment of Objectives would be approximately 25 percent less than would be otherwise realized under the Project. Qualitatively, development of the subject site under the Reduced Intensity Alternative fails to optimize use of a significant vacant property, and is not considered by the Lead Agency to represent the highest and best use of the subject site.

Summary and Conclusions
Reduced Intensity Alternative Identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative In conclusion, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in potential incremental reduction in certain significant environmental impacts otherwise occurring under the Project, but would not eliminate these impacts. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would allow for limited attainment of the Project Objectives. On this basis, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative. 713
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-43
Other Considerations
Countering its potential environmental benefits, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would broadly and substantially diminish attainment of the Project Objectives, with related diminishment of socio-economic benefits to the City and region. CEQA indicates that socioeconomic effects (while not lone determinants) are important considerations for decision-makers in evaluating and considering EIR Alternatives. With respect to socioeconomics, the Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would each have beneficial effects for the area. Either of these scenarios would contribute to area employment and the City’s overall tax base. However, as noted previously, because the scope and variety of land uses would be reduced by approximately 25 percent under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the resulting effective realization of the Project Objectives, to include economic benefits to the City and region, would likely be similarly diminished.

1.11 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1.11-1 summarizes potential impacts resulting from implementation and operations of the Project. The impacts identified at Table 1.11-1 correspond with environmental topics and impacts discussed at EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. Table 1.11-1 also lists measures proposed to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, and indicates the level of significance after application of proposed mitigation.
714
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-44
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

4.1 Land Use and Planning
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.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.2 Transportation
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b).

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Substantially increase hazards to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment).

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Result in inadequate emergency access. Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.3 Air Quality
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.

Potentially Significant. No feasible mitigation. Significant and Unavoidable. 715
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-45
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Construction
Emissions
Potentially Significant.

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.

Significant and Unavoidable
(NOx and CO emissions regional
threshold exceedances only).
716
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-46
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
Operational Emissions
Potentially Significant.

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 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, awnings, overhangs, and skylights.

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

Significant and Unavoidable.
717
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-47
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

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.”

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-48
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
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 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.
719
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-49
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
• 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
(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 720
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-50
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
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 plans shall be based on reasonable predictions derived from the most recent
available truck manufacturer’s data.

LST Emissions
Less-Than-Significant.

No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

CO Hotspot Emissions
Less-Than-Significant.

No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Cumulative Impacts
Significant and
Unavoidable.

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. These are
cumulatively significant air quality impacts.

Significant and Unavoidable.

Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 721
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-51
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment.

Potentially Significant. No feasible mitigation. Significant and Unavoidable.

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Potentially Significant. 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.

Less-Than-Significant.

4.5 Energy
Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.6 Noise
Construction activities and associated
noise would result in exposure of
persons to, or generation of, noise
levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
Less-Than-Significant.

The mitigation measures
act to further reduce
already less-than4.6.1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the Project complies with the
following:

Less-Than-Significant.
722
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-52
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.
significant construction
noise levels.
• 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.

Vehicular source noise would 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.

Potentially Significant.
(on-site residential uses
only)

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 Less-Than-Significant.
723
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-53
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL and exterior noise (backyards and habitable balconies and patios) to less than 65 dBA CNEL. Individual developments shall, to the extent feasible, implement site‐planning techniques.

Project operational noise would 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.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Project operational noise would result
in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without
the Project.

Less-Than-Significant.

The mitigation measures
act to further reduce
already less-thansignificant construction
noise levels.

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:

Less-Than-Significant.
724
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-54
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
• 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
725
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-55
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
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.

Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

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.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials; create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release
of hazardous materials into the
environment.

Potentially Significant. 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.

Less-Than-Significant.
726
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-56
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

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.”1 Project designs shall conform to the
Assessment’s Methane Design Guidelines or other
requirements stipulated by the City of Ontario Building Department.

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
1 See:https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Building/general/methane_assessment.pdf. 727
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-57
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
requirements of the Phase II ESA, and shall provide
documentation to the City of Ontario to that effect.

Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

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; 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.

Potentially Significant. 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 Less-Than-Significant.
728
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-58
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
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.

Impede or redirect flood flows. Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Under a flood, tsunami, or seiche
event, release pollutants due to project
inundation.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 729
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-59
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

4.9 Geology and Soils
Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death
involving strong seismic ground
shaking.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury or death
involving seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction; or 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.

Potentially Significant. 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.

Less-Than-Significant.

Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), thereby creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 730
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-60
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature.

Less-Than-Significant.
[impacts to
paleontological
resources]
No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.10 Biological Resources
Substantially affect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, 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
(CDFW) or United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Potentially Significant. 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.

Less-Than-Significant.
731
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-61
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks

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 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.

Have a substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or California plans, policies or
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 732
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-62
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
(CDFW) or the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

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.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Conflict with provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

4.11 Cultural/Tribal Resources
733
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-63
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Potentially Significant. 4.11.1 Prior to the issuance of (a) grading permit(s) for development proposal(s) within the Specific Plan Area, the Applicant or successor(s) in interest shall provide a letter to the City of Ontario Building Department, or designee, from a qualified professional archeologist meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications for Archaeology as defined at 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A stating that the
archeologist has been retained to provide on-call services in the event archeological resources are discovered. The
archeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for archeological resource surveillance.

In the event a previously unrecorded archaeological deposit is encountered during construction, all activity within 50 feet of the area of discovery shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. The archeologist shall be contacted to flag the area in the field and determine if the archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(a)), unique archaeological
resource (Public Resources Code 21083.2(g)), or Tribal
Cultural Resource (Public Resources Code 21074 (a)). If the find is considered a “resource” the archaeologist shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry shall
Less-Than-Significant.
734
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-64
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, they shall have the opportunity to consult with the City and/or Project developer on appropriate treatment and curation of these resources. If unique archaeological
resources, or Tribal Cultural Resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage and treatment shall be required at the Applicant or successor(s) in interest’s expense. Recovery, salvage and treatment
protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and
State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation by the
archaeologist. Resources shall be identified and curated into an established accredited professional repository. The
archaeologist shall have a repository agreement in hand prior to initiating recovery of the resource. Excavation as a treatment option shall be restricted to those parts of the unique archaeological resource, or Tribal Cultural Resource that would be damaged or destroyed by the Project.

Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074.

Potentially Significant. 4.11.2 Project developer(s) shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry (Native American
Monitor) that was consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 to conduct a Native American
Indian Sensitivity Training for construction personnel
prior to commencement of any excavation activities. The Less-Than-Significant.
735
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-65
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify Native American resources encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures followed if
resources are discovered, the duties of the Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry and the general steps the Monitor would follow in conducting a salvage
investigation.

4.11.3 Project developer(s) shall retain a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry that was consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 to be on-site during all Project-related, ground-disturbing construction activities Such activities include: pavement removal,
auguring, boring, grading, excavation, potholing,
trenching, and/or grubbing of previously undisturbed
native soils to a maximum depth of 30 feet below ground surface. A copy of the executed consultant contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning Department
prior to the issuance of any grading permit (any grounddisturbing activity). At their discretion, a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry can be present during the removal of dairy manure to native soil, but not at developer expense.

4.11.4 A qualified archaeologist and a Native American
Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry that was consulted on this Project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 - SB18 shall
736
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-66
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. If archeological features are
discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Ontario Planning Director. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeologist shall determine the appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City that shall be taken for exploration and/or salvage in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f).

4.11.5 Prior to the start of ground disturbing activities, developer(s) shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the Project for the respectful reburial of Tribal human remains and/or ceremonial objects. All
human skeletal material discoveries shall be reported
immediately to the County Coroner. The Native American
Monitor shall immediately divert work a minimum of 50
feet from the discovery site and place an exclusion zone around the burial.

4.11.6 If encountering human skeletal materials, the Native American Monitor shall notify the construction manager
who shall contact the San Bernardino County Coroner. All construction activity shall be diverted while the San
737
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-67
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
Bernardino County Coroner determines if the remains are Native American. The discovery shall be confidential and secure to prevent further disturbance. If Native American, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as mandated by
state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendant.

In the case where discovered human remains cannot be
documented and recovered on the same day, the remains
shall 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 shall be posted outside
working hours. The Tribe shall make every effort to
recommend diverting the Project and keep the remains in situ and protected. If the Project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken
which includes, at a minimum, detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes.

Cremations will either be removed in bulk or means
necessary to ensure complete recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four (4) or more
burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. The Project developer shall consult with the Tribe regarding avoidance of all cemetery 738
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-68
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC.

4.11.7 There shall be no Scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on any Native American human
remains.

4.11.8 If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines
the remains represent a historic non-Native American
burial, the burial shall be treated in the same manner of respect with agreement of the San Bernardino County
Coroner. Reburial will be in an appropriate setting. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains to be modern, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall take custody of the remains.

4.11.9 As directed by the Project Archaeologist in
consultation with the Native American Monitor, each
occurrence of human remains and associated funerary
objects shall be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony shall be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items shall 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 developer(s) and 739
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-69
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity
regarding any cultural materials recovered.

4.12 Utilities & Service Systems
Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment, or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

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.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable.

Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 740
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Executive Summary Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-70
Table 1.11-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
General Note: To facilitate coordination and effective implementation of mitigation measures, the mitigation measures provided herein shall appear on all grading plans, construction specifications, and bid documents. Incorporation of required notations shall be verified by the City prior to issuance of first development permit.

Impact
Level of Significance
Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of Significance
With Mitigation/Remarks
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals.

Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.

Less-Than-Significant. No mitigation is necessary. Not applicable. 741

2.0 INTRODUCTION
742
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:
743
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-2

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. The Project is further described at Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

2.2 EIR PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION
An EIR is an informational document intended to apprise decision-makers and the general public of potentially significant environmental impacts of a project. An EIR also proposes mitigation to preclude or minimize significant impacts, and describes reasonable alternatives to the Project that may also reduce or avoid significant impacts.

Having the authority to take action on the Project, the City of Ontario will consider the information in this EIR in their evaluation of the proposal. Findings and conclusions of the EIR do not control the City’s discretion to approve, deny, or modify the Project, but instead are presented as information to aid the decision-making process.

This EIR has been prepared by the City of Ontario pursuant to Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Guidelines), (§§ 15000–15387, California Code of Regulations). The proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment is a “project,” as defined at § 15378 of the Guidelines. The Guidelines stipulate that an EIR must be prepared for any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. The City has determined that the Project may have one or more significant impacts on the environment and, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is required.
744
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-3

2.3 LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
CEQA defines a “lead agency” as the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a Project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. Other agencies, e.g., the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which also have some authority or responsibility to issue permits for Project implementation, are designated as “responsible agencies.” Both the lead agency and responsible agencies must consider the information contained in the EIR prior to acting upon or approving the Project. The City of Ontario is the Lead Agency for the Project. Contact information for the Lead Agency is presented below.

Lead Agency: City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Attention: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner

2.4 PROJECT APPLICANT
Contact information for the Project Applicant is presented below.

Applicant: BrookCal Ontario LLC/Richland Developers, Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612

2.5 EIR PROCESS
When a public agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a Project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must prepare an EIR before a decision is made to approve or deny the Project. The purpose of the EIR is to disclose a project’s potential environmental impacts and recommend measures to reduce or avoid significant impacts. The basic content of an EIR includes: a description of the project under consideration and its objectives; a description of the existing environmental 745
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-4
conditions; a discussion of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project; recommended measures for reducing these effects; and identification and evaluation of feasible alternatives to the project which may also reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposal.

Typically, EIRs comprise two documents: a Draft EIR, distributed by the lead agency for review and comment by the general public and any interested governmental agencies; and a Final EIR, which consists of responses to comments received on, together with any necessary modifications to, the Draft EIR. After the Draft EIR has been circulated for review and the Final EIR has been prepared, the EIR must be certified by the lead agency as having complied with CEQA and considered by the agency’s decisionmaking body before any action can be taken on a project. When a public agency receives a complete project application or decides to undertake a project of its own, it first determines if the project is subject to environmental review under CEQA and, if it is, the agency then typically prepares an Initial Study (IS) to determine if the project under consideration has the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects. The IS serves as a tool to help the agency determine if an EIR is required, and if so, the focal issues to be examined in the EIR. The lead agency may skip the Initial Study process if it is evident that a project could result in significant environmental effects and that an EIR will be required.

The EIR process is initiated by the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP).

Together with the Initial Study (if prepared), the NOP is sent to agencies and interested individuals as notice of commencement of the EIR process, and to solicit their suggestions for appropriate EIR issues and topical analyses. The completed Draft EIR is then circulated to responsible agencies, other affected or interested agencies, and interested members of the public for review and comment. The review period for a Draft EIR is typically 45 days. To provide for appropriate consideration and inclusion in the Final EIR, all comments and concerns regarding the Draft EIR should be received by the lead agency during this 45-day period.
746
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-5
Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR are prepared by the lead agency and included in the Final EIR. The Final EIR may also contain additional information about the project’s potential impacts and minor corrections or modifications to the Draft EIR.

The Final EIR must be certified by the lead agency’s decision-making body before, or in conjunction with, any action to approve a project. Customarily, EIR certification coincides with City Planning Commission and/or City Council public hearing(s).

CEQA requires that the EIR address only significant adverse impacts. The CEQA Guidelines suggest thresholds or standards which define the significance of various types of impacts. The CEQA Guidelines also state that the significance of impacts should be considered in relation to their severity and probability of occurrence. However, ultimately, the determination of the significance of impacts is at the discretion of the lead agency. The identification of significant impacts in the EIR does not prevent an agency from approving a project. A project may be approved if the lead agency determines that impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated below a level of significance and if the agency determines that there are important overriding considerations, such as social and economic benefits, which are sufficient to justify approval of the considered project.

2.6 EIR CONTENT AND FORMAT
This Draft EIR is organized into Chapters or Sections, each addressing a separate aspect of the required content of an EIR as described in the Guidelines. A summary of the Project’s impacts and recommended mitigation measures is provided at Section 1.0. An introduction and general overview of the environmental process and the format of this EIR are presented in this Section 2.0. Section 3.0 contains a complete description of the Project, including its location, objectives, and physical and operational characteristics.

The complete and detailed environmental impact analysis is presented at Section 4.0.

The topical issues mandated by CEQA dealing with cumulative impacts, alternatives, long-term implications of the Project, and energy conservation are found at Section 5.0.

Section 6.0 lists and defines the acronyms and abbreviations contained in this document. Section 7.0 lists the information sources and persons consulted during the environmental analysis process, and presents a list of the persons who prepared the 747
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-6
Draft EIR. The Initial Study and responses to the NOP, with supporting technical studies, are appended to the body of the EIR document.

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, is the focal component of the Draft EIR. The environmental impact analysis has been organized into a series of sections, each addressing an environmental topic or area of concern identified through the Initial Study process (e.g., Land Use and Planning, Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, etc.). To assist the reader in understanding the organization and basis of the analysis, the sections covering each individual environmental topic typically include the following subsections:
• Reader’s Abstract: An introductory reader’s abstract, summarizing content and findings, is provided at the beginning of each topical section. • Introduction: The introduction summarizes the content of the section and references other important studies and reports, such as technical studies appended to the EIR.
• Setting/Existing Conditions: This subsection describes baseline environmental conditions which may be subject to change as a result of implementation of the Project. Separate descriptions of existing environmental conditions are provided for each environmental topic.
• Existing Policies and Regulations: Various relevant policies, regulations, and programs related to the environmental topic are briefly described. Often, these existing policies and regulations serve to reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts.
• Standards (Thresholds) of Significance: Before potential impacts are evaluated, the standards which will serve as the basis for judging significance are presented. • Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures: This subsection states and explains potential impacts caused by the Project. Based on the standards of significance, 748
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-7
impacts are categorized as either potentially significant or less-than-significant. If the impacts are considered to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts. At the conclusion of each discussion for a potentially significant impact, a determination is made as to whether the impact can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the application of proposed mitigation measures. Impacts that cannot be reduced to levels that are less-thansignificant are identified as “significant and unavoidable.” The summary presented at Section 1.0 provides a comprehensive overview of the Project’s impacts. For a more detailed description of Project impacts, it is recommended that the reader review the Project Description (Section 3.0), and then read the sections on the topics of interest in the environmental impact analysis (Section 4.0).

2.7 INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR
This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the implementation and operation of the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project. The City of Ontario (City) is the Lead Agency for the purposes of CEQA because it has the principal responsibility and authority for deciding whether or not to approve the Project, and how it will be implemented. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for preparing environmental documentation for the Project in compliance with CEQA.

The Lead Agency will employ this EIR in its evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from, or associated with, approval and implementation of the Project, to include potential effects of the Project’s component elements. This EIR will also be used by various Responsible Agencies, e.g., Air Quality Management District(s), California Department of Transportation, Regional Water Quality Control Board(s), et al.; as well as utilities and service providers when such entities issue permits necessary to carry out the project. For example, if this EIR and/or its Mitigation Measures require encroachment permits from Caltrans, this EIR will serve as the environmental assessment for such improvements. (Please refer to California Code of Regulations, sections 15050 and 15162.)
749
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-8
This EIR in all instances evaluates likely maximum impact/maximum exposure scenarios. In this regard, this EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts that would result from buildout of the Specific Plan in total; and in instances where localized impacts could diverge from the maximum buildout impacts, those localized impacts have been evaluated and addressed. For example, the EIR at Section 4.3, Air Quality addresses the Project’s maximum construction-source and operational-source air quality impacts that could affect regional air quality; and also addresses maximum localized air quality impacts that could affect area sensitive receptors. Similarly, the EIR at Section 4.6, Noise considers noise impacts that could result from the Project uses generally, and also addresses maximum localized noise impacts that could affect area sensitive receptors.

The Specific Plan document, presented at EIR Appendix B, establishes standards and requirements at sufficient detail to allow the Lead Agency to determine whether subsequent individual development proposals would conform to the Specific Plan as described and evaluated in this EIR. As part of the Lead Agency’s standard development review process, individual development proposals within the Specific Plan area would be reviewed for that proposal’s consistency with the approved Specific Plan. Proposals that are determined to be consistent with the approved Specific Plan presumptively would not result in impacts substantially different than or greater than the impacts considered and addressed in this EIR. At the discretion and direction of the City, proposals that differ substantially from the standards and requirements of the approved Specific Plan or that would require or result in substantive modifications to the Specific Plan as summarized and evaluated in this EIR may merit additional environmental evaluation.

2.8 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 permits and encourages an environmental document to incorporate, by reference, other documents that provide relevant information. The documents summarized below are incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this EIR, where that information is relevant to the analysis of potential impacts of the Project. All documents incorporated by reference are available for review at, or can be obtained through, the City of Ontario Planning Department. 750
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-9

2.8.1 The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Policy Plan and TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
TOP 2050 Policy Plan (Policy Plan) serves as the City’s General Plan which is mandated by state law. The Policy Plan establishes Goals and Policies and provides guidance for future development of the City. The Policy Plan, which was updated and adopted in 2022, incorporates and relies upon its Implementation Plan to provide the guidance necessary for successful implementation of Policy Plan Goals and Policies. Ontario’s Policy Plan comprises nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Safety (including Noise), Environmental Resources (including Conservation), Parks and Recreation (including Open Space), Community Economics, Community Design, and Social Resources. The topic of Environmental Justice is integral to the Policy Plan. TOP SEIR (SCH No. 2021070364) evaluates and addresses potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Policy Plan. The Policy Plan and Policy Plan SEIR documents contain background information employed in this EIR. These documents are available through the City of Ontario Planning Department, or can be accessed at: http://www.ontarioplan.org/policy-plan/.

2.8.2 Previous Rich-Haven Specific Plan Environmental Documentation The 2007 Rich-Haven Specific Plan and its subsequent amendments through 2021 have been previously evaluated consistent with applicable CEQA analysis and documentation requirements. The City has certified the 2007 Rich-Haven Specific Plan and adopted subsequent CEQA documentation as required by law. The 2007 RichHaven Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2006051081), subsequent CEQA documents evaluating previous amendments to the 2007 Rich-Haven Specific Plan, and all related supporting technical analyses are incorporated by reference. These documents are available through the City of Ontario Planning Department.

2.8.3 City of Ontario Development Code
The City of Ontario Development Code (Development Code) codifies and complements the City General Plan. The Development Code, in effect, provides the mechanism to implement and enforce the goals, objectives, policies and programs articulated in the General Plan. The City’s Development Code was adopted by the Ontario City Council 751
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-10
on July 7, 1998 and continues to be periodically updated to reflect current Federal/State laws. The Development Code is available through the City of Ontario Planning Department, or can be accessed at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Applications.

2.8.4 Project Technical Studies/EIR Appendices
Following are summary descriptions of documents and supporting technical studies which are appended to the main body of the Draft EIR. Working titles of these documents generically refer to the Project and its physical attributes, and may not necessarily reflect the currently assigned “Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment” development title.

2.8.4.1 Initial Study, NOP, and NOP Responses - EIR Appendix A The EIR Initial Study (IS), Notice of Preparation (NOP) and responses received pursuant to distribution of the IS/NOP are presented at EIR Appendix A. Based on the Initial Study and responses to the NOP, this EIR addresses the following environmental topics:
• Air Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural 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.
752
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-11

2.8.4.2 Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment - EIR Appendix B The Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment) is presented in its entirety at EIR Appendix B. If adopted by the City, the Specific Plan would become the effective zoning for the subject site, and would regulate all development within the site.

The proposed Specific Plan 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 Specific Plan can be feasibly implemented consistent with applicable provisions of TOP 2050 Policy Plan and City Development Code.

2.8.4.3 Traffic Analysis/VMT Assessment - EIR Appendix C Project Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analyses are presented in: Rich Haven Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) December 16, 2022 and Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022.

2.8.4.4 Air Quality Impact Analyses - EIR Appendix D
Air quality impact analyses prepared for the Project include: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022; and Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

2.8.4.5 Greenhouse Gas Analysis - EIR Appendix E
Detailed analysis of the Project’s potential Greenhouse Gas impacts are presented in:

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

2.8.4.6 Energy Assessment - EIR Appendix F
Project energy consumption is quantified in: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Energy Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022. 753
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-12

2.8.4.7 Noise Impact Analysis - EIR Appendix G
Potential noise impacts of the Project, including construction-source and operationalsource noise impacts are assessed in: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

2.8.4.8 Environmental Site Assessment - EIR Appendix H
An assessment of potential hazards associated with a portion of the site’s historic uses, and the potential for hazardous materials to currently exist within or proximate to the Project site is provided in: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 (Hillman Consulting) July 28, 2016.

2.8.4.9 Hydrology Study - EIR Appendix I
Hydrology issues potentially affecting the Project are assessed in: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, Hydrology Report (X Engineering & Consulting, Inc.) September 2022.

2.8.4.10 Geotechnical Report - EIR Appendix J
Geotechnical issues potentially affecting the Project are assessed in: Consolidated Geotechnical Report to Support the Environmental Impact Report for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, City of Ontario, California (LGC Geotechnical, Inc.) September 20, 2022.

2.8.4.11 Biological Resources Assessment - EIR Appendix K Biological resources potentially affected by the Project are assessed in: Biological Report for the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Site (Harmsworth Associates) July 2022.

2.8.4.12 Cultural Resources Investigation - EIR Appendix L A cultural resources investigation was also prepared for the Project: Cultural Resources Assessment, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (BCR Consulting, Inc.) August 18, 2022. 754
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-13

2.8.4.13 Water Supply Assessment - EIR Appendix M
Consistent with SB 610 requirements, a WSA was prepared and approved for the site’s current (2021 Specific Plan) entitlements. See: Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 (Albert A.

Webb Associates) March 18, 2021 (2021 WSA).

The City of Ontario, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has determined that water demands of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment uses would be reduced when compared to water demands evaluated in the currently approved WSA. OMUC has made the following determination regarding necessity to prepare a new WSA for the currently proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project . . . “the Water Code allows for an existing WSA to be applied to a new proposed project if there is no substantial increase in water demand. Since there was a WSA completed for the entire Rich Haven SP last year [2021], the Mill Creek Business Center Project [the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment] would be allowed to refer to it in the CEQA documentation” (email communication from OMUC, January 31, 2022). As requested, the previous 2021 WSA has been appended to this EIR. No further WSA analysis is required. 755

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
756
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. Location of the 2021 Specific Plan is presented at Figure 3.1-1. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

NOT TO SCALE
Ontario Ranch Road
Riverside Drive
Mill Creek Avenue
Hamner Avenue
Haven Avenue
60 Specific Plan Boundary
City of Ontario
City of Eastvale
758
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-3
Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed 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. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of entire buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment.1 In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. A summary of land uses and development by Planning Area is provided at Table 3.1-1. 1 Potential environmental impacts of the Rich Haven Specific Plan were initially evaluated in Rich Haven Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, July 3, 2007 (SCH No. 2006051081). Subsequent Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendments: 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021 have been evaluated as Addendums to Certified EIRs.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-4
Table 3.1-1
2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Planning Area Planning
Area Land Use Acres(Gross)
Dwelling Units
(Maximum)
Residential Density
(Gross)
Comm./ Office (sf)
(Maximum)
Light Industrial (sf)
(Maximum)
1A Low Density Residential 25.5 128 5.0 - -
1B Low Medium Density Residential 24.5 270 11.0 - -
1C Medium Density Residential 60.6 1,055 17.4 - -
SCE 1 Edison Parcel 20.0 - - - -
2A Public Park 27.0 - - - -
2B Medium Density Residential 8.1 190 23.5 - -
2C Light Industrial 23.4 - - - 560,617
3A Medium Density Residential
Open Space-Non Recreation

36.1 8.3
560 15.5 - -
3B Medium Density Residential 8.6 190 22.1 - -
3C Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

21.4 8.5 - - - 512,701
4A Stand Alone Residential Overlay 45.0 1,099 24.4 - -
4B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non Recreation

5.0 35.2

0.4 1,150 32.7 166,182 -
5A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

21.3 3.7 - - - 510,305
5B
Regional Commercial
Stand Alone Residential Overlay
Open Space-Non Recreation

5.0 26.6

7.5 1,150 43.2 76,320 -
5C Regional Commercial 1.0 - - 7,500 -
6A Light Industrial
Open Space-Non Recreation

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-5
Table 3.1-2
2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Summary, by Development Type Land Use
Development Type Code Acres(Gross)
Dwelling Units
(Maximum)
Light Industrial (sf)
(Maximum)
Comm./ Office (sf)
(Maximum)
Low Density Residential LDR 25.5 128 - -
Low-Medium Density
Residential LMDR 24.5 270
- -
Medium Density Residential MDR 113.4 1,995 - -
Light Industrial LI 115.5 - 2,767,148 -
Mixed Use MU 20.5 552 - 162,500
Mixed Use w/ Standalone
Residential Overlay MU/Res 144.1 4,249 - -
Regional Commercial Regional Comm. 59.4 - - 762,502
Open Space - Non-Recreation OS-NR 55.0 - - -
Park Park 27.0 - - -
Total 584.9 7,194 2,767,148 925,002
Source: 2022 Rich Haven Specific Plan Amendment
The discussions presented in this EIR reflect information in the preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, and reflect the range and types of uses envisioned under this Project.

3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.2.1 THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2050

3.2.1.1 TOP Overview and Project Consistency with TOP 2050 The Project would be required to conform with applicable provisions of The Ontario Plan (TOP). TOP 2050 provides long-range guidance for the City of Ontario addressing development and conservation. TOP consists of a six-part component framework: 1) Vision, 2) Governance Manual, 3) Policy Plan (General Plan), 4) City Council Priorities, 5) Implementation, and 6) Tracking and Feedback. TOP 20502 represents the City’s vision for the next 30 years.

The Project has been planned and designed to be consistent with TOP 2050. Within this analysis, unless otherwise noted, TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 SEIR are the basis for the Project’s potential environmental impacts.
2 TOP 2050 Draft SEIR, and TOP 2050 Final SEIR can be accessed at:
https://www.ontarioplan.org/top2050/.
761
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-6

3.2.2 EXISTING LAND USES
Existing land uses within, and adjacent to, the Project site are illustrated at Figure 3.2-1 and described below. Representative photos of existing Project site conditions are presented at Figures 3.2-2 through 3.2-5.

3.2.2.1 Project Site
Existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area include developed portions of the currently entitled 2021 Specific Plan, and entitled areas that are undeveloped. As of the date of this EIR, approximately 468 residential units of the total 7,194 dwelling units entitled under the 2021 Specific Plan have been constructed and are occupied. Existing residential development within the Specific Plan Area is located generally northeast of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road.

The remainder of the 2021 Specific Plan entitlements have yet to be developed. Existing land uses in these areas include a dairy farm in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, the former hog ranch in the west portion of the Specific Plan Area, and various vacant/disturbed properties throughout the remaining portions of the site. Additionally, within the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area, Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line easements exist along a generally east – west/northeast – southwest alignment within the Specific Plan Area.

3.2.2.2 Vicinity Land Uses
Land uses adjacent to northern portions of the Specific Plan Area include residential development, agricultural uses, and Colony High School. Adjacent to the central Specific Plan Area are an SCE Substation occupying approximately 160 acres to the east, and agricultural/dairy and residential development to the west. The southern portion of the Specific Plan Area is bounded by residential and commercial development to the west across Haven Avenue, and vacant disturbed properties, residences, and dairy farm uses to the south across “Old” Edison Avenue [alignment]. To the east, across Hamner Avenue, are City of Eastvale properties that are developed or are being developed with commercial and light industrial uses.
762
Figure 3.2-1
Existing Land Uses
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment; Applied Planning, Inc. 763
Figure 3.2-2
Site Photos (1)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
764
Figure 3.2-3
Site Photos (2)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
765
Figure 3.2-4
Site Photos (3)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
766
Figure 3.2-5
Site Photos (4)
Source: Harmsworth Associates, Inc.
767
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-12

3.2.3 EXISTING and PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

3.2.3.1 Project Site
Policy Plan Land Uses
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site and surrounding areas are presented at Figure 3.3-1. Policy Plan Land Uses proposed by the Project are consistent with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site.

Zoning Designations
Existing Zoning of the Project site is established by the 2021 Specific Plan. Zoning of the Project site would be modified by the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment described herein.

The 2021 Specific Plan and 2022 Specific Plan Amendment are compared at Figure 3.3-2. 768
Figure 3.3-1
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Designations
Source: TOP 2050

NOT TO SCALE

CITY OF EASTVALE
769
Figure 3.3-2
2021 Specific Plan vs. 2022 Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan; Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment

NOT TO SCALE
2021 SPECIFIC PLAN 2022 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
2021 Specific Plan
770
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-15

3.2.3.2 Vicinity Properties
Policy Plan Land Use and Zoning designations of surrounding properties are summarized below. The Project would not affect Land Use and Zoning designations of surrounding properties. Unless noted otherwise, existing and proposed land use designations of vicinity properties are consistent under current and known or anticipated future conditions.

North (across Riverside Drive)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Open Space – Non-Recreation (abutting Riverside Drive), General Commercial, Low Density Residential • Zoning: Specific Plan (Creekside Specific Plan), CT (abutting Riverside Drive), Low Density Residential
South (across East Edison Avenue)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Medium Density Residential, Open Space – Non-Recreation, Low Density Residential.
• Zoning: Specific Plan (Esperanza Specific Plan), Specific Plan w/Agricultural Overlay
East
• Across Hamner Avenue:
o City of Eastvale General Plan: Light Industrial, Commercial Retail o City of Eastvale Zoning: Industrial Park, Specific Plan (Goodman Commerce Center Specific Plan)
• Across Mill Creek Avenue:
o Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Business Park
o Zoning: Specific Plan (Edenglen Specific Plan), Specific Plan w/Agricultural Overlay (Developed as SCE Substation)
• Abutting to Northeast:
o Policy Plan Land Use Designation: Public School
o Zoning: Civic
771
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-16
West (across Haven Avenue)
• Policy Plan Land Use Designations: Office Commercial, Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential Public School, Open Space – Non-Recreation
• Zoning: Specific Plan (West Haven Specific Plan)

3.3 PROJECT OPERATIONS/OCCUPANCY SUMMARY
For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all Project development will be complete and fully operational by 2025, the Project Opening Year. Operational attributes of the Project land uses are presented below. Please refer also to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment for details regarding the proposed Land Use Plan, Design Guidelines, and Development Standards.

3.3.1 Light Industrial Land Use
The Project light industrial land uses would accommodate a mix of high-cube fulfillment warehouse uses, refrigerated warehouse uses, and business park uses. • All uses are assumed to be open and operational 7 days per week, 24 hours per day.
• Unless otherwise noted herein, all operations would occur internal to main buildings.
• On-site operations would include on-site cargo handling. The most common type of cargo handling equipment is the yard truck designed for moving cargo containers. Yard trucks are also known as yard goats, utility tractors (UTRs), hustlers, yard hostlers, and yard tractors. Any yard trucks based at the Project site would be non-diesel (e.g., gasoline and/or electric-powered). 772
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-17

3.3.2 Commercial Land Use
The Project commercial land uses are assumed to accommodate a variety of commercial/retail development.
• All uses are assumed to be open and operational 7 days per week, 24 hours per day.
• Unless otherwise noted herein, all operations would occur internal to main buildings.

3.3.3 Residential Land Uses
• Residential land uses are assumed to be developed at quantities and densities reflected in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

3.3.4 Open Space/Park Land Uses
• All open space/park land uses are assumed to be developed only with site/surface improvements supporting outdoor recreational activities.

3.4 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Development implemented under the Project would be required to conform to provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. In instances where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, development proposals within the Specific Plan Area would be required to conform to applicable provisions of the City Development Code. The following discussions reflect preliminary 2022 Specific Plan Amendment information available to date.

3.4.1 DEVELOPMENT PHASES
The Project land uses would be constructed contingent on the availability of supporting infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, storm drains, roadways/access) and as market conditions warrant. Generally, the anticipated sequence of development is as follows:

Phase 1: Light industrial/commercial uses; and
Phase 2: Residential products and community amenities, including parks/open space uses.
773
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-18

3.4.2 SITE DESIGN/ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS
All Project development proposals would be required to conform to requirements and implement guidance articulated at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 5, Development Regulations; and Section 6, Design Guidelines. All final Project site plans and building designs would be subject to City review and approval, to include consistency analysis with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

3.4.3 ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Access to and within the Specific Plan Area is summarized below. Please also refer to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.1, Circulation Plan.

3.4.3.1 Roadways
Regional access to the City and the Specific Plan Area is provided by State Route 60 (E – W) and Interstate 15 (N – S). State Route 60 (SR-60) interchanges with Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area. Local access to the Specific Plan Area is provided by existing vicinity roadways. These roadways include Riverside Drive to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Mill Creek Avenue (partial) to the east, Hamner Avenue to the east, and Ontario Ranch Road which traverses the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area.

Roadways within and abutting the Project site would be constructed to their respective ultimate cross-sections pursuant to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment design standards and City requirements.3
3 The Specific Plan Amendment proposes modified design standards for Chino Avenue within the Project site, to include enhanced roadway sections with raised landscapes and roundabouts. These modified design standards would be subject to City review and approval as one component of the Specific Plan Amendment. 774
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-19

3.4.3.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
The Project would construct bicycle and pedestrian access improvements consistent with the City Multipurpose Trails and Bikeway Corridor Plan.

3.4.3.3 Bus Service
Bus service is available to the City via Omnitrans and the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA). No bus routes currently provide proximate service (within one-quarter mile) of the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Transit service providers periodically review and update schedules and routes to address ridership, budget, and community demands. The Applicant and City would coordinate Project final designs with Omnitrans and RTA to evaluate the potential for provision of bus services and bus amenities serving the 2021 Specific Plan Area. Omnitrans bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://omnitrans.org. RTA bus routes and schedules can be accessed at:
https://www.riversidetransit.com/index.php/riding-the-bus/maps-schedules.

3.4.4 PARKING
The Project would be required to adhere to parking requirements established under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City of Ontario Development Code. Parking assignments and design of parking areas within the site would be subject to City review and approval.

3.4.5 LANDSCAPE/STREETSCAPE
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Landscape Concept is presented in detail at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 7, Landscape Plan. All landscaping/streetscaping 775
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-20
implemented under the Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and the City Municipal Code. The implemented landscape/streetscape concept would act to enhance perception of the site as developed under the Project, and to screen views of the site interior from off-site vantages.

Landscape and streetscape elements would provide shade and visual interest, define entry/access points, and accentuate site and architectural features.

3.4.6 INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES

3.4.6.1 Water Service
Potable (Domestic) Water
Potable water would be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC).4 The Project lies within the OMUC 925 and 1010 Pressure Zones. Serving the Project site and surrounding areas is an 18-inch (1010 Pressure Zone) water main, extending from Riverside Avenue to Chino Avenue. There is also a 16-inch (1010 PZ) water main located in Mill Creek Avenue, extending from Riverside Avenue to Chino Avenue.

In-tract water system design will be provided at the time of subdivision. Final designs of water conveyance systems serving the Project would be required to conform to City and OMUC requirements. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.1, Domestic Water.
4 Additionally, as discussed in the Specific Plan Amendment, “the Chino Basin Water Master Water Quality Map identifies the Rich-Haven [Project] area within an optimum water quality zone and requires that the owner/developer dedicate a total of two wells within the Specific Plan area to the City of Ontario for production of potable water.” Well dedications within the Project site would be provided if/as required by the City/OMUC.
776
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-21
Recycled Water
The Project site is located in the OMUC 930/1050 Pressure Zones for recycled water.

Serving the Project site and surrounding areas is a 16-inch (930 PZ) recycled water main extending from the upper limits of the 930 PZ to Ontario Ranch Road.

The Project would construct all necessary recycled water system improvements consistent with City Condition of Approval. All Master Plan recycled water improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Recycled Water Master Plan. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.2.2, Recycled Water, Regional Recycled Water Plan.

The Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of City Municipal Code Chapter 8c: Recycled Water Use.5 Within the Project area,recycled water would be used for all approved applications, including but not limited to irrigation of parks, schools, street landscaping, recreational trails, HOA-maintained common areas and landscaping. An engineering report approved by the City and the California Department of Public Health is required prior to the use of recycled water.

3.4.6.2 Sewer Services
Sewer service would be provided by the City of Ontario. Master Plan sewer system improvements serving the Project and surrounding areas would be constructed 5 See also: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-44580#JD_6-8.714 777
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-22
consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan. All Master Plan sewer improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Sewer System Master Plan. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section

4.3, Sewer Master Plan.

3.4.6.3 Stormwater Management System
Storm Drains
Multiple City Master Plan of Drainage storm drain facilities would serve the Project site.

All Master Plan storm water management system improvements implemented to serve the Project would be required to conform to the incumbent City Master Plan of Drainage.

Under post-development conditions, existing southerly trending on-site drainage patterns would be maintained.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-23
(PLU) areas within the Project site would be required to comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit.

Non-structural and structural Source Control BMPs would be documented in the Project WQMPs. Final WQMPs, as approved by the City, would ensure that the Project stormwater management systems have been designed to convey and treat stormwater discharges and limit the post-development peak flows consistent with available storm drain capacities. Please refer also to 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Section 4.4, Drainage Master Plan, Stormwater Quality Measures.

3.4.6.4 Solid Waste Management
The City of Ontario provides solid waste collection services for the City and will service the Project.

3.4.6.5 Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) would provide electricity to the site from existing vicinity facilities. SCE facilities located within and adjacent to the Project site consist of 115kV, 66kV, 12kV, towers/power lines and attached communication lines. Facilities less than 34.5kV will be located underground if they are located adjacent to any streets proposed to be improved in conjunction with site improvements.

3.4.6.6 Natural Gas
The Gas Company will provide natural gas to the site. All proposed connections and modifications to Gas Company facilities would conform to Gas Company and City requirements.

3.4.6.7 Fiber Optics System
A backbone fiber optics system (conduits, tracer wire, and fiber) would be constructed within the Project backbone street system. Backbone fiber optic components (conduits, hand holes, tracer wire, and fiber) would be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed in a joint trench. In-tract fiber and conduit would be 779
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-24
installed per the City’s in-tract fiber optic design guidelines (see:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/InformationTechnology/2014-12-16_in-tract_designguidelines.pdf).

3.4.6.8 Communications Services
Communications services, including wired and wireless telephone and internet services, are available through numerous private providers and would be provided on an asneeded basis. To the extent practical and consistent with City Conditions of Approval, existing and proposed wires, conductors, conduits, raceways, and similar communications improvements within the Project area would be installed underground.

Any necessary surface-mounted equipment, e.g., terminal boxes, transformers, meters, service cabinets, etc., would be screened and would conform to City building setback requirements.

3.4.7 ENERGY EFFICIENCY/SUSTAINABILITY
Energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated in all facilities developed pursuant to the Project. The Project would be required to comply with incumbent energy efficiency and performance standards established under the incumbent CALGreen Code and City of Ontario Climate Action Plan (CAP).

3.4.8 CONSTRUCTION AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
Temporary and short‐term traffic detours and traffic disruptions could result during construction activities including implementation of access and circulation improvements noted above. Accordingly, the Applicant would be responsible for the preparation and submittal of a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan (Plan). Typical elements and information incorporated in the Plan would include, but not be limited to:
• Name of on-site construction superintendent and contact phone number. 780
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-25
• Identification of Construction Contract Responsibilities - For example, for excavation and grading activities, describe the approximate depth of excavation, and quantity of soil import/export (if any).
• Identification and Description of Truck Routes - to include the number of trucks and their staging location(s) (if any).
• Identification and Description of Material Storage Locations (if any). • Location and Description of Construction Trailer (if any). • Identification and Description of Traffic Controls - Traffic controls shall be provided per the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) if the occupation or closure of any traffic lanes, parking lanes, parkways or any other public right-of-way is required. If the right-of-way occupation requires configurations or controls not identified in the MUTCD, a separate traffic control plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All right-of-way encroachments would require permitting through the City. • Identification and Description of Parking - Estimate the number of workers and identify parking areas for their vehicles.
• Identification and Description of Maintenance Measures - Identify and describe measures taken to ensure that the work site and public right-of-way would be maintained (including dust control).

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-26

3.4.9 OPENING YEAR
For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Opening Year is defined as 2025, by which time all proposed uses are assumed to be complete, occupied, and operational.

3.5 PROJECT 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 longrange 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 782
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-27
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.
• 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. 783
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-28
• 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.
• 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.
784
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-29
• 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.
785
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-30
• 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.
• 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.
786
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-31
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.
• 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.
787
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project Description Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 3-32
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.

3.6 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND PERMITS
Discretionary actions, permits, and related consultation(s) necessary to approve and implement the Project include, but are not limited to, the following.

3.6.1 LEAD AGENCY DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND PERMITS
• EIR Certification;
• Approval of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment;
• Approval of Tentative Parcel/Tract Maps;
• Approval of Development Agreements; and
• Approval of Development Plans.

3.6.2 OTHER CONSULTATION AND PERMITS
Anticipated consultation and permits necessary to realize the Project would or may include the following:
• Permitting by/through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• Permitting by/through the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for certain equipment or land uses that may be implemented pursuant to the Project.
• Permitting (i.e., utility construction and connection permits) from affected utility purveyors, notably the City of Ontario, IEUA, and SCE.

Other ministerial permits necessary to realize all on- and off-site improvements related to the development of the Project.
788

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
789
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This chapter of the EIR analyzes and describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (Project). The environmental impact analysis has been organized into a series of sections, each addressing a separate environmental topic. Environmental topics addressed in this EIR are presented in the following sections:

Section Topic

4.1 Land Use and Planning

4.2 Transportation

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5 Energy

4.6 Noise

4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9 Geology and Soils

4.10 Biological Resources

4.11 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

4.12 Utilities & Service Systems
Within each of the above topical Sections, the discussion is typically divided into subsections which: summarize the findings of the section; present the framework for the discussion by listing the sources of information used in the section; describe the “setting” or existing environmental conditions; identify regulations and policies, which through their observance typically resolve many potential environmental concerns; identify thresholds of significance applicable to potential environmental effects of the 790
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4-2
Project; describe the significance of Project-related environmental effects in the context of applicable significance thresholds; and for impacts which are potentially significant or significant, recommend mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce these impacts. In this latter regard, it is recognized that the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to focus on significant, or potentially significant adverse effects of the Project, and therefore, mitigation is proposed only for potential impacts of this magnitude.

As noted above, before potential impacts are evaluated, the standards or thresholds which will serve as the basis for judging the relative significance of impacts are presented. Often thresholds serve as a general guide or gauge for determining an impact’s potential relative significance, rather than defining its absolute effects.

Subsequent to identification of relevant significance thresholds, potential Project-related effects and impacts are identified and explained. If an impact is considered to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are proposed to avoid the impact, or reduce its effects to the extent feasible. In determining the potential significance of impacts, the adequacy of existing policies and regulations in addressing each impact is taken into consideration. At the conclusion of each discussion for a potentially significant impact, a determination is made as to whether the impact can be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with the application of mitigation measures.

In the environmental analysis, the following terms are used to describe the potential effects of the Project:
• Less-Than-Significant Impacts: Minor changes or effects on the environment caused by the Project which do not meet or exceed the criteria, standards, or thresholds established to gauge significance are considered to be less-thansignificant impacts. Less-than-significant impacts do not require mitigation. In some cases, these impacts may appear to be potentially significant. However, existing public policies, regulations, and procedures adequately address these potential effects, thereby reducing them to a less-than-significant level, without the need for additional mitigation.
791
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4-3
• Potentially Significant Impacts: Potentially significant impacts are defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. The CEQA Guidelines and various responsible agencies provide guidance for determining the significance of impacts. However, the determination of impact significance is ultimately based on the judgment of the lead agency. Similarly, the establishment of any criteria to be used in evaluating the significance of impacts is the responsibility of the lead agency. Wherever possible, mitigation is proposed in the EIR to avoid or reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts.
• Significant Impacts: Impacts identified in the EIR which cannot be mitigated below thresholds of significance through the application of feasible mitigation measures are categorized as “significant.”
• Cumulative Impacts: A discussion of cumulative impacts is provided in Section

5.0 of this environmental analysis. Cumulative impacts refer to the impacts of the Project as they are combined or interact with anticipated impacts of other vicinity projects and physical effects of projected ambient regional growth. 792

4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
793
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-1

4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Abstract
This Section assesses potential impacts that may result from land use and planning decisions necessary to implement the Project. Potential land use impacts that may occur due to the type of development proposed, its location or scale are discussed. Specifically, the discussion in this Section seeks to determine whether the Project would:
• 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.

As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, potential land use and planning impacts of the Project would be less-than-significant.

4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section focuses on the Project’s consistency with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations; and also evaluates the Project’s compatibility with existing and proposed development in the vicinity. Discussions and analysis within this Section are based on and supported by the following documents and source information:
• TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan) – Land Use Element, and TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (TOP 2050 SEIR). These documents are available through the City of Ontario, or are accessible at:
http://www.ontarioplan.org/;
794

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-2
• 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) available through the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) or can be accessed at: https://scag.ca.gov/read-planadopted-final-connect-socal-2020; • The City of Ontario Development Code, available through the City of Ontario, or accessible at: https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/applications; and • The proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment document included at EIR Appendix B.

4.1.2 SETTING

4.1.2.1 Project Overview
The Rich-Haven Specific Plan (RHSP) was approved by the City of Ontario in 2015, with subsequent Specific Plan Amendments approved in 2016, 2018, and 2021. The current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan (“2021 Specific Plan”) comprises approximately 584 acres located west of Interstate 15 (I-15), and south of State Route 60 (SR-60). The 2021 Specific Plan Area lies within the 8,200-acre Ontario Ranch area, bounded generally by Riverside Drive to the north, “Old” East Edison Avenue [alignment] to the south, Mill Creek Avenue and Hamner Avenue to the east, and Haven Avenue to the west. Please refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Figure 3.1-1, Project Location. The location and boundaries of the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment evaluated in this EIR coincide with the location and boundaries in the 2021 Specific Plan.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-3
Under the proposed 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment, the Specific Plan Area would be developed 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. Other existing RHSP land uses, e.g., public parkland, Southern California Edison (SCE) Parcel open space and SCE Easements would not be substantively affected under the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment. This EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of entire buildout of the Specific Plan Area that would result from the 2022 RHSP Specific Plan Amendment.

In summary, the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would result in the following primary revisions to the 2021 Specific Plan:

2. Total commercial development would be reduced by approximately 65,900 square feet, an approximate 6.7 percent reduction in the 2021 Specific Plan commercial entitlements.

3. Total light industrial development would be increased by approximately 1,583,623 square feet, an approximate 134 percent increase from the 2021 Specific Plan Amendment.

Other aspects and attributes of the 2021 Specific Plan would be substantively maintained under the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.
796

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-4

4.1.2.2 Existing Land Uses
Existing land uses are indicated at Figure 4.1-1, and are discussed below. Please refer also to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 3.2 Existing Conditions.

Project Site
Existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area include developed portions of the currently entitled 2021 Specific Plan, and entitled areas that are undeveloped. To date, approximately 468 residential units of the total 7,194 dwelling units entitled under the 2021 Specific Plan have been constructed and are occupied. Existing residential development within the Specific Plan Area is located generally northeast of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road.

The remainder of the 2021 Specific Plan entitlements have yet to be developed. Existing land uses in these areas include a dairy farm in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, and vacant/disturbed properties throughout the remaining portions of the site.

Additionally, within the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area, Southern California Edison (SCE) transmission line easements exist along a generally east – west/northeast – southwest alignments within the Specific Plan Area.

Vicinity Land Uses
Land uses adjacent to northern portions of the Specific Plan Area include residential development, agricultural uses, and Colony High School. Adjacent to the central Specific Plan Area are an SCE Substation occupying approximately 160 acres to the east, and agricultural/dairy and residential development to the west. The southern portion of the Specific Plan Area is bounded by residential and commercial development to the west across Haven Avenue, and vacant disturbed properties to the south across Edison Avenue (alignment). To the east, across Hamner Avenue, are City of Eastvale properties that are developed or are being developed with commercial and light industrial uses. 797
Figure 4.1-1
Existing Land Uses
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment; Applied Planning, Inc. 798

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-6

4.1.2 EXISTING and PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

4.1.2.1 Project Site
Policy Plan Land Uses
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site and surrounding areas are presented at Figure 4.1-2. Policy Plan Land Uses proposed by the Project are consistent with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for the Project site. The Project does not propose or require amendment of TOP 2050 Policy Plan, Land Use Element.

Zoning Designations
Existing Zoning of the Project site is established by the 2021 Specific Plan. Zoning of the Project site would be modified by the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment described herein.

The 2021 Specific Plan and 2022 Specific Plan Amendment are compared at Figure 4.1-3.

4.1.3 LAND USE PLANS, GOALS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS

4.1.3.1 Regional Planning
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. SCAG is the federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law.
799
Figure 4.1-2
TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Designations
Source: TOP 2050

NOT TO SCALE

CITY OF EASTVALE
800
Figure 4.1-3
2021 Specific Plan vs. 2022 Specific Plan Amendment
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan; Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment

NOT TO SCALE
2021 SPECIFIC PLAN 2022 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
2021 Specific Plan
801

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-9
In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents.

In September 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020). Connect SoCal 2020 establishes general principles and themes that collectively work to shape the Southern California region.

Connect SoCal 2020 is a long-range plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

4.1.3.2 Local Planning
TOP 2050 Policy Plan [General Plan] Land Use Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Plan promote a pattern of orderly and compatible land uses within the City. In support of the Policy Plan, the City Development Code regulates site and usespecific development within the City. In the case of the Project, proposed land uses and development actions are also subject to requirements of the proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment document. In many instances, Project compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Policy Plan, Development Code, and proposed RichHaven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment, Project) would avoid potential land use and planning impacts, or would reduce those potential impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant.

4.1.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), as applied by the City of Ontario, indicates that a Project will normally have a significant effect related to land use if it would:
• Physically divide an established community;
802

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-10
• 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.

4.1.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following discussions focus on those areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant land use and planning impacts, based on the previous discussions included within this Section and analysis presented within the EIR Initial Study (EIR Appendix A). As discussed within the Initial Study, the Project would not physically divide an established community. This potential impact is therefore not substantively discussed further within this Section. Please refer also to Initial Study Checklist Item XI. Land Use and Planning.

Potential Impact LU-1: 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.

Impact Analysis: 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 below.

City of Ontario Policy Plan
Consistency of the Project with applicable Policy Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies that directly or indirectly address avoidance or mitigation of environmental effects is presented at Table 4.1-1.
803

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-11
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-1 Balance
Goal LU-1 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.

Policies Remarks
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.

Policy LU-1.1 acts to avoid or reduce environmental impacts by minimizing requirements to construct new infrastructure, and by promoting use of transit, thereby generally reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the region. This Policy reduces resources consumption, transportation system impacts, air pollutant emissions impacts, and GHG emissions impacts.

Consistent: The proposed Project includes a mixture of Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses.

Development intensities and land use configurations realized under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment promote the highest and best use of the subject site.

Location of the Project takes advantage of existing access provided by the City’s roadway network and existing utilities infrastructure. The Project would also implement infrastructure improvements the City considers necessary to support the Project (please refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, 3.4.3 Access and Circulation, 3.4.6 Infrastructure/Utilities). The City would also collect Project Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Fair Share fees that would be assigned to infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure long-term adequacy of potentially affected infrastructure systems.

Further, the Project would utilize and upgrade, as needed, other utility infrastructure systems. Development Regulations and Design Guidelines implemented pursuant to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would establish a Project identity differentiated from, but compatible with, adjacent land uses. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.1. 804

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-12
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-1.2 Sustainable Community
Strategy.

We integrate state, regional and
local Sustainable Community/
Smart Growth principles into the
development and entitlement
process.

Policy LU-1.2 promotes conservation and sustainability, with correlating reductions in: energy consumption and resources consumption generally, VMT, transportation impacts, air pollutant emissions impacts, and GHG emissions impacts.

Consistent: The Project would be implemented and operated consistent with TOP 2050, 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). Compliance with the 2022 CCAP Update ensures that the Project implements contemporary energy efficient designs and that operations reflect sustainable best management practices. The Project collocates Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses, promoting efficient use of available urban areas within the City. As substantiated in this EIR, Project VMT impacts, and Project Energy impacts would be less-than-significant. Mitigation is incorporated acting to reduce Project-source criteria pollutant emissions and GHG emissions impacts to the extent feasible. In this latter regard, certain of the Mitigation Measures identified at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality would incrementally reduce Projectsource air pollutant emissions and in so-doing would also act to generally reduce GHG emissions.

The Project also supports sustainability and growth attributes reflected in Goals of the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020). Please refer to Table 4.1.2.

Based on the preceding, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.2.

LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity.

We require adequate
infrastructure and services for all
development.

Policy LU-1.3 reduces utilities/infrastructure and public services impacts.

Consistent: The Project Applicant would construct, or would otherwise ensure to the satisfaction of the Lead Agency, those infrastructure improvements and service enhancements necessary to meet the demands of the Project. As substantiated in this EIR, infrastructure and service demands of the Project can be satisfied without adverse impacts to existing or anticipated customers within affected service areas. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.12, Utilities and Service Systems. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.3.
805

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-13
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-1.4 Multimodal Mobility.

We require development and
urban design, where
appropriate, that reduces
reliance on the automobile and
capitalizes on active
transportation, transit, electric
vehicles, and multimodal
transportation opportunities.

Policy LU-1.4 reduces VMT, transportation system impacts; and vehicularsource air pollutant emissions impact, GHG emissions impacts, and noise impacts.

Consistent: Access is provided to the Project site by local and regional transportation facilities. Intensified development of the Project site in combination with existing and proposed proximate urban development would focus the transit ridership base, thereby supporting existing and future transit opportunities. The Project incorporates bicycle and pedestrian amenities that facilitate non-motorized transportation modes. Based on the preceding, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.4.

LU-1.5 Jobs-Housing Balance.

We coordinate land use,
infrastructure, and
transportation planning and
analysis with regional, county
and other local agencies to
further regional and sub-regional
goals for jobs-housing balance.

Policy LU-1.5 reduces VMT, transportation system impacts; and vehicularsource air pollutant emissions impact, GHG emissions impacts, and noise impacts.

Consistent: Via the EIR process, the City has coordinated Project land uses, infrastructure, and transportation planning and analysis with potentially affected regional, county, and local agencies. Employment opportunities created by the Project would improve the City’s jobs/housing balance.

Project land uses and supporting improvements would not interfere with or obstruct regional and/or sub-regional goals addressing jobs-housing balance. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.5.

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.

Policy LU-1.6 indirectly minimizes potentially adverse environmental impacts by promoting diverse compatible land uses, contributing to a sustainable community.

Consistent: The Project proposes Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses that would expand and diversify available housing and employment opportunities. Please refer also to the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (EIR Appendix B). On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-1.6.

LU-1.7 Revenues and Costs.

We require future amendments
to our Land Use Plan to be
accompanied by analyses of
fiscal impacts.

Policy LU-1.7 Minimizes potentially adverse environmental impacts by ensuring fiscally responsible development, acting to minimize the potential for development proposals to cause or contribute to blight conditions.

Consistent: The Project does not propose or require amendment of TOP 2050 Land Uses Plan. As such, a fiscal impact analysis is not required. 806

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-14
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-2 Compatibility
Goal LU-2 Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.

Policies Remarks
LU-2.1 Land Use Decisions.

We minimize adverse impacts on
adjacent properties when
considering land use and zoning
requests.

Policy LU-2.1 minimizes potential land use conflicts that could result in potentially adverse environmental impacts.

Consistent: The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment configuration and orientation of land uses combined with integral Development Regulations and Design Guidelines act to preclude or minimize potential adverse impacts affecting adjacent properties. The Project is therefore consistent with Policy LU-2.1.

LU-2.2 Buffers.

We require new uses to provide
mitigation or buffers between
existing uses where potential
adverse impacts could occur.

Additional mitigation is required
when new uses could negatively
impact environmental justice
areas.

Consistent: Please refer to Remarks at Policy LU-2.1.

LU-2.3 Hazardous Uses.

We regulate the development of
industrial and similar uses that
use, store, produce or transport
toxic substances, air emissions,
other pollutants or hazardous
materials.

Policy LU-2.3 reduces hazards/hazardous materials impacts and hazardous air pollutant emissions impacts.

Consistent: The Project does not propose or require uses whose primary function is to store, produce, or transport toxic substances or other hazardous materials. Routine use of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials within the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment area would be subject to extensive local, regional, and federal regulatory requirements, and would not result in or cause potentially significant environmental impacts.

Mitigation incorporated in this EIR reduces impacts associated with preexisting hazards/hazardous materials conditions to levels that would beless-than-significant. Additionally, development of the Project would eliminate existing hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions affecting portions of Project site that have previously been used for agricultural or dairy uses.

Please refer also to EIR Section 4.7, Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Based on the preceding, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.3. 807

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-15
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-2.4 Regulation of Nuisances.

We regulate the location,
concentration and operation of
potential nuisances.

Policy LU-2.4 reduces nuisance environmental impacts. While not considered significant of themselves, nuisance impacts could contribute to already adverse environmental conditions, or could cumulatively result in adverse environmental conditions.

Consistent: The Project does not propose or require uses or development that would be characterized as “nuisances.” Rather, the implemented Project would establish a compatible and beneficial development within currently underutilized 2022 Specific Plan Amendment properties. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Development Regulations and Design Guidelines and the City Development Code articulate measures and policies that would minimize potential nuisance effects of development. The Project would be required to comply with these measures and policies. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.4.

LU-2.5 Regulation of Uses.

We regulate the location,
concentration and operations of
uses that have impacts on
surrounding land uses.

Policy LU-2.5 minimizes potential land use conflicts that could result in potentially adverse environmental impacts.

Consistent: As substantiated in this EIR, the Project would not adversely affect surrounding land uses. To this end, all development and operations within the Project site would be required to conform to Development Regulations and Design Guidelines established under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. The Project would further be required to conform to all City Development Code requirements. In combination, provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and City Development Code act to ensure that the Project would not adversely impact surrounding land uses. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.5.

LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility.

We require infrastructure to be
aesthetically pleasing and in
context with the community
character.

Policy LU-2.6 minimizes potential aesthetic/visual impacts.

Consistent: The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would locate utility connections, utility cabinets, etc. in areas not visible from public vantages where feasible. In instances where utility connections or utility cabinets must be placed in areas visible to the public, the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Design Guidelines provide for screening and/or landscaping to minimize views of utility equipment. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.6.

LU-2.7 Inter-jurisdictional
Coordination.

We maintain an ongoing liaison
with ONT, Caltrans, Public
Utilities Commission, the
railroads, and other agencies to
help minimize impacts and
improve the operations and
aesthetics of their facilities.

Policy LU-2.7 minimizes potential infrastructure systems impacts.

Consistent: The Project does not propose or require elements or actions that would obstruct or otherwise interfere with the City’s Inter-jurisdictional Coordination efforts. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU2.7. 808

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-16
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-2.8 Transitional Areas.

We require development in
transitional areas to protect the
quality of life of current
residents.

Policy LU-2.8 minimizes potential land use conflicts that could result in potentially adverse environmental impacts.

Consistent: The Project site does not lie within a Policy Plan Transitional Area. As substantiated in this EIR, the Project incorporates elements and operational programs that would act to minimize or avoid the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and thereby protect the quality of life or current residents. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.8.

LU-2.9 Methane Gas Sites.

We require sensitive land uses
and new uses on former dairy
farms or other methaneproducing sites be designed to
minimize health risks.

Policy LU-2.9 minimizes potential methane hazards impacts.

Consistent: This EIR incorporates mitigation that would reduce potential hazards/hazardous material impacts, including methane hazards impacts, to levels that would be less-than-significant. Please refer to EIR Section 4.7, Hazards/Hazardous Materials. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.9.

LU-2.10 Sensitive Uses.

We monitor and share
information with the community
about stationary and nonstationary emission sources. We encourage siting and design of
facilities to minimize health and
safety risks on existing and
proposed sensitive uses,
especially in environmental
justice areas.

Policy LU-2.10 minimizes potential air pollutant health hazards impacts.

Consistent: As substantiated in this EIR, the Project would not result in or cause air pollutant health hazards impacts. The Project would not result in any adverse impacts at sensitive uses. Please refer also to EIR Sections 4.3, Air Quality; 4.4, GHG Emissions; 4.6, Noise; and 4.7, Hazards/Hazardous Materials. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.10.

LU-2.11 Context-Aware Transitions and
Connections.

We require new development
projects and land-planning
efforts to provide context-aware
and appropriate transitions and
connections between existing
and planned neighborhoods,
blocks, sites, and buildings.

Policy LU-2.11 encourages compatible and cohesive development.

Consistent: The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Plan, Development Regulations, and Design Guidelines promote development compatibility through adjacency of similar land uses, and transitional elements between differing land uses, e.g., collocation of residential uses with defining transitional elements such as roads, trails, linear open space, screen walls, or landscaping between residential uses and more intense commercial and industrial uses. Please refer also to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment presented at EIR Appendix B. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-2.11.

Goal LU-3 Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision.
809

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-17
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-3.1 Development Standards.

We maintain clear development
standards which allow flexibility
to achieve our Vision and
provide objective standards that
ensure predictability and deliver
the intended physical outcomes.

Policy LU-3.1 minimizes the potential for development proposals to result in unacceptable designs, or development that would otherwise result in land use incompatibilities that would impede attainment of the City’s Vision.

Consistent: The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment incorporates Development Regulations and Design Guidelines allowing for flexible development of the Project site within the context of the Policy Plan Community Design Element. In this respect, development pursuant to the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would establish contemporary, quality Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses on a currently underutilized site. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-3.1.

LU-3.2 Design Incentives.

We offer design incentives to
help projects achieve the Vision.

Policy LU-3.2 encourages quality development and minimizes the potential for development proposals to result in unacceptable designs, or development that would otherwise result in land use incompatibilities that would impede attainment of the City’s Vision.

Consistent: The Project does not propose elements or aspects that would obstruct or interfere with Design Incentives programs established by the City. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Plan, Development Regulations, and Design Guidelines support the Policy Plan Vision. Please refer also to Remarks at Policy LU-3.1.

LU-3.3 Land Use Flexibility.

We consider uses not typically
permitted within a land use
category if doing so improves
livability, reduces vehicular
trips, creates community
gathering places and activity
nodes, and helps create identity.

Policy LU-3.3 promotes sustainable and compatible development that reduces or precludes potentially adverse environmental effects.

Consistent: Land uses and development concepts proposed by the Project are consistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Plan, but would require amendment of the current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan. The proposed Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment would modify the 2021 RichHaven Specific Plan to allow for implementation of the Project uses. The proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment provides for flexible and compatible development of the subject site. More specifically, the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would implement compatible Residential Commercial, and Industrial uses on currently under‐utilized properties.

Development intensities and land use configurations proposed under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment promote the highest and best use of the subject site.

The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Concept collocates Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses in an urban/urbanizing area, thereby reducing home – work and work – home commutes, acting generally to reduce vehicle VMT locally and within the region. Corollary reductions in vehicle energy consumption and vehicular-source air pollutant and GHG emissions are anticipated. 810

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-18
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Land Use Plan, Development Regulations, and Design Guidelines would establish a Project identity differentiated from, but compatible with, adjacent land uses. Please refer also to Remarks at Policies LU-1.1 and LU-1.2.

Based on the preceding, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-3.3.

LU-4 Phased Growth
Goal LU-4 Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.

Policies Remarks
LU-4.1 Commitment to Vision.

We are committed to achieving
our Vision but realize that it may
take time and several interim
steps to get there.

Policy LU-4.1 reduces environmental effects through continued commitment to the City’s Vision, which in part includes promotion of environmentally superior and sustainable development.

Consistent: The Project would support The Ontario Plan Vision for community-wide prosperity that adds value and yields benefits. Please refer to Remarks at Policies LU-3.1, LU-3.2. Based on the preceding, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-4.1.

LU-4.2 Interim Development.

We allow development in urban,
mixed use, and transit- oriented
Place Types that is not
immediately reflective of our
ultimate Vision for the Place
Type, provided it can be
modified or replaced when
circumstances are right to
support development aligned
with the Place Type Vision. We
will not allow development that
impedes, precludes, or
compromises our ability to
achieve our Vision.

Policy LU-4.2 indirectly reduces environmental effects through rejection of development proposals that impede, preclude, or compromise attainment of the City’s Vision.

Consistent: The Project does not propose interim development. Please refer to Remarks at Policies LU-3.1, LU-3.2, LU-4.1.

LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing.

We require that the necessary
infrastructure and services be in
place prior to or concurrently
with development.

Policy LU-4.3 reduces infrastructure and services impacts.

Consistent: Pursuant to provisions of 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, mitigation measures identified in this EIR, and City Conditions of Approval, the Project would provide and/or otherwise ensure to the satisfaction of the City, that infrastructure and services are timely available to meet Project demands. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-4‐3. 811

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-19
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-4.4 Shared Infrastructure.

We encourage and facilitate the
use of shared infrastructure
(including shared or managed
parking) in urban, mixed use, and
transit-oriented Place Types.

Policy LU-4.4 reduces infrastructure and services impacts.

The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment infrastructure plans provide for efficient shared connections to existing and proposed utilities systems. All infrastructure systems implemented by the project would be required to conform to City and purveyor standards and requirements. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-4‐4.

LU-5 Airport Planning
Goal LU-5 Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.

Policies Remarks
LU-5.1 Coordination with Airport
Authorities.

We collaborate with FAA,
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics,
airport owners, neighboring
jurisdictions, and other
shareholders in the preparation,
update and maintenance of
airport-related plans.

Policy LU-5.1 reduces adverse impacts associated with airfield/airport operations.

Consistent: The Project has been designed to be consistent with TOP 2050, and by extension would not result in impacts not considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. As concluded in TOP 2050 SEIR, the potential for TOP 2050 General Plan to expose developments or populations to airport/aircraftrelated hazards would be less-than-significant.

The Project does not propose facilities or uses that would interfere with or obstruct City collaboration or coordination with agencies or shareholders participating in or responsible for the preparation, update and maintenance of airport-related plans. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.2 Airport Planning Consistency.

We coordinate with airport
authorities to ensure The Ontario
Plan is consistent with state law,
federal regulations, and/or
adopted master plans and land
use compatibility plans for ONT
and Chino Airport.

Consistent: Please refer to remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.3 Airport Impacts.

We work with agencies to
maximize resources to mitigate
the impacts and hazards related
to airport operations – their
homes.

Consistent: Please refer to remarks at Policy LU-5.1.
812

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-20
Table 4.1-1
Policy Plan - Land Use Element Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis Goals/Policies Remarks
LU-5.4 ONT Growth Forecast.

We support and promote an
ONT that accommodates 30
million annual passengers and

1.6 million tons of cargo per year,
as long as the impacts associated
with that level of operations are
planned for and mitigated.

Consistent: Please refer to remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.5 Airport Compatibility Planning
for ONT.

We create and maintain the
Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for ONT.

Consistent: Please refer to remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.6 Alternative Process.

We fulfill our responsibilities
and comply with state law with
regard to the Alternative Process
for proper airport land use
compatibility planning.

Consistent: Please refer to remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.7 ALUCP Consistency with Land
Use Regulations.

We comply with state law that
requires general plans, specific
plans and all new development
be consistent with the policies
and criteria set forth within an
Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan for any public-use airport.

Consistent: Please refer to Remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

LU-5.8 Chino Airport.

We will support the creation and
implementation of the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for
Chino Airport.

Consistent: Please refer to Remarks at Policy LU-5.1.

Sources: Goal/Policy statements from: TOP 2050 Policy Plan, Land Use Element; Remarks-Applied Planning, Inc.

City of Ontario Development Code/Zoning
Zoning for the subject site would be established by the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Element.

All development within the Project site would be subject to plans, requirements, standards, and guidelines established under the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment. In instances where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, development within the 813

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-21
Project site would be subject to requirements of the City Development Code. The Project does not propose or require amendment(s) to the City Development Code. 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020)
The Project is also evaluated in the context of Connect SoCal 2020. Project consistency with Connect SoCal 2020 goals is presented at Table 4.1-2.

Table 4.1-2
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Remarks
Goal #1: Encourage regional
economic prosperity and
global competitiveness
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Community Economics Element. TOP 2050 Community Economics Element establishes goals and policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility. In combination, TOP 2050 Community Economics Element goals and policies act to attract new and expanding businesses to Ontario thereby increasing the City’s share of growing sectors of the regional and global economy. The Project commercial, retail, and industrial uses provide business and employment opportunities acting to further City economic prosperity. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #1. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #1.

Goal #2: Improve mobility,
accessibility,reliability, and
travel safety for people and
goods
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Mobility Element. TOP 2050 Mobility Element identifies the system of roadways all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. Per TOP 2050 Mobility Element, transportation system designs within the City are required to:
• Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; • Provide capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways;
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses: and • Promote the efficient flow of all modes of transportation through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand management strategies.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-22
Table 4.1-2
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Remarks
the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #2. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #2.

Goal #3: Enhance the
preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional
transportation system
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050. The City takes a proactive leadership role identifying and facilitating strategies addressing regional transportation challenges. As applicable, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the City, ONT, railroads, Caltrans, SBCTA, and other transportation agencies with regard to preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. The Project Applicant would also coordinate with potentially affected agencies and municipalities to plan and implement goods movement strategies and plans, and improvements that support and the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the City and transit agencies to implement transit service and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #3. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #3.

Goal #4: Increase person and
goods movement and travel
choices within the
transportation system
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050. The final Project designs would be required comply with TOP 2050 Policies addressing implementation of multimodal transportation systems meeting the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. The Project Applicant would also coordinate with the City and transit agencies to implement transit service and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled. Additionally, the Project Applicant would coordinate with potentially affected agencies and municipalities to plan and implement goods movement strategies and plans, and improvements that support and the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #4. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #4.

Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and improve
air quality
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CAP Update) implemented under TOP 2050. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Project GHG emissions would be reduced to the extent feasible. In this regard, certain of the Mitigation Measures identified at 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. The Project collocates Residential, Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses with proximate access to the local and regional roadway system. In this manner, the Project minimizes VMT and resulting vehicular-source air pollutant emissions. The Project would result in certain regionally significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The Project would implement measures that would reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. The Project would not result in any locally significant air quality impacts, or air quality conditions that would result in adverse health effects. (see: EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality). The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or 815

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-23
Table 4.1-2
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Remarks
obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #5. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #5.

Goal #6: Support healthy and
equitable communities
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Social Resources Element. TOP 2050, Social Resources Element, identifies quality and accessible health care, education, community services, and cultural activities as critical components to achieving Ontario’s Vision. The Project collocates a range of housing products and employment-generating commercial and industrial uses, thereby furthering City goals to provide a range of housing types and employment opportunities. In this regard, the Project acts to improve the balance between jobs and housing in the San Bernardino County subregion while reducing vehicle miles traveled and associated air quality impacts and air quality related health impacts. As substantiated in this EIR, the Project would not result in any adverse health impacts. All Project uses would be required to provide equitable access for all persons. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #6. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #6.

Goal #7: Adapt to a changing
climate and support an
integrated regional
development
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and the 2022 CAP Update implemented under TOP 2050. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Project GHG emissions would be reduced to the extent feasible. In this regard, certain of the Mitigation Measures identified at 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. Collocated housing, commercial uses, and industrial development proposed by the Project support integrated development within the City and region. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #7. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #7.

Goal #8: Leverage new
transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions
thatresult in more efficient
travel
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Mobility Element. The Mobility Element identifies the system of roadways all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. The Project supports efficient travel through collocation of complementary uses proximate to local and regional roadway systems. The Project final designs would include pedestrian and bicycle access and associated amenities consistent with City requirements. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #8. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #8.

Goal #9: Encourage
development of diverse
housing types in areas that
are supported by multiple
transportation options
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 housing policies. The Project provides a range of housing products available to all persons. The Project site is currently served by improved roadways, and the Project would construct new and improved roadways adequate to serve traffic within the Project site, and ensure that Project traffic does not contribute to or case adverse traffic conditions. The Project final designs would include pedestrian and bicycle access and associated amenities consistent with City requirements. The Project does not propose or require improvements or 816

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-24
Table 4.1-2
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Remarks
operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #9.

On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #9.

Goal #10: Promote
conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and
restoration of habitats
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 to protect high value habitat and farming resource activities that are compatible with adjacent development. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.10, Biological Resources there are no valuable or protected natural agricultural lands or habitat within the Project site. This EIR further substantiates that the Project would not result in potentially adverse biological resources impacts. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #10. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #10.

Sources: Connect SoCal 2020; TOP 2050 SEIR; Remarks by Applied Planning, Inc.

Summary
As outlined above, 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.

The Project is also considered to be consistent with, and would support land use and planning goals articulated in Connect SoCal. Project consistency with applicable Connect SoCal Land Use and Planning Goals addressing avoidance and mitigation of environmental impacts is summarized at Table 4.1-2.
817

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Land Use and Planning Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.1-25
On the basis of the preceding, the potential for the Project to 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 is less-thansignificant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
818

4.2 TRANSPORTATION
819
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-1

4.2 TRANSPORTATION
Abstract
This discussion of potential transportation impacts is organized under the following headings:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis; and
• Other Transportation Topics.

A summary of the analysis and findings under these topical headings is presented below.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
As required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts of the Project are evaluated in this Section.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (statute effective July 1, 2020) requires analysis of the Project’s potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts. Detailed analysis of the Project’s potential VMT impacts is presented in Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022 (Project VMT Analysis). Findings and conclusions of the Project VMT Analysis are summarized in this Section and the Project VMT Analysis in total is presented at EIR Appendix C. The analysis presented here substantiates that Project VMT impacts would be less-than-significant. As further substantiated within this analysis, less-than-significant VMT impacts at the Project level would not be cumulatively considerable or cumulatively significant.

Additionally, localized roadway improvements constructed by the Project would not cause or result in potentially significant VMT impacts.
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, effective January 1, 2019, “describes specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts” and provides that, except for roadway capacity projects, “a project’s effect on automobile delay (or LOS) shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (a).)
820
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-2
The City further recognizes that vehicle delay (Level of Service, LOS) deficiencies are no longer environmental impacts under CEQA. The Project’s potential LOS deficiencies are therefore not further evaluated in this EIR.

For reference purposes, and in support of City circulation system planning, potential LOS deficiencies resulting from the Project have also been evaluated. Recommended improvements addressing LOS deficiencies have been developed. Potential LOS deficiencies and recommended improvements are presented in detail in: Rich Haven Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) December 16, 2022 (Project Traffic Analysis). The Project Traffic Analysis is provided at EIR Appendix C.

Other Transportation Topics
Other transportation topics evaluated in this Section include the following:
• Potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; • Potential to substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature; and • Potential to result in inadequate emergency access.

The analysis presented here substantiates that Project impacts under the preceding “other transportation topics” would be less-than-significant.

4.2.1 VMT ASSESSMENT

4.2.1.1 Background
Transportation impact analyses prepared by the City have historically been based on level of service (LOS) and similar vehicle delay/congestion metrics. The LOS analytic model provides a reasonable assessment of vehicle congestion and driving conditions that may result from a given development project. LOS analyses do not however evaluate the range and magnitude of other environmental effects attributable to development traffic, including fuel consumption, criteria air pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions. These latter issues have however been historically addressed, and are 821
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-3
currently addressed within this EIR’s Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Sections. In response to these latter concerns and to comprehensively evaluate environmental impacts of development traffic, the CEQA Guidelines (amended December 2019) include new Section 15064.3 addressing transportation impacts. In summary, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the appropriate metric for evaluation of project transportation impacts.

The Project VMT Analysis presented here evaluates the potential for the Project to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). For ease of reference, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) is presented below. § 15064.3. Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts. (b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
• Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
• Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
822
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-4
• Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
• Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

4.2.1.2 Methodology
As provided for at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) (4) (above), “[a] lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure.”
Within this analysis, 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 fulfills the state (SB 743) mandate that “OPR [is] to establish specific ‘criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects’ (Technical Advisory, p. 7). 823
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-5
Consistent with provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) (4) and the Technical Advisory, the City of Ontario (City) has adopted and implemented their own VMT methodologies and thresholds2 – referred to herein as the City VMT Guidelines. The Project VMT analysis presented here conforms to the City VMT Guidelines. Further detail regarding the Project VMT Analysis is provided below.

VMT Modeling
The City VMT Guidelines identify the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) as the appropriate tool for conducting VMT analysis for land use projects in the City.

The City has adopted an updated version of SBTAM referred to as The Ontario Plan (TOP) Model. TOP Model reflects contemporary City roadway network and socioeconomic data that is consistent with the recently adopted TOP 2050. TOP Model reflects City-wide VMT conditions under Base Year (2019) and General Plan Buildout (2050) scenarios. Beyond the City limits, TOP Model assumes datasets consistent with the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

City VMT Metric and VMT Impact Significance Threshold
The City VMT Guidelines employ a VMT per Service Population (VMT/SP) metric to quantify VMT impacts. For the Project, the Service Population (SP) comprises the Specific Plan resident population and persons employed by various commercial and industrial uses. The City VMT Guidelines establish the following VMT impact significance threshold for project-level VMT analyses:
• A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP exceeds the City-wide average VMT/SP under General Plan Buildout conditions.

As calculated using TOP General Plan Buildout (2050) Model, Citywide average VMT/SP under General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions is 30.70 VMT/SP. Please refer to Table 4.2-1.
2 City of Ontario Resolution No. 2020-071, adopted June 2020. 824
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-6
Table 4.2-1
TOP 2050 General Plan Buildout
VMT/SP
Service Population 706,494
VMT 21,689,573
VMT/SP 30.70
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022.

The Baseline (2019) City Average VMT/SP (Automobile VMT and Total VMT) was calculated by linearly interpolating SBTAM data for the years 2012 and 2040. Table 4.2-2 provides a summary of the City Average Automobile VMT/SP and Total VMT/SP for 2012, 2019, and 2040.

Table 4.2-2
City Average VMT/SP Estimates: 2012, 2019, 2040
2012 VMT/SP 2019 VMT/SP 2040 VMT/SP
Automobiles 37.5 37.6 37.9
Total 42.1 42.3 42.8
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022.

Project VMT/SP Calculation
Project VMT has been estimated by converting the Project land use information (dwelling units and building square footages) to an SBTAM-compatible socio-economic dataset (SED) comprising households, resident population, and employment. The Project SED was then input into a separate traffic analysis zone (TAZ) to isolate the Project’s VMT.

Table 4.2-3 summarizes the Project SED inputs.

Table 4.2-3
Project SED Inputs
Households 7,194
Resident Population 25,179
Employment 5,005
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis(Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022. 825
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-7
Project VMT was then calculated employing the “Origin/Destination” (OD) method.

The OD method sums all weekday VMT generated by Project-related trips with at least one trip end in the VMT Analysis Study Area (Study Area). The OD method Project VMT/SP is then the quotient of total Project VMT divided by the total Project SP.

Table 4.2-4 summarizes Project VMT/SP under Baseline (2022) conditions, and General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions. The Project Service Population has been apportioned into Resident Population and Employment components. For clarity and disclosure purposes, the portion of Project VMT generated by heavy duty trucks has been disaggregated from the total Project VMT. Project VMT/SP is then compared to the City VMT/SP significance threshold. As indicated at Table 4.2-4, Project VMT/SP as calculated employing the OD method would not exceed City VMT/SP impact significance threshold. On this basis, the potential for the Project to result in a significant VMT impact would be less-than-significant.

Table 4.2-4
Project VMT/SP Summary-OD Method
Baseline (2022) General Plan Buildout (2050)
Resident Population 25,179 25,179
Employment 5,005 5,005
Total Service Population 30,184 30,184
Total OD VMT 679,212 777,191*
Total VMT Trucks 33,586 33,586
Project VMT/SP 22.50 25.75
City VMT/SP Significance Threshold 30.70 30.70
Project VMT/SP Percent Below Threshold -26.71% -16.12%
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022.

Notes:* Although the Project’s population and employment does not change from baseline to buildout, the roadway network, modal shifts, and surrounding land uses does change within the model from baseline to buildout and may cause some VMT efficiencies and inefficiencies. In this case, inefficiencies result in the VMT increasing.

Boundary VMT Method
City VMT Guidelines also acknowledge that VMT analyses should evaluate project VMT impacts employing the “boundary” method. The boundary method sums all weekday 826
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-8
VMT on the roadway network within a designated boundary (e.g., municipal boundary or other designated geographic area).

The boundary method estimates VMT by multiplying vehicle trips on each roadway segment within the boundary by that segment’s length. The product is referred to here as “boundary VMT.” This approach considers all trips, including those trips that do not begin or end in the designated boundary.

Employing the boundary method, the Project VMT analysis evaluated buildout VMT within the City boundaries, under “No Project” and “With Project” conditions. Because the Project is located near the southeastern edge of the City, the Project VMT analysis also evaluated buildout VMT within an approximate 10-mile radius of the Project. This additional assessment captures all trips likely generated by, or attracted to, the Project.

Table 4.2-5 presents boundary VMT (City boundary VMT and 10-mile radius boundary VMT) for No Project and With Project scenarios under General Plan Buildout (2050) conditions. As indicated, total boundary VMT would be increased under the With Project scenario. However, the VMT/SP ratio is maintained or is reduced under With Project conditions.

Table 4.2-5
General Plan Buildout Boundary VMT
City Boundary VMT 10-Mile Boundary VMT
Scenario No Project With Project No Project With Project Service Population 719,661 721,445 2,276,901 2,278,685
Boundary VMT 9,670,427 9,687,140 35,863,716 35,892,228
Change in Total VMT +16,713 VMT (+0.1728%) +28,512 VMT (+0.0795%) VMT/SP 13.44 13.43 15.75 15.75
Change in VMT/SP -0.01 0.00
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022.

Cumulative VMT Impacts
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 827
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-9
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. (VMT/SP).

Per the Technical Advisory guidance, the Project cumulative VMT impacts would also be less-than-significant.

Induced VMT Assessment
Use of VMT as an environmental impact metric for transportation projects is discretionary under Section 15064.3 (b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines:
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.

The Technical Advisory states that building new roadways, adding roadway capacity in congested areas, or adding roadway capacity to areas where congestion is expected in the future, typically induces additional vehicle travel. OPR identifies addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges as project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in induced vehicle travel. Further, the Technical Advisory acknowledges that addition of capacity on local or collector streets, provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis (Technical Advisory, pp. 20, 21). 828
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-10
It is recognized that the 2022 SPA is not a “transportation project” as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) (2). However, the 2022 SPA will provide or fund local and area transportation improvements. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050. The Project would construct site-adjacent local streets, collectors, and arterials, including sidewalk and bicycle lanes that are consistent with TOP 2050 Mobility Element. Construction of these local facilities in a manner that is consistent with TOP 2050 Mobility Element would not significantly alter regional or inter-regional travel. Growth resulting from, or facilitated by, Project infrastructure improvements is anticipated under TOP 2050, and environmental impacts attributable to such growth including, but not limited to, VMT effects is considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

While roadway improvements associated with the Project may facilitate vehicular travel within the City and surrounding areas, total VMT and environmental impacts of such travel would not result in VMT and VMT-related impacts not already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

Other Considerations
Alternative transportation modes and facilities (e.g., bus service, bicycle routes, pedestrian paths) are generally available within the Study Area and could potentially reduce the Project VMT. However, the VMT-reducing potentials of alternative travel modes were not considered in the Project VMT Analysis. Project VMT estimates considered in this analysis therefore represent the likely maximum Project VMT impact conditions.

4.2.2 OTHER TRANSPORTATION TOPICS
Potential Impact TR-1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

City of Ontario programs, plans, and policies addressing the circulation system are established under TOP 2050. Project consistency with applicable provisions of TOP 2050 is summarized at Table 4.2-6. As provided for under CEQA, the analysis presented here 829
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-11
considers program, plan, and policy inconsistencies that could result in potentially significant environmental impacts. As a matter of law, the Project would be required to comply with City ordinances addressing the Study Area circulation system.

Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
M-1 Roadway System
Goal M1 A system of roadways that meets the mobility needs of a dynamic and prosperous Ontario.

Policies Remarks
M-1.1 Roadway Design and Maintenance. We
require our roadways to:
• Comply with federal, state and local
design and safety standards.
• Meet the needs of multiple
transportation modes and users.
• Handle the capacity envisioned in City
of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and
Highways.
• Be maintained in accordance with best
practices.
• Be compatible with the streetscape and
surrounding land uses.
• Promote the efficient flow of all modes
of traffic through the implementation
of intelligent transportation systems
and travel demand strategies.

Consistent. Project roadway designs and all proposed
improvements would conform with the City’s Master
Plan of Streets and Highways, City design standards
and applicable federal/state design and safety
standards. City design review processes would ensure
compliance with all applicable standards.

Streetscape design concepts implemented pursuant to
the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment establish
compatible continuation of existing perimeter
streetscapes. All public roadways would be
maintained in accordance with City requirements to
include implementation of City Best Management
Practices and City Right-of-Way Management Plan.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-1.1.

M-1.2 Mitigation of Impacts. We require
development to mitigate its traffic impacts.

Consistent. The Project would not result in potentially significant VMT impacts. Recommended
improvements addressing potential LOS deficiencies
are identified in the Project Traffic Analysis (EIR
Appendix C); these improvements would be
implemented consistent with City Conditions of
Approval.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-1.2.

M-1.3 Agency Coordination on Roadway
Improvements. We work with Caltrans,
SBCTA and others to identify, fund and
implement needed improvements to
roadways when necessary. We work with
neighboring jurisdictions to promote
regional connectivity, access, and meet
operational level of service standards at
the City limits.

Consistent. Please refer to remarks at Policies M-1.1,
M-1.2.
830
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-12
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
M-1.4 Complete Streets. We work to provide a
complete, balanced, context-aware,
multimodal transportation network that
meets the needs of all users of streets,
roads, and highways, including motorists,
pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons
with disabilities, seniors, movers of
commercial goods, and users of public
transportation. We prioritize
implementation of complete streets
improvements in environmental justice
areas to facilitate opportunities for
residents to use active transportation
systems.

Consistent. The Project would construct site-adjacent
local streets, collectors, and arterials, including
sidewalk and bicycle lanes that are consistent with TOP 2050 Mobility Element.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-1.4.

M-1.5 Level of Service. Maintain a peak hour
Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all
intersections. Maintain Level of Service D
or better on arterial streets in the City.

Develop and maintain a list of locations
where LOS E or LOS F are considered
acceptable and would be exempt from this
level of service policy. Considerations for
LOS exemption include being restricted by
environmental constraints, lacking
available right-of-way, deterring an
increase in VMT, or degrading other
modes of travel (such as bicycle or
pedestrian infrastructure).

Consistent. The City recognizes that vehicle delay
(Level of Service, LOS) deficiencies are no longer
environmental impacts under CEQA.

For reference purposes, and in support of City
circulation system planning, potential LOS deficiencies resulting from the Project have been evaluated.

Recommended improvements addressing LOS
deficiencies have been developed. Potential LOS
deficiencies and recommended improvements are
presented in detail in the Project Traffic Analysis,
provided at EIR Appendix C.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-1.5.

M-1.6 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. We will
strive to reduce VMT through a
combination of land use, transportation
projects, travel demand management
strategies, and other trip reduction
measures in coordination with
development projects and public capital
improvement projects.

Consistent. While roadway improvements associated
with the Project may facilitate vehicular travel within the City and surrounding areas, total VMT and
environmental impacts of such travel would not result
in VMT and VMT-related impacts not already
considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-1.6.

M2 Active Transportation
Goal M-2 A system of trails and corridors that facilitate and encourage active modes of transportation.

Policies Remarks
M-2.1 Active Transportation. We maintain our
Active Transportation Master Plan to
create a comprehensive system of on- and
off-street bikeways and pedestrian
Consistent. Bikeways and pedestrian facilities would
be implemented consistent with the City’s Active
Transportation Master Plan and provisions of the 2022
Specific Plan Amendment.
831
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-13
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
facilities that are safe, comfortable, and
accessible and connect residential areas,
businesses, schools, parks, and other key
destination points.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-2.1.

M-2.2 Bicycle System. We provide off-street
multipurpose trails and Class II bikeways
as our preferred paths of travel and use the
Class III for connectivity in constrained
circumstances. When truck routes and
bicycle facilities share a right-of-way, we
prefer Class I or Class IV bicycle facilities.

We require new development to include
bicycle facilities, such as bicycle parking
and secure storage areas.

Consistent. Bikeways would be implemented
consistent with the City’s Active Transportation
Master Plan and provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan
Amendment.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-2.2.

M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways. We require streets
to include sidewalks and visible
crosswalks at major intersections where
necessary to promote safe and comfortable
mobility between residential areas,
businesses, schools, parks, recreation
areas, and other key destination points.

Consistent. Pedestrian paths would be provided
within the Project site and along the Project perimeter consistent with City standards and provisions of the
2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-2.3.

M.2-4 Network Opportunities. We use public
rights-of-way and easements such as,
utility easements, levees, drainage
corridors, road rights-of-way, medians,
and other potential options to maintain
and expand our bicycle and pedestrian
network. In urban, mixed-use, and transitoriented Place Types, we encourage the use of underutilized public and private
spaces to expand our public realm and
improve pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity.

Consistent. Bikeways and pedestrian facilities would
be implemented consistent with the City’s Active
Transportation Master Plan and provisions of the 2022
Specific Plan Amendment.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-2.4.

M-3 Public Transit
Goal M-3 A public transit system that is a viable alternative to automobile travel and meets basic transportation needs of the transit dependent.

Policies Remarks
M-3.1 Transit Partners. We maintain a proactive
working partnership with transit
providers to ensure that adequate public
transit service is available, cost-efficient,
and convenient, particularly for residents
in environmental justice areas.

Consistent. The Project would not interfere with or
otherwise obstruct the City’s cooperative partnership
with transit providers.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.1.
832
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-14
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New
Development. We require new
development adjacent to an existing or
planned transit stop to contribute to the
creation of transit facilities, such as bus
shelters, transit bays and turnouts, and
bicycle facilities, such as secure storage
areas.

Consistent. The Project would support and would not
conflict with City efforts to contribute to the creation of transit facilities. To these ends the Applicant would
coordinate Project development with the City and
transit agencies to implement transit service and
supporting amenities. Additionally, the Specific Plan
design establishes residential densities that would
support Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along Haven Avenue
(see: EIR Appendix B, Rich-Haven Specific Plan
Amendment, Figure 3-1, Land Use Plan).

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.2.

M-3.3 Transit-Oriented Development. We may
provide additional development-related
incentives to those inherent in the Land
Use Plan for projects that promote transit
use and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Consistent. The Project would not interfere with or
otherwise obstruct the City’s incentive programs and
policies.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.3.

M-3.4 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors. We
work with regional transit agencies to
implement BRT service and reduce vehicle
miles traveled by targeting destinations
and corridors with the highest number of
potential riders.

Consistent. The Project would not interfere with or
otherwise obstruct the City’s cooperative efforts with
regional transit agencies.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.4.

M-3.5 Light Rail. We support extension of the
Metro Rail Gold Line to Ontario, and will
work to secure station locations at the
proposed multimodal transit center.

Consistent. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment area is
not located near the potential Metro Rail Gold Line
extension to the City; nor the proposed multimodal
transit center. The Project would not impact, nor be
impacted by, rail operations.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.5.

M-3.6 Metrolink Expansion. We advocate
expansion of Metrolink service to include
the Downtown and the multimodal transit
center.

Consistent. The Project site is not located near the
Metrolink rail line; nor the proposed multimodal
transit center. The Project would not impact, nor be
impacted by, Metrolink expansion.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.6.

M-3.7 High Speed Rail. We encourage the
development of high-speed rail systems
that would enhance regional mobility in
Southern California and serve the City of
Ontario.

Consistent. No railways exist within or near the
Specific Plan area. The Project would not interfere with or otherwise obstruct the development of high-speed
rail systems.
833
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-15
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.7.

M-3.8 Feeder Systems. We work with regional
transit agencies to secure convenient
feeder service from the Metrolink station
and the proposed multimodal transit
center to employment centers in Ontario.

Consistent. The site is located in an area already served by public transit. The Project would implement feeder
transit facilities as required by the City through its
coordination with transit agencies serving the area.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.8.

M-3.9 Ontario Airport Metro Center Circulator.

We will explore development of a
convenient mobility system, including but
not limited to shuttle service, people
mover, and shared car system, for the
Ontario Airport Metro Center.

Consistent. The Specific Plan area is not located in or near the Ontario Airport Metro Center. The Project
would not interfere with or otherwise obstruct the
City’s development of a mobility system in this area.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.9.

M-3.10 Multimodal Transportation Center. We
intend to ensure the development of a
multimodal transportation center near
ONT airport to serve as a transit hub with
amenities for transit riders, pedestrians,
and bicyclists transitioning to local buses,
BRT, the Gold Line, high-speed rail, the
proposed Ontario Airport Metro Center
Circulator, and other future transit modes.

We support locations for the multimodal
transportation center that are north of
ONT airport, between Vineyard Avenue
and Interstate 15.

Consistent. The Specific Plan area is not located
in/near the area intended for development of the
Multimodal Transportation Center. The Project would
not interfere with or otherwise obstruct the
implementation of this transit hub.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.10.

M-3.11 Transit and Community Facilities. We
require the future development of
community-wide serving facilities to be
sited in transit-ready areas that can be
served and made accessible by public
transit. Conversely, we plan (and
coordinate with other transit agencies to
plan) future transit routes to serve existing
community facilities.

Consistent. The site is located in an area already served by public transit. The Project Applicant would also
coordinate with the City and transit agencies to
implement transit service and thereby reduce vehicle
miles traveled.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-3.11.

M-4 Goods Movement
Goal M-4 An efficient flow of goods through the City that maximizes economic benefits and minimizes negative impacts.

Policies Remarks
M-4.1 Truck Routes. We designate and maintain
a network of City truck routes that provide
Consistent. Trucks accessing the Project site would
utilize the City’s designated truck routes. Vehicular834 © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-16
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
for the safe and efficient transport of goods
while minimizing negative impacts on
local circulation and noise-sensitive land
uses, as shown on Exhibit M-04, Truck
Routes. We will minimize conflicts on
truck routes through the design and
implementation of buffers between travel
lanes and pedestrian and bicycle facilities
on designated truck routes.
source noise and air quality impacts are evaluated
within this EIR, and mitigation is proposed for those
impacts determined to be potentially significant,
thereby minimizing negative impacts on local
circulation and noise-sensitive land uses.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-4.1.

M-4.2 Regional Participation. We work with
regional and subregional transportation
agencies and adjacent cities to plan and
implement goods movement strategies,
including regional truck routes, plans and
projects that improve mobility, support
the efficient movement of goods, and
minimize negative environmental
impacts.

Consistent. The Project land uses take advantage of
proximate available regional transportation systems
acting to facilitate mobility, goods movement, and
goods delivery on a local, sub-regional and regional
basis. The Project would not interfere with or otherwise obstruct City efforts and actions to coordinate regional and sub-regional plans and strategies facilitating
mobility, goods movement, and goods delivery.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-4.2.

M-4.3 Railroad Grade Separations. We
eliminate at-grade rail crossings
identified on Exhibit M-01, Roadway
Classifications.

Consistent. No at-grade rail crossings are located
within or adjacent to the Project site. The Project would not interfere with or otherwise obstruct the City’s
elimination actions in this regard.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-4.3.

M-4.4 Environmental Considerations. We
support both local and regional efforts to
reduce/eliminate the negative
environmental impacts of goods
movement through the planning and
implementation of truck routing and the
development of a plan to evaluate the
future needs of clean fueling/recharging
and electrified truck parking.

Consistent. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Design
Guidelines and Development Standards globally act to
minimize potential environmental impacts of goods
movement associated with the Project.

Please refer also to remarks at Policies M-4.1, M-4.2.

M-4.5 Air Cargo. We support and promote a
ONT airport that accommodates 1.6
million tons of cargo per year, as long as
the impacts associated with that level of
operations are planned for and mitigated.

Consistent. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment area is
not located within an identified Safety Zone of the ONT airport. The Project would not impact, nor be impacted
by, ONT airport cargo operations.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-17
Table 4.2-6
TOP 2050 Consistency Analysis

MOBILITY ELEMENT
M-5 Regional Transportation
Goal M-5 A proactive leadership role in helping identify and facilitate implementation of strategies that address regional transportation challenges.

Policies Remarks
M-5.1 Regional Leadership. We maintain a
leadership role to help identify and
implement potential solutions to longterm regional transportation problems.

Consistent. The Project would not interfere with or
otherwise obstruct the City’s leadership efforts and
actions.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-5.1.

M-5.2 Land Use Compatibility with Regional
Transportation Facilities. We work with
ONT, railroads, Caltrans, SBCTA, and
other transportation agencies to minimize
impacts.

Consistent. The Project would not interfere with or
otherwise obstruct the City’s cooperative efforts with
regional transportation agencies.

On this basis, the Project is considered consistent with Policy M-5.2.

Sources: Goal and Policy statements from TOP 2050; remarks by Applied Planning, Inc.

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. 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) Consistency
SCAG adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020) in September 2020. Connect SoCal 2020 is a long-range plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Table 4.2-7 summarizes Project consistency with the Connect SoCal 2020.
836
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-18
Table 4.2-7
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Project Consistency
Goal #1: Encourage
regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Community Economics Element. TOP 2050 Community Economics Element establishes goals and policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility. In combination, TOP 2050 Community Economics Element goals and policies act to attract new and expanding businesses to Ontario thereby increasing the City’s share of growing sectors of the regional and global economy. The Project commercial, retail, and industrial uses provide business and employment opportunities acting to further City economic prosperity. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #1. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #1.

Goal #2: Improve
mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel
safety for people and
goods
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Mobility Element. TOP 2050 Mobility Element identifies the system of roadways all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. Per TOP 2050 Mobility Element, transportation system designs within the City are required to:
• Comply with federal, state, and local design and safety standards; • Meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users; • Provide capacity envisioned in the City of Ontario Master Plan of Streets and Highways;
• Be compatible with the streetscape and surrounding land uses: and • Promote the efficient flow of all modes of transportation through the implementation of intelligent transportation systems and travel demand management strategies.

As applicable, the Project Applicant would coordinate design and construction of Project transportation system improvements with the City, Caltrans, SBCTA, and others to identify, fund, and implement needed improvements. The Applicant would also comply with City of Ontario requirements addressing transportation corridors enhancements. Streets implemented by the Project would comply with applicable City addressing walkability, bicycling opportunities, and transit integration. As applicable, the Applicant would also coordinate with potentially affected agencies and municipalities to plan and implement goods movement strategies and plans, as well as improvements that support and the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #2. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #2.

Goal #3: Enhance the
preservation, security,
and resilience of the
regional transportation
system
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 Goal M-5. Under TOP 2050 Goal M-5, the City takes a proactive leadership role identifying and facilitating strategies addressing regional transportation challenges. As applicable, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the City, ONT, railroads, Caltrans, SBCTA, and other transportation agencies with regard to preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. The Project Applicant would also coordinate with potentially affected agencies and municipalities to plan and 837
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-19
Table 4.2-7
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Project Consistency
implement goods movement strategies and plans, and improvements that support and the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts. Additionally, the Project Applicant would coordinate with the City and transit agencies to implement transit service and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of SoCal Goal #3. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #3.

Goal #4: Increase person
and goods movement
and travel choices within
the transportation system
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050. The final Project designs would be required to comply with TOP 2050 Policies addressing implementation of multimodal transportation systems meeting the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. The Project Applicant would also coordinate with the City and transit agencies to implement transit service and thereby reduce vehicle miles traveled. Additionally, the Project Applicant would coordinate with potentially affected agencies and municipalities to plan and implement goods movement strategies and plans, and improvements that support and the efficient movement of goods, while avoiding or minimizing potentially adverse environmental impacts.

The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #4. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #4.

It is recognized that the Project would result in certain regionally significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. The Project would implement measures that would reduce these impacts to the extent feasible (please refer to EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.18). The Project would not result in any locally significant air quality impacts, or air quality conditions that would result in adverse health effects. (see: EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality). The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #5. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #5.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-20
Table 4.2-7
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Project Consistency
housing products and employment-generating commercial and industrial uses, thereby furthering City goals to provide a range of housing types and employment opportunities. In this regard, the Project acts to improve the balance between jobs and housing in the San Bernardino County subregion while reducing vehicle miles traveled and associated air quality impacts and air quality related health impacts.

As substantiated in this EIR, the Project would not result in any adverse health impacts. All Project uses would be required to provide equitable access for all persons. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #6. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #6.

Goal #7: Adapt to a
changing climate and
support an integrated
regional development
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and the 2022 CCAP Update implemented under TOP 2050. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Project GHG emissions would be reduced to the extent feasible. In this regard, certain of the Mitigation Measures identified at 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. Collocated housing, commercial uses, and industrial development proposed by the Project support integrated development within the City and region. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #7. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #7.

Goal #8: Leverage new
transportation
technologies and datadriven solutions that
result in more efficient
travel
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 Mobility Element. The Mobility Element identifies the system of roadways all users of streets, roads, and highways, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods and users of public transportation. The Project supports efficient travel through collocation of complementary uses proximate to local and regional roadway systems. The Project final designs would include pedestrian and bicycle access and associated amenities consistent with City requirements. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #8. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #8.

Goal #9: Encourage
development of diverse
housing types in areas
that are supported by
multiple transportation
options
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 housing policies. The Project provides a range of housing products available to all persons. The Project site is currently served by improved roadways, and the Project would construct new and improved roadways adequate to serve traffic within the Project site, and ensure that Project traffic does not contribute to or case adverse traffic conditions. The Project final designs would include pedestrian and bicycle access and associated amenities consistent with City requirements. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #9. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #9.

Goal #10: Promote
conservation of natural
Consistent: The Project is consistent with and supports TOP 2050. TOP 2050 Goal ER-5 is to protect high value habitat and farming resource activities that are 839
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-21
Table 4.2-7
Project Consistency with Connect SoCal 2020
Connect SoCal 2020 Goal Project Consistency
and agricultural lands
and restoration of
habitats
compatible with adjacent development. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.10, Biological Resources there are no valuable or protected natural agricultural lands or habitat within the Project site. This EIR further substantiates that the Project would not result in potentially adverse biological resources impacts. The Project does not propose or require improvements or operations that would conflict with or obstruct attainment of Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #10. On this basis, the Project is consistent with Connect SoCal 2020 Goal #10.

Sources: Connect SoCal 2020; TOP 2050 SEIR; remarks by Applied Planning, Inc.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact TR-2: Substantially increase hazards to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access.

Impact Analysis: As part of the City’s established design review processes, design and implementation of all Project circulation improvements, as well as final design(s) of the Project site plan(s), to include locations and design of proposed driveways, would be required to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. In addition, as part of the City’s established design review processes, representatives of the City’s Police and Fire Departments would review the Project’s plans in regard to 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 840
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Transportation Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.2-22
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. 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), incorporated in the EIR Project Description, would be required to 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.

As supported by the preceding discussions, the potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or result in inadequate emergency access is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
841

4.3 AIR QUALITY
842
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-1

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Abstract
This Section identifies and addresses potential air quality impacts that may result from construction and implementation of the Project. More specifically, the air quality analysis presented here evaluates the potential for the Project to result in the following impacts:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

As discussed within this Section, even with the implementation of mitigation, the Project will result in certain significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Specifically, Project construction-source emissions would exceed applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for NOx and CO. Project operational-source emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. All other Project air quality impacts would be less-than-significant or less-than-significant as mitigated.

4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section presents existing air quality conditions and identifies potential air quality impacts resulting from construction and operations of the Project. Local and regional climate, meteorology and air quality are discussed, as well as existing federal, state and regional air quality regulations. The information presented in this Section is 843
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-2
summarized from: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022 (Project AQIA); and RichHaven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Mobile Source Heath Risk Assessment, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022 (Project HRA). The Project AQIA and Project HRA, including all supporting modeling data, are presented at EIR Appendix D.

4.3.2 AIR QUALITY FUNDAMENTALS
Air pollution comprises many substances generated from a variety of sources, both man-made and natural. Industrialization occurring in the twentieth century, and especially activities relying on the burning of fossil fuels, creates air pollution. Most air pollutant contaminants are wasted energy in the form of unburned fuels or by-products of the combustion process. Motor vehicles are by far the most significant source of air pollutants in urban areas, emitting photochemically reactive hydrocarbons (unburned fuel), carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. These primary pollutants chemically react in the atmosphere with sunlight and the passage of time to form secondary pollutants such as ozone.

Air pollutants are generally classified as either primary or secondary pollutants.

Primary pollutants are generated daily and emitted directly from the source, whereas secondary pollutants are created over time and occur within the atmosphere as chemical and photochemical reactions take place. Examples of primary pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO2 and NO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and various hydrocarbons or reactive organic gases (ROG). Examples of secondary pollutants include ozone (O3), which is a product of the reaction between NOX and ROG in the presence of sunlight. Other secondary pollutants include photochemical aerosols.

To aid in the review of discussions presented subsequently in this Section, recurring terms, abbreviations, and acronyms are defined as follows: PPM - Parts per Million; µg/m3 - Micrograms Per Cubic Meter; PM10 - Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns In Diameter; PM2.5 - Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns In Diameter. 844
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-3

4.3.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are those air contaminants for which air quality standards currently exist. Currently, state and federal air quality standards exist for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead. California has also set standards for visibility, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Evaluated criteria air contaminants, or their precursors, typically also include reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur oxides (SOx), and respirable particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5). Pollutant characteristics, mechanisms of pollutant origination and potential health effects of air pollutants are described below.

Carbon Monoxide
Properties and Sources
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO levels tend to be highest during the winter mornings, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels.

Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. Other sources include aircraft, off-road vehicles, stationary equipment (e.g., fuel-fired furnaces, gas water heaters, fireplaces, gas stoves, gas dryers, charcoal grills), and landscape maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers and leaf blowers.

Human Health Effects
A consistent association between increased ambient CO levels and higher-than-average rates of hospital admissions for heart diseases (such as congestive heart failure) has been observed. Carbon monoxide can cause decreased exercise capacity, and adversely affects conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply (fetal development, chronic hypoxemia, anemia, and diseases involving the heart and blood vessels).

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-4
Ozone
Properties and Sources
Ozone (O3) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of the pollutant.

Human Health Effects
Short-term exposure to ozone can cause a decline in pulmonary function in healthy individuals including breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue and immunological changes. Additionally, an increase in the frequency of asthma attacks, cough, chest discomfort and headache can result.

A correlation has been reported between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates and mortality because of long-term ozone exposure. A risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and host defense in animals has also been reported.

Oxides of Nitrogen
Properties and Sources
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) are integral to the process of photochemical smog production.

During combustion, oxygen reacts with nitrogen to produce NOX. Two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Natural causal sources or originators of NOX include lightning, soils, wildfires, stratospheric intrusion, and the oceans. Natural sources accounted for approximately seven percent of 1990 emissions of NOX for the United States (EPA 1997). Atmospheric deposition of NOX occurs when atmospheric or airborne nitrogen is transferred to water, vegetation, soil, or other 846
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-5
materials. Acid deposition involves the deposition of nitrogen and/or sulfur acidic compounds that can harm natural resources and materials. The major source of NOX in the Basin is on-road vehicles. Stationary commercial and service source fuel combustion are other contributors.

Human Health Effects
Exposure to NOX may alter sensory responses or impair pulmonary function and may increase incidence of acute respiratory disease including infections and respiratory symptoms in children. Difficulty breathing in healthy individuals, as well as bronchitic groups, may also occur. NOX is also a precursor to ozone and PM10/PM2.5. As noted above, health effects of ground-level ozone include: aggravated asthma; reduced lung capacity; increased respiratory illness susceptibility; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; and premature deaths.

Sulfur Dioxide
Properties and Sources
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas. At levels greater than 0.5 ppm, SO2 has a strong odor. Sulfuric acid is formed from sulfur dioxide, which is an aerosol particle component that affects acid deposition. Anthropogenic, or human-caused, sources include fossil-fuel combustion, mineral ore processing, and chemical manufacturing.

Volcanic emissions are a natural source of sulfur dioxide. SO2 is a precursor to sulfates and PM10.

Human Health Effects
Health effects of SO2 include higher frequencies of acute respiratory symptoms (including airway constriction in some asthmatics and reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe difficulties) and diminished ventilatory function in children. Extreme exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and damage to lining of the respiratory tract.
847
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-6
Particulate Matter
Properties and Sources
Particulate matter is a generic term that defines a broad group of chemically and physically different particles (either liquid droplets or solids) that can exist over a wide range of sizes. Examples of atmospheric particles include those produced from combustion (diesel soot or fly ash), light (urban haze), sea spray (salt particles), and soillike particles from re-suspended dust. Fugitive dust is defined as any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne, other than that emitted from an exhaust stack, directly or indirectly because of human activities (Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, MDAQMD).

Within air quality analyses, particulate matter is categorized by diameter: PM10 and PM2.5. PM10 refers to particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter (1 micron is one millionth of a meter, or one micrometer [µm]). PM2.5 refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter. The size of particles can determine the residence time of the material in the atmosphere. PM2.5 has a longer atmospheric lifetime than PM10 and, therefore, can be transported over longer distances.

Particulate matter originates from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources that generate particulate matter include: fuel combustion for electric utilities, residential space heating, and industrial processes; construction and demolition; metals, minerals, and petrochemicals; wood products processing; mills and elevators used in agriculture; erosion from tilled lands; waste disposal and recycling. Mobile or transportation-related sources that generate particulate matter include highway vehicles, non-road vehicles and fugitive dust from paved and unpaved roads. 848
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-7
Human Health Effects
A consistent correlation between elevated ambient PM10 levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed.1
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), a subcategory of particulate matter, is a mixture of many exhaust particles and gases that is produced when an engine burns diesel fuel.

Many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic, including sixteen compounds that are classified as possibly carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust.

Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, as well as coughs, headaches, light-headedness and nausea. Diesel exhaust is a major source of ambient particulate matter pollution, and numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admission, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. DPM in the Basin poses the greatest cancer risk of all identified toxic air pollutants.

Additionally, Valley Fever may also be transmitted through PM10 and PM2.5 emissions.

The Mayo Clinic provides the following overview of Valley Fever.

Valley fever is a fungal infection caused by coccidioides (kok-sid-e-OYdeze) organisms. It can cause signs and symptoms such as a fever, cough and tiredness.

Two coccidioides fungi species cause valley fever. These fungi are commonly found in soil in specific regions. The fungi’s spores can be stirred into the air by anything that disrupts the soil, such as farming, construction and wind. People can then breathe the fungi into their lungs. 1 www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/appendix-c.pdf 849
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-8
The fungi can cause valley fever, also known as acute coccidioidomycosis (kok-sid-e-oy-doh-my-KOH-sis). Mild cases of valley fever usually resolve on their own. In more-severe cases, doctors treat the infection with antifungal medications.2
Reactive Organic Gases
Properties and Sources
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) (also termed Volatile Organic Compounds [VOCs]) are defined as any compound of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions. There is no state or national ambient air quality standard for ROGs because they are not classified as criteria pollutants. They are regulated, however, because a reduction in ROG emissions reduces certain chemical reactions that contribute to the formulation of ozone. ROGs are also transformed into organic aerosols in the atmosphere, which contribute to higher PM10 and lower visibility. The major sources of ROGs in the Basin are on-road motor vehicles and solvent evaporation. ROGs are also an ozone and PM10/PM2.5 precursor.

Human Health Effects
As described previously, health effects of ground-level ozone include: aggravated asthma; reduced lung capacity; increased respiratory illness susceptibility; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; and premature deaths.

Benzene is a reactive organic compound and a known carcinogen. Typical sources of benzene emissions include: gasoline service stations (fuel evaporation), motor vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and oil and coal incineration. Benzene is also sometimes employed as a solvent for paints, inks, oils, waxes, plastic, and rubber. It is used in the extraction of oils from seeds and nuts. It is also used in the manufacture of detergents, 2 “Valley Fever - Symptoms and Causes.“ Mayo Clinic, 4 Aug. 2020, www.mayoclinic.org/diseasesconditions/valley-fever/symptoms-causes/syc-20378761. Accessed 19 Apr. 2022. 850
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-9
explosives, dyestuffs, and pharmaceuticals. Short-term (acute) exposure to high doses from inhalation of benzene may cause dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory tract irritation, and at higher levels, unconsciousness can occur. Long-term (chronic) occupational exposure to high doses by inhalation has caused blood disorders, including aplastic anemia and lower levels of red blood cells.

4.3.3 SETTING

4.3.3.1 Local and Regional Climate
The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), a 6,745-square-mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards.

The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the San Diego Air Basin to the south.

The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the Basin. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality.

The annual average temperatures throughout the Basin vary from the low to middle 60s degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the Basin shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the Basin, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-10
Although the climate of the Basin can be characterized as semi-arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of Basin climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the Basin, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfates (SO4) is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the Basin is 71 percent (%) along the coast and 59% inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast.

More than 90% of the Basin’s rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable.

Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the Basin with frequency being higher near the coast.

Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the Basin. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year, there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year, there are approximately 14½ hours of possible sunshine.

The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the Basin is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest.

This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed “Santa Anas” each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind 852
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-11
flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean.

Another characteristic wind regime in the Basin is the “Catalina Eddy,” a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections.

In the Basin, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire Basin. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level.

A second inversion-type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air.

The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NOX) and carbon monoxide (CO) from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline.
853
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-12

4.3.3.2 Existing Air Quality
Existing air quality is measured at established SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.

The determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the state if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3, CO (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1 and 24 hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. Conversely, nonattainment means that an area has monitored air quality that does not meet the NAAQS or CAAQS standards. In order to improve air quality in nonattainment areas, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) is drafted by CARB. The SIP outlines the measures that the state will take to improve air quality.

Once nonattainment areas meet the standards and additional redesignation requirements, the EPA will designate the area as a maintenance area. Please refer also to the Project AQIA, Table 2-2, Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Regional Air Quality
Air pollution contributes to a wide variety of adverse health effects. The EPA has established NAAQS for six of the most common air pollutants: CO, Pb, O3, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), NO2, and SO2 which are known as criteria pollutants. The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 37 permanent monitoring stations and 5 single-pollutant source Pb air monitoring sites throughout the air district.

On January 5, 2021, CARB posted the 2020 amendments to the state and national area designations. See Table 4.3-1 for attainment designations for the Basin. 854
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-13
Table 4.3-1
Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status Designations
Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation O3 – 1-hour standard Nonattainment --
O3 – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Pb Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Local Air Quality
The Project site is located within the Southwest San Bernardino Valley area (Source Receptor Areas [SRA] 33). The CA-60 Near Road monitoring station is located 2.52 miles northwest of the Project site and is the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for NO2 and PM2.5. The SCAQMD I-10 Near Road monitoring station is located 4.24 miles northeast of the Project site and is the next nearest monitoring site within SRA 33.

The I-10 Near Road monitoring station provides data for CO. Relative to the Project site, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for O3 and PM10 is the SCAQMD Northwest San Bernardino Valley (SRA 32) monitoring station located 7.17 miles northwest of the Project site. It should be noted that the Northwest San Bernardino Valley monitoring station was utilized in lieu of the CA-60 Near Road and I-10 Near Road monitoring stations only in instances where data was not available.

The most recent three (3) years of data available are shown on Table 4.3-2 and identifies the number of days ambient air quality standards were exceeded for the study area, which is considered to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site. Data for O3, CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 for 2018 through 2020 was obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Data Tables. Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the Basin and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations.
855
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-14
Table 4.3-2
Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Pollutant Standard
Year
2018 2019 2020
O3
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.133 0.131 0.158 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration (ppm) 0.111 0.107 0.123 Number of Days Exceeding State 1-Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 25 31 82 Number of Days Exceeding State/Federal 8-Hour Standard > 0.070 ppm 52 52 114 CO
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 35 ppm 1.6 1.5 1.5 Maximum Federal 8-Hour Concentration > 20 ppm 1.3 1.1 1.2 NO2
Maximum Federal 1-Hour Concentration > 0.100 ppm 0.079 0.087 0.101 Annual Federal Standard Design Value 0.030 0.029 0.029
PM10
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 150 µg/m3 73 125 63 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) 32.3 28.1 30.5
Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding State 24-Hour Standard > 50 µg/m3 14 7 12 PM2.5
Maximum Federal 24-Hour Concentration (µg/m3) > 35 µg/m3 47.90 41.30 53.10 Annual Federal Arithmetic Mean (µg/m3) > 12 µg/m3 14.31 12.70 14.36 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 24-Hour Standard > 35 µg/m3 5 5 4 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

4.3.4 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

4.3.4.1 Federal Regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O3, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and lead. The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the California Air Resource Board (CARB). 856
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-15
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the NAAQS, and specifies NAAQS compliance dates. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these Standards. SIPs must include pollution control measures demonstrating how Standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non-Attainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile Source Provisions).

Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the criteria pollutants: O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O3 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5.

Mobile-source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and NOx. NOx is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process.

4.3.4.2 California
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
CARB, which became part of the California EPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. The California CAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions 857
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-16
possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. However, at this time, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem.

Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS.

Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from commercial and light industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non-attainment for each CAAQS.

Serious non-attainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans (AQMPs) that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include:
• Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g., motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development);
• A District-permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions;
• Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a five percent or more annual reduction in emissions or 15 percent or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NOx, CO and PM10. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than five percent per year under certain circumstances.
858
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-17
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 Part 6: Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The Title 24 standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis presented herein reflects compliance with the current (2019) Title 24 Standards. The 2019 California Energy Code can be accessed at: https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CACEC2019JAN20E/cover.

Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code
CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2011. CALGreen is updated on a regular basis. The most recent (2019) update to the CALGreen standards became effective January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements.

The California Green Building Standards Code can be accessed at:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2019JUL21S/cover. The Project would be required to comply with incumbent CALGreen standards, or more stringent requirements as may be implemented by the City. Representative 2019 CALGreen standards applicable to the Project are listed below. CALGreen Section citations are parenthesized.
• Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
859
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-18
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenantoccupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table

5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1. 5.408.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1). • Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1). • Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed

1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed

0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floormounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2). o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all 860
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-19
showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2). o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1).

Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than

0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1).
• Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2). • Outdoor water use in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf. Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3). • Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).
861
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-20

4.3.4.3 Regional
Air Quality Management Plans
The Project site is located within the Basin, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743-square-mile area consisting of the four-county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what used to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the SCAG, county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards.

Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of AQMPs to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy.

In March 2017, the SCAQMD released the 2016 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, and to explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2012 AQMP, the 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the RTP/SCS, a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal Clean Air Act requirements. Project consistency with the current SCAQMD AQMP is provided subsequently within this Section. 862
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-21

4.3.5 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As identified within the CEQA Guidelines, air quality impacts would be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors;
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

4.3.5.1 SCAQMD Thresholds
To determine if a given project would cause a significant effect on air quality, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and their impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a given project can be evaluated to assist lead agencies in determining if the impacts of a project are significant. If the project’s air pollutant emissions exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds, then the impact should be considered significant. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency, the SCAQMD recommends that its regional and local air quality thresholds for regulated pollutants (summarized below) be employed by lead agencies in determining whether criteria air pollutant emissions impacts generated by construction or operations of a given project are significant. 863
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-22
Regional Thresholds
SCAQMD regional thresholds are summarized in Table 4.3-3. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the Basin with daily regional emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

Table 4.3-3
Maximum Daily Emissions Regional Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Threshold Operational Threshold
NOx 100 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
VOC 75 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
PM10 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
PM2.5 55 lbs./day 55 lbs./day
SOx 150 lbs./day 150 lbs./day
CO 550 lbs./day 550 lbs./day
Pb 3 lbs./day 3 lbs./day
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (CO “hot spots”) Thresholds CO “hot spots” are areas of carbon monoxide concentrations exceeding national or state air quality standards. CO hotspots typically occur because of excessive vehicular idling, often associated with traffic backups at underperforming intersections or congested roadway links. A project’s localized CO emissions impacts would be significant if they exceed the following California standards for localized CO concentrations:
• 1-hour CO standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm);
• 8-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm.

Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)
LSTs represent the maximum localized emissions concentrations that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or CAAQS) at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-23
than 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SCAQMD states that the Lead Agency may, at the Agency’s discretion, employ LSTs as another indicator of significance in air quality impact analyses.

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Thresholds
Carcinogenic Risks
Pursuant to SCAQMD thresholds, impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are considered potentially significant if a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shows an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 incidents per million population.

Noncarcinogenic Risks
Noncarcinogenic risks are numerically expressed as a Hazard Index (HI), with a threshold HI of 1.0. Pursuant to SCAQMD thresholds, noncarcinogenic Hazard Indices calculated to be greater than 1.0 are considered potentially significant.

4.3.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.3.6.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant air quality impacts, pursuant to comments received through the NOP process, and based on the analysis presented within this Section and included within the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A). Please refer also to Initial Study Checklist Item III., Air Quality.

Of the CEQA threshold considerations identified above at Section 4.3.5, and as substantiated in the Initial Study, the Project’s potential impacts under the following topic are determined to have a less-than-significant impact and are not further substantively discussed here:
• Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
865
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-24
All other CEQA topics concerning the Project’s potential impacts to air quality are discussed below.

4.3.6.2 Impact Statements
Following is an analysis of potential air quality impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the Project. Potential emissions are considered for Project construction and operation. For each topical discussion, potential impacts are evaluated under applicable criteria established above at Section 4.3.5, Standards of Significance.

Potential Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact Analysis: Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the 1993 CEQA Handbook. These indicators are discussed below:

CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 1
To be considered consistent with Criterion No. 1, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS.

CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

Construction Impacts
As discussed subsequently in this Section at Impact Statement AQ-2, even after implementation of mitigation measures, Project construction-source emissions would 866
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-25
exceed regional significance thresholds for NOX and CO emissions.3 As such, Project construction-source emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Project construction-source emissions could therefore cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Project construction-source emissions would therefore conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1.

Operational Impacts
As discussed subsequently in this Section at Impact Statement AQ-2, even after implementation of mitigation, 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. Project operational-source emissions could therefore cause, or contribute to, new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Project operational-source emissions would therefore conflict with Consistency Criterion No. 1.4 CONSISTENCY CRITERION NO. 2
To be considered consistent with Criterion No. 2, the Project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase.

The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the Basin are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality 3 Project construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Impacts in this regard would be less-than-significant. 4 Project operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Impacts in this regard would be less-than-significant. 867
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-26
forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the City of Ontario General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Construction Impacts
The Project is consistent with TOP 2050, and therefore would not result in growth exceeding SCAG projections, or emissions attributable to growth projections modeled by SCAG. Moreover, peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. On this basis, Project construction-source emissions would not conflict with Criterion No. 2.

Operational Impacts
Uses proposed by the Project are allowed under the site’s current General Plan (Policy Plan) Land Use designations. No General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required in conjunction with the Project. The Project would not result in growth or development not anticipated under the AQMP. Project operational-source emissions are reflected in the AQMP assumptions and would not result in AQMP inconsistencies.

Development of the City pursuant to TOP 2050 Policy Plan is reflected in Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planning efforts and policies presented in The 2016 – 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG) April 2016 (2016 – 2040 RTP/SCS) and subsequent 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal). The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 Policy Plan and by extension is reflected in SCAG planning efforts and policies.

The Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (SCAG) 2008 (2008 RCP) defines a vision for the SCAG region to be implemented under a strategic plan addressing the regions interrelated housing, traffic, water and air quality issues. The 2008 RCP does not mandate planning actions. SCAG does, however, request that local governments 868
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-27
consider the 2008 RCP recommendations in developing or amending local plans, codes, design guidelines, and other related actions. SCAG promotes use of the 2008 RCP as an advisory policy document for voluntary use by local agencies. The Project does not propose or require actions that would somehow conflict with 2008 RCP advisory policies.

On this basis, Project operational-source emissions would not conflict with Criterion No. 2.

AQMP CONSISTENCY CONCLUSION
As presented above, the Project is consistent with AQMP Consistency Criteria No. 2, and in this respect would not conflict with the AQMP. However, Project constructionsource emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of VOCs, NOx and CO. Operational-source emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Project would be inconsistent with AQMP Consistency Criteria No. 1.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project would be inconsistent with AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 1 and would therefore conflict with the AQMP. On this basis, the Project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan is considered significant and unavoidable.

Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable.

Potential Impact AQ-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal [national] or state ambient air quality standard.

Impact Analysis: The following discussions present air quality emissions that can be expected during the construction and operations of the Project. 869
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-28

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:

Phase 1
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Phase 2
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Construction is expected to commence in January 2023 and will end in December 2026.

The assumed construction schedule represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario. Should construction occur any time after the respective dates indicated, emissions would be reduced. This is due to decreased emission factors for construction activities and construction equipment in future years, and increasing stringency of emission regulations. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines.

Using the construction equipment and schedule assumptions contained in the Air Quality Analysis, Table 4.3-4 presents the emissions associated with construction of the Project.
870
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-29
Table 4.3-4
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Year
Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 (Phase 1) 15.10 147.00 122.00 0.25 26.60 15.60
2024 (Phase 1) 286.00 105.00 484.00 0.24 68.80 18.50
2024 (Phase 2) 13.80 130.00 111.00 0.21 24.90 14.60
2025 (Phase 2) 12.60 101.00 195.00 0.21 28.20 7.73
2026 (Phase 2) 199.00 73.20 248.00 0.17 34.70 9.84
Winter
2023 (Phase 1) 24.40 147.00 323.00 0.25 57.00 15.60
2024 (Phase 1) 285.00 109.00 387.00 0.24 68.80 18.50
2024 (Phase 2) 12.20 116.00 99.60 0.21 14.90 8.26
2025 (Phase 2) 12.00 101.00 158.00 0.21 28.20 7.73
2026 (Phase 2) 198.00 74.50 207.00 0.17 34.70 9.84
Maximum Daily Emissions 299.80 235.00 595.00 0.45 93.70 33.10 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO NO NO
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

As shown, Project construction emissions would exceed applicable thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

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.
871
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-30

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.

Table 4.3-5 presents the emissions associated with construction of the Project after mitigation.

Table 4.3-5
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – With Mitigation
Year Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2023 (Phase 1) 3.03 70.40 120.00 0.25 19.40 8.96
2024 (Phase 1) 70.10 97.70 491.00 0.24 66.60 16.50
2024 (Phase 2) 2.85 63.20 115.00 0.21 18.50 8.69
2025 (Phase 2) 10.20 63.00 201.00 0.21 27.20 6.79
2026 (Phase 2) 49.30 73.10 256.00 0.17 33.10 8.45
Winter
2023 (Phase 1) 21.70 74.50 329.00 0.25 55.60 13.60
2024 (Phase 1) 68.60 102.00 394.00 0.24 66.60 16.50
2024 (Phase 2) 2.83 63.30 114.00 0.21 10.10 3.91
2025 (Phase 2) 9.69 63.10 164.00 0.21 27.20 6.79
2026 (Phase 2) 48.60 74.40 215.00 0.17 33.10 8.45
872
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-31
Table 4.3-5
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – With Mitigation
Year Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 72.95 165.30 606.00 0.45 85.10 25.19 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO YES YES NO NO NO
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

As shown above, even after implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.6, Project construction-source emissions would exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of NOx and CO.

Level of Significant After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable (NOx and CO emissions regional threshold exceedances only).

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Equipment Source Emissions
• TRU Source Emissions
• Gasoline Dispensing Emissions
Using the operational assumptions contained in the Air Quality Analysis, Tables 4.3-6 and 4.3-7 present the emissions associated with operations of the Phase 1 (2024) and Project Buildout (2027).
873
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-32
Table 4.3-6
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions – Phase 1 (2024)
Source Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 242.00 295.00 1,792.00 4.59 141.00 29.10
Area Source 236.00 61.40 387.00 0.39 4.95 5.04
Energy Source 2.27 39.90 24.30 0.25 3.14 3.14
TRU Source 12.61 13.81 1.50 0.00 0.59 0.54
On-Site Equipment 1.17 3.75 164.45 0.00 0.29 0.27
Gasoline Dispensing 53.58 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 547.63 413.87 2,369.25 5.23 149.97 38.09 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 224.00 314.00 1,545.00 4.36 141.00 29.10
Area Source 193.00 58.00 24.70 0.37 4.69 4.69
Energy Source 2.27 39.90 24.30 0.25 3.14 3.14
TRU Source 12.61 13.81 1.50 0.00 0.59 0.54
On-Site Equipment 1.17 3.75 164.45 0.00 0.29 0.27
Gasoline Dispensing 53.58 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 486.63 429.47 1,759.95 4.98 149.71 37.74 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO NO NO
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Table 4.3-7
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions – Project Buildout (2027) Source Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 455.00 432.00 3,250.00 8.48 287.00 57.00
Area Source 350.00 99.80 581.00 0.63 8.01 8.13
Energy Source 3.45 60.50 35.70 0.38 4.77 4.77
TRU Source 12.61 13.81 1.50 0.00 0.59 0.54
On-Site Equipment 1.17 3.75 164.45 0.00 0.29 0.27
Gasoline Dispensing 107.16 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 929.39 609.87 4,032.65 9.49 300.66 70.71 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES YES
874
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-33
Table 4.3-7
Summary of Peak Operational Emissions – Project Buildout (2027) Source Emissions (lbs./day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Winter
Mobile Source 424.00 460.00 2,800.00 8.00 287.00 57.10
Area Source 289.30 94.70 40.30 0.60 7.66 7.66
Energy Source 3.45 60.50 35.70 0.38 4.77 4.77
TRU Source 12.61 13.81 1.50 0.00 0.59 0.54
On-Site Equipment 1.17 3.75 164.45 0.00 0.29 0.27
Gasoline Dispensing 107.16 0 0 0 0 0
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 837.69 632.77 3,041.95 8.98 300.31 70.34 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? YES YES YES NO YES YES
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

As shown above, 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 California Emissions Estimator Model (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.

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 875
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-34
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:

4.3.7 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 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.
876
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-35

4.3.11 The following or similar language shall be included in lease/sale agreements for all nonresidential 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 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 877
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-36
Rule 2202 with annual reporting of actions and results to the City. The tenantimplemented 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 nonresidential 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.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-37
Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

LST EMISSIONS
Tables 4.3-8 and 4.3-9 show the localized emissions associated with Project construction and operations, respectively.

Table 4.3-8
LST Summary – Peak Construction
Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 0.03 0.01 1.23E-02 0.41 0.16 Background Concentration 1.6 1.3 0.101 - -
Total Concentration 1.63 1.31 0.11 0.41 0.16
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 20 9 0.18 10.4 10.4 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm Table 4.3-9
LST Summary – Operations
Peak Construction
CO NO2 PM10 PM2.5
Averaging Time
1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 24-Hours 24-Hours
Peak Day Localized Emissions 1.19E-01 9.06E-02 1.31E-02 1.98 0.81 Background Concentration 1.6 1.3 0.101 - -
Total Concentration 1.72 1.39 0.11 1.98 0.81
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold 20 9 0.18 2.5 2.5 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Note: PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are expressed in µg/m3. All others are expressed in ppm As shown above, localized emissions associated with construction and operations of the Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions of any criterial pollutant.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-38

CO HOTSPOT EMISSIONS
To establish baseline CO concentrations within the Southern California region, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted in 2003 for four busy intersections in Los Angeles during the peak morning and afternoon traffic periods (2003 Hot Spot Analysis). Table 4.3-10 presents the results of the 2003 Hot Spot Analysis. As indicated, the 2003 Hot Spot Analysis did not predict any violation of CO standards.

Table 4.3-10
2003 Los Angeles Study-Hot Spot Analysis Results
Intersection Location
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (parts /million, ppm)
Morning
1-Hour
Afternoon
1-Hour
CA
1-Hour Std. 8-Hour CA8-Hour Std.

Wilshire-Veteran 4.6 3.5

20.0 3.7

9.0 Sunset-Highland 4.0 4.5 3.5
La Cienega-Century 3.7 3.1 5.2
Long Beach-Imperial 3.0 3.1 8.4*
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Based on the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the Basin were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of traffic volumes and congestion at a particular intersection. As evidence of this, for example,

8.4 ppm 8-hr CO concentration measured at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. intersection (highest CO generating intersection within the “hot spot” analysis), only 0.7 ppm was attributable to the traffic volumes and congestion at this intersection; the remaining 7.7 ppm were due to the ambient air measurements at the time the 2003 AQMP was prepared. In contrast, an adverse CO concentration, known as a “hot spot”, would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur.

The ambient 1-hr and 8-hr CO concentration within the Project study area is estimated to be 1.5 ppm and 1.2 ppm, respectively (data from I-10 Near Road station for 2020).

Therefore, even if the traffic volumes for the proposed Project were double or even triple of the traffic volumes generated at the Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Hwy. 880
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-39
intersection, coupled with the on-going improvements in ambient air quality, the Project would not be capable of resulting in a CO “hot spot” at any study area intersections.

The 2003 AQMP estimated that the 1-hour concentration for the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection was 4.6 ppm; this indicates that, should the daily traffic volume increase four times to 400,000 vehicles per day, CO concentrations (4.6 ppm x 4=

18.4 ppm) would still not likely exceed the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm). The highest trips on a segment of road that the Project would generate is 73,850 vehicles per day on the I-15 Southbound (SB) Ramps and Galleano Ranch Road.

Traffic volumes generating the CO concentrations for the “hot spot” analysis is shown on Table 4.3-11. The busiest intersection evaluated for traffic volumes was at La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard, which has a traffic volume of approximately 8,674 vph. As shown on Table 4.3-12, the highest trips on a segment of road for the proposed Project is 7,935 vph on Hamner Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road. As such, Projectrelated traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP.

Table 4.3-11
2003 Los Angeles Study Hot Spot Analysis-Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Intersection
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (vph)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Northbound
(AM/PM) Total (AM/PM)
Wilshire-Veteran 4,954/2,069 1,830/3,317 721/1,400 560/933 8,062/7,719 Sunset-Highland 1,417/1,764 1,342/1,540 2,304/1,832 1,551/2,238 6,614/5,374 La Cienega-Century 2,540/2,243 1,890/2,728 1,384/2,029 821/1,674 6,634/8,674 Long Beach-Imperial 1,217/2,020 1,760/1,400 479/944 756/1,150 4,212/5,514 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-40
Table 4.3-12
Opening Year Cumulative (2027) With Project Traffic Volumes Intersection
Peak Traffic Volumes (vph)
Northbound
(AM/PM)
Southbound
(AM/PM)
Eastbound
(AM/PM)
Westbound
(AM/PM)
Total
(AM/PM)
Hamner Ave. & Ontario Ranch Rd. 1,499/1,383 921/1,306 2,304/2,769 2,524/2,477 7,249/7,935 I-15 SB Ramps & Cantu Galleano
Rd. 0/0 1,916/2,046 2,237/2,875 1,481/1,452 5,635/6,373 Haven Ave. & Ontario Ranch Rd. 730/457 1,412/1,654 1,494/2,065 1,998/2,052 5,634/6,227 Haven Ave. & SR-60 WB Ramps 2,654/1,610 1,346/2,462 0/0 909/885 4,910/4,956 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Based on the preceding discission, the Project considered here would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of the 2003 Hot Spot Analysis. Therefore, CO hot spots are not considered to be an environmental concern for the Project. On this basis, the potential for the Project traffic to generate CO hot spots and thereby expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As previously presented, the CAAQS designate the Basin as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, while the NAAQS designates the Basin as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5.

The SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In this report, the SCAQMD clearly states (Page D-3):
…the AQMD uses the same significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts for all environmental topics analyzed in an Environmental Assessment or EIR. The only case where the significance thresholds for project specific and cumulative impacts differ is the Hazard Index (HI) significance threshold for TAC emissions. The project specific (project increment) significance threshold is HI > 1.0 while the cumulative 882
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-41
(facility-wide) is HI > 3.0. It should be noted that the HI is only one of three TAC emission significance thresholds considered (when applicable) in a CEQA analysis. The other two are the maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) and the cancer burden, both of which use the same significance thresholds (MICR of 10 in 1 million and cancer burden of 0.5) for project specific and cumulative impacts.

Projects that exceed the project-specific significance thresholds are considered by the SCAQMD to be cumulatively considerable. This is the reason project-specific and cumulative significance thresholds are the same. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

Per the above White Paper guidance, less-than-significant air quality impacts at the Project-level are not cumulatively significant. Conversely, significant air quality impacts at the Project-level are also cumulatively significant.

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 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. These are cumulatively significant air quality impacts.

Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable.

Potential Impact AQ-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Impact Analysis: Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, 883
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-42
playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors.

Sensitive receptors in the Project study area are illustrated at Figure 4.3-1 and are described below:

R1: Location R1 represents the Colony High School Football Stadium, approximately 76 feet north of the Project site. R1 is placed in the bleachers just north of Planning Area (PA) 1.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing residence at 3271 S. Quincy Way, approximately 219 feet east of the Project site. R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site.

R3: Location R3 represents an on-site receiver location within the planned PA 7 residential mixed use overlay area. R3 is placed approximately 460 feet south of the light industrial use within PA 6A.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing residence at 10823 Edison Avenue, approximately 94 feet south of the Project site. Since there are no private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site, R4 is placed at the building’s façade.

R5: Location R5 represents the existing on-site residence at 3959 S. Sunrise Avenue within the standalone residential overlay (PA 4). R5 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the light industrial use within PA 5A.

R6: Location R6 represents the existing residence at 3455 Pine Ridge Loop, approximately 150 feet west of the Project site. R6 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site.
884

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-44
R7: Location R7 represents the existing residence at 3379 S. Myrtle Drive, approximately 156 feet west of the Project site. R7 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site.

R8: Location R8 represents the existing residence at 2943 S. Alder Creek Drive, approximately 189 feet north of the Project site. R8 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site.

R9: Location R9 represents the existing worker receptor located approximately 201 feet east of the Project site. R9 is placed in the building façade facing the Project site, where a worker could potentially remain during a typical workday.

Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, the identified sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during Project construction.

Results of the LST analysis indicate that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during operational activity. Further Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, vicinity sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project construction and operations to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less-thansignificant.

Toxic Air Contaminants Health Risk Analysis
Potential Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) health risks resulting from the Project are presented in detail in Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Mobile Source Heath Risk Assessment, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022 (Project HRA, EIR Appendix D). The Project HRA was prepared in accordance with methodologies and 886
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-45
protocols presented in Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (South Coast Air Quality Management District) 2003. Of primary concern for the Project would be Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions generated by construction equipment and heavy trucks accessing the Project site. The Project HRA and its conclusions are summarized below.

Localized Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions Impacts Construction equipment employed in development of the Project, and truck traffic associated with Project operations would generate Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) identified DPM as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). In California, DPM has been identified as a carcinogen.

Potential effects of Project-source DPM emissions are summarized below. The Project is not a source of other TACs.

Carcinogenic Risks
SCAQMD cancer risk assessment methodologies and protocols were employed in the Project HRA. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) states that emissions of TACs are considered significant if a Health Risk Assessment shows an increased carcinogenic risk of greater than 10 incidents per million population. Per the stated SCAQMD Handbook cancer risk threshold, for the purposes of this analysis, an increase in cancer risk of 10 incidents per million population is considered potentially significant. Also relevant to the Project HRA, specific guidance in determining health risks from diesel emissions is provided in Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (SCAQMD) 2003.

Noncarcinogenic Risks
Evaluation of potential noncarcinogenic effects of chronic TAC exposures was also conducted. Noncarcinogenic adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing a compound’s annual concentration with its toxicity factor or Reference Exposure Level (REL).
887
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-46
The REL for diesel particulates was obtained from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The REL for DPM established by OEHHA is 5 μg/m3 (OEHHA Chemical Toxicity Database,
https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals).

The SCAQMD has established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a Hazard Index, expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A Hazard Index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non-carcinogenic exposures not exceeding the SCAQMD Hazard Index of 1.0 are considered less-than-significant.

Construction-source and operational-source DPM cancer risks are evaluated in detail at Project HRA, pp. 11 – 28. Results and conclusions of the Project HRA are summarized below.

Risk Exposure: Quantification Results
The Project HRA evaluates potential DPM exposure cancer risks at maximally exposed receptor locations. Receptor locations referenced in following discussions are illustrated at previous Figure 4.3-1.

Construction-Source DPM Emissions Impacts
As substantiated in the Project HRA, Project construction-source DPM emissions cancer risk impacts at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR, Receptor R5) would be 1.21 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0 (Project HRA, p. 25). As such, Project construction-source DPM emissions would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at the MEIR.
888
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-47
Operational-Source DPM Emissions Impacts
Residential Exposure
As substantiated in the Project HRA, Project construction-source DPM emissions cancer risk impacts at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR, Receptor R5) would be 4.77 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.03, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0 (Project HRA, p. 25). As such, Project construction-source DPM emissions would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at the MEIR.

Worker Exposure
As substantiated in the Project HRA, Project operational-source DPM emissions cancer risk impacts at the Maximum Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW, Receptor R9) would be 0.94 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.06, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD threshold of 1.0 (Project HRA, p. 26). As such, the Project operational-source DPM emissions will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk at the MEIW.

School Child Exposure
The nearest school is Colony High School, which is located adjacent to the Project site to the north. At the Maximum Exposed Individual School Child location (MEISC), the maximum incremental cancer risk impact attributable to the Project would be 0.37 in one million, which is less than the significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks attributable to the Project would be 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby school children. 889
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-48
Combined Construction-Source and Operational-Source DPM Emissions Impacts The land use with the greatest potential exposure to Project construction-source and operational-source DPM emissions is Receptor R5. At the MEIR, the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source and operationalsource DPM emissions is estimated at 5.98 in one million, which is less than the threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be 0.03, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk as a result of combined Project construction and operational activities (Project HRA, p. 26).

Friant Ranch Case Considerations
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the California Supreme Court held that an Environmental Impact Report’s (EIR) air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided.

Most local agencies, including the City of Ontario, lack the data to do their own assessment of potential health impacts from criteria air pollutant emissions, as would be required to establish customized, locally-specific thresholds of significance based on potential health impacts from an individual development project. The use of national or “generic” data to fill the gap of missing local data would not yield accurate results because such data does not capture local air patterns, local background conditions, or local population characteristics, all of which play a role in how a population experiences air pollution. Because it is impracticable to accurately isolate the exact cause of a human disease (for example, the role a particular air pollutant plays compared to the role of other allergens and genetics in causing asthma), existing scientific tools cannot accurately estimate health impacts of the Project’s air emissions without undue speculation. Instead, readers are directed to the Project’s air quality impact analysis above, which provides extensive information concerning the quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risks related to the Project’s construction and long-term operation. 890
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.3-49
Notwithstanding, the Project AQIA does evaluate the Project’s localized impact to air quality for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 by comparing the proposed Project’s on-site emissions to the SCAQMD’s applicable LST thresholds. The LST analysis presented herein substantiates that the Project would not result in emissions exceeding SCAQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less-than-significant.

SUMMARY
Project construction-source and operational source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs. Project-source DPM emissions would not result in any potentially significant impacts at Study Area receptors. Project-source CO emissions would not result in CO hot spots within the Study Area. The Project would not otherwise be a source of potentially significant pollutant emissions concentrations. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
891

4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
892
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-1

4.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Abstract
This Section identifies and addresses potential global climate change (GCC) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts that may result from construction and operation of the Project. More specifically, the analysis evaluates the potential for the Project to cause or result in the following impacts:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Lead Agency has determined that each of the CEQA GHG emissions impacts threshold conditions noted above establish a separate and independent basis upon which to substantiate the significance of the Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts.

With regard to the first threshold condition, for the purposes of evaluating environmental impacts of development-related GHG emissions, the SCAQMD GHG emissions screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year has been employed.1 1 The City understands that the 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold for residential/commercial uses was proposed by SCAQMD a decade ago and was adopted as an interim policy; however, no permanent, superseding policy or threshold has since been adopted. The 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest of which occurred in 2010). Please refer to the Project GHGA at Section 4.1, Thresholds of Significance for a detailed substantiation of and basis for use of the 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold.
893
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-2
Even with application of mitigation, Project GHG emissions would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year. On this basis, the Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. This is a significant and unavoidable impact.

With regard to the second threshold condition, the Project is substantiated herein to be 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 32/207 Scoping Plan, 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 herein, 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.

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section presents existing greenhouse gas (GHG) conditions and identifies potential GHG impacts resulting from construction and operations of the Project. The information presented in this Section is summarized from: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022 (Project GHGA). The Project GHGA and all supporting modeling data are presented at EIR Appendix E.
894
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-3

4.4.2 GREENHOUSE GASES/GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW
Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. GCC is currently one of the most controversial environmental issues in the United States, and much debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring naturally or as a result of human activity. Some data suggests that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousands or millions of years. These historical changes to the earth’s climate have occurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual development proposal, such as the Project considered herein, cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to effect a discernible change in the global climate. However, the Project may contribute to GCC through its increment of greenhouse gases (GHG) in combination with the cumulative increase in GHG from all other sources, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. This Section summarizes the potential for the Project to have a significant effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to GCC.

4.4.2.1 Global Climate Change
GCC refers to the change in average meteorological conditions with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), CH4 (Methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow 895
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-4
solar radiation into the atmosphere, but prevent heat from escaping, thus warming the atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally, as it has in the past with the previous ice ages.

4.4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the average temperature would be approximately 61̊ Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the Earth’s temperature.

GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is used as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. GWP and atmospheric lifetimes of select GHGs are summarized in Table 4.4-1.

Table 4.4-1
GWP and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs
GHG
Atmospheric
Lifetime (years)
GWP
(100-year time horizon)
2nd Assessment Report 5th Assessment Report
CO2 * 1 1
CH4 12.4 21 28
N2O 121 310 265
HFC-23 222 11,700 12,400
HFC-134a 13.4 1,300 1,300
HFC-152a 1.5 140 138
SF6 3,200 23,900 23,500
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Notes: * Per IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, Appendix 8.A, no single lifetime can be given.

Table 4.4-2 lists common GHGs, their general characteristics, sources, and health effects. 896
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-5
Table 4.4-2
GHGs, Characteristics, Sources, and Health Effects
GHG Description Sources Health Effects
Water Water is the most abundant,
important, and variable GHG in
the atmosphere. Water vapor is
not considered a pollutant; in the
atmosphere it maintains a climate
necessary for life. Changes in its
concentration are primarily
considered to be a result of climate
feedbacks related to the warming
of the atmosphere rather than a
direct result of industrialization.

Climate feedback is an indirect, or
secondary, change, either positive
or negative, that occurs within the
climate system in response to a
forcing mechanism. The feedback
loop in which water is involved is
critically important to projecting
future climate change.

As the temperature of the
atmosphere rises, more water is
evaporated from ground storage
(rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil).

Because the air is warmer, the
relative humidity can be higher
(in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’
more water when it is warmer),
leading to more water vapor in the
atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher
concentration of water vapor is
then able to absorb more thermal
indirect energy radiated from the
Earth, thus further warming the
atmosphere. The warmer
atmosphere can then hold more
water vapor and so on and so on.

This is referred to as a “positive
feedback loop.” The extent to
which this positive feedback loop
would continue is unknown as
there are also dynamics that hold
the positive feedback loop in
check. As an example, when water
vapor increases in the
atmosphere, more of it would
eventually condense into clouds,
which are more able to reflect
incoming solar radiation (thus
The main source of water
vapor is evaporation from the
oceans (approximately 85%).

Other sources include
evaporation from other water
bodies, sublimation (change
from solid to gas) from sea ice
and snow, and transpiration
from plant leaves.

There are no known direct
health effects related to water
vapor at this time. It should be
noted however that when
some pollutants react with
water vapor, the reaction forms
a transport mechanism for
some of these pollutants to
enter the human body through
water vapor.
897
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-6
Table 4.4-2
GHGs, Characteristics, Sources, and Health Effects
GHG Description Sources Health Effects
allowing less energy to reach the
earth’s surface and heat it up).

CO2 CO2 is an odorless and colorless
GHG. Since the industrial
revolution began in the mid1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has
increased dramatically in scale
and distribution. Data from the
past 50 years suggests a corollary
increase in levels and
concentrations. As an example,
prior to the industrial revolution,
CO2 concentrations were fairly
stable at 280 parts per million
(ppm). Today, they are around
370 ppm, an increase of more than
30%. Left unchecked, the
concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere is projected to
increase to a minimum of 540 ppm
by 2100 as a direct result of
anthropogenic sources.

CO2 is emitted from natural
and manmade sources.

Natural sources include: the
decomposition of dead organic
matter; respiration of bacteria,
plants, animals, and fungus;
evaporation from oceans; and
volcanic outgassing.

Anthropogenic sources
include: the burning of coal,
oil, natural gas, and wood. CO2
is naturally removed from the
air by photosynthesis,
dissolution into ocean water,
transfer to soils and ice caps,
and chemical weathering of
carbonate rocks.

Outdoor levels of CO2 are not
high enough to result in
negative health effects.

According to the National
Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH)
high concentrations of CO2 can
result in health effects such as:
headaches, dizziness,
restlessness, difficulty
breathing, sweating, increased
heart rate, increased cardiac
output, increased blood
pressure, coma, asphyxia,
and/or convulsions. It should
be noted that current
concentrations of CO2 in the
earth’s atmosphere are
estimated to be approximately
370 ppm, the actual reference
exposure level (level at which
adverse health effects typically
occur) is at exposure levels of
5,000 ppm averaged over 10
hours in a 40-hour workweek
and short-term reference
exposure levels of 30,000 ppm
averaged over a 15-minute
period.

CH4 CH4 is an extremely effective
absorber of radiation, although its
atmospheric concentration is less
than CO2 and its lifetime in the
atmosphere is brief (10-12 years),
compared to other GHGs.

CH4 has both natural and
anthropogenic sources. It is
released as part of the
biological processes in low
oxygen environments, such as
in swamplands or in rice
production (at the roots of the
plants). Over the last 50 years,
human activities such as
growing rice, raising cattle,
using natural gas, and mining
coal have added to the
atmospheric concentration of
CH4. Other anthropocentric
sources include fossil-fuel
combustion and biomass
burning.

CH4 is extremely reactive with
oxidizers, halogens, and other
halogen-containing
compounds. Exposure to
elevated levels of CH4 can
cause asphyxiation, loss of
consciousness, headache and
dizziness, nausea and
vomiting, weakness, loss of
coordination, and an increased
breathing rate.
898
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-7
Table 4.4-2
GHGs, Characteristics, Sources, and Health Effects
GHG Description Sources Health Effects
N2O N2O, also known as laughing gas,
is a colorless GHG.

Concentrations of N2O also began
to rise at the beginning of the
industrial revolution. In 1998, the
global concentration was 314
parts per billion (ppb).

N2O is produced by microbial
processes in soil and water,
including those reactions
which occur in fertilizer
containing nitrogen. In
addition to agricultural
sources, some industrial
processes (fossil fuel-fired
power plants, nylon
production, nitric acid
production, and vehicle
emissions) also contribute to its
atmospheric load. It is used as
an aerosol spray propellant,
i.e., in whipped cream bottles.

It is also used in potato chip
bags to keep chips fresh. It is
used in rocket engines and in
race cars. N2O can be
transported into the
stratosphere, be deposited on
the earth’s surface, and be
converted to other compounds
by chemical reaction.

N2O can cause dizziness,
euphoria, and sometimes
slight hallucinations. In small
doses, it is considered
harmless. However, in some
cases, heavy and extended use
can cause Olney’s Lesions
(brain damage).

Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed
synthetically by replacing all
hydrogen atoms in CH4 or ethane
(C2H6) with chlorine and/or
fluorine atoms. CFCs are
nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble and chemically
unreactive in the troposphere (the
level of air at the earth’s surface).

CFCs have no natural source
but were first synthesized in
1928. They were used for
refrigerants, aerosol
propellants and cleaning
solvents. Due to the discovery
that they are able to destroy
stratospheric ozone, a global
effort to halt their production
was undertaken and was
extremely successful, so much
so that levels of the major CFCs
are now remaining steady or
declining. However, their long
atmospheric lifetimes mean
that some of the CFCs would
remain in the atmosphere for
over 100 years.

In confined indoor locations,
working with CFC-113 or other
CFCs is thought to result in
death by cardiac arrhythmia
(heart frequency too high or
too low) or asphyxiation.

HFCs HFCs are synthetic, man-made
chemicals that are used as a
substitute for CFCs. Out of all the
GHGs, they are one of three
groups with the highest global
warming potential (GWP). The
HFCs with the largest measured
HFCs are manmade for
applications such as
automobile air conditioners
and refrigerants.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-8
Table 4.4-2
GHGs, Characteristics, Sources, and Health Effects
GHG Description Sources Health Effects
atmospheric abundances are (in
order), Fluoroform (HFC-23),
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC134a), and 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a). Prior to 1990, the only
significant emissions were of
HFC-23. HCF-134a emissions are
increasing due to its use as a
refrigerant.

PFCs PFCs have stable molecular
structures and do not break down
through chemical processes in the
lower atmosphere. High-energy
ultraviolet rays, which occur
about 60 kilometers above earth’s
surface, are able to destroy the
compounds. Because of this, PFCs
have exceptionally long lifetimes,
between 10,000 and 50,000 years.

Two common PFCs are
tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and
hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The EPA
estimates that concentrations of
CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70
parts per trillion (ppt).

The two main sources of PFCs
are primary aluminum
production and semiconductor
manufacture.

No health effects are known to
result from exposure to PFCs.

SF6 SF6 is an inorganic, odorless,
colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable
gas. It also has the highest GWP of
any gas evaluated. The EPA
indicates that concentrations in
the 1990s were about 4 ppt.

SF6 is used for insulation in
electric power transmission
and distribution equipment, in
the magnesium industry, in
semiconductor manufacturing,
and as a tracer gas for leak
detection.

In high concentrations in
confined areas, the gas
presents the hazard of
suffocation because it displaces
the oxygen needed for
breathing.

Nitrogen Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 is a colorless gas with a
distinctly moldy odor. The World
Resources Institute (WRI)
indicates that NF3 has a 100-year
GWP of 17,200.

NF3 is used in industrial
processes and is produced in
the manufacturing of
semiconductors, Liquid
Crystal Display (LCD) panels,
types of solar panels, and
chemical lasers.

Long-term or repeated
exposure may affect the liver
and kidneys and may cause
fluorosis.

Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

4.4.2.3 Existing Greenhouse Gases Emissions Inventories Global
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions are tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing 900
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-9
nations (referred to as Non-Annex I). This GHG emission data for Annex I nations is available through 2016. Global GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4.4-3, and are representative of currently available inventory data.

United States
As identified in Table 4.4-3, the United States, as a single country, was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2017. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 81.6 percent of total GHG emissions. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion is the largest source of GHG emissions in the United States.

Table 4.4-3
Global GHG Emissions by Major GHG Source Countries
Source Countries GHG Emissions (Gg CO2e)
China 11,911,710
United States 6,456,718
European Union (28-member countries) 4,323,163
India 3,079,810
Russian Federation 2,155,470
Japan 1,289,630
Total 29,216,501
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Note: Gg = Gigagrams; 1 Gigagram = 1,000 Metric Tons.

California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of GHG emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls but is still a substantial contributor to the United States (U.S.) emissions inventory total. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2021 GHG inventory data (the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2019 GHG emissions period, California emitted an average 418.2 million metric tons of CO2e per year (MMTCO2e/year) or 418,200 Gg CO2e (6.26% of the total United States GHG emissions).
901
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-10
City of Ontario
The City of Ontario GHG emissions inventory for existing land uses is summarized at Table 4.4-4.

Table 4.4-4
City of Ontario GHG Emissions
Existing Land Uses
Sector Existing
MTCO2e/year
Percent of Total
Residential Energy 155,030 9%
Nonresidential Energy 395,780 23%
Transportation 934,590 55%
Solid Waste 83,400 5%
Water and Wastewater 20,250 1%
Agriculture 48,540 3%
Off-Road Equipment 65,480 4%
Land Use and Sequestration 660 <1%
Total 1,703,730 100%
Source: TOP 2050 SEIR.

Project Site
With the exception of limited areas of existing residential development, the Project site comprises vacant disturbed property, and is not a substantive source of GHG emissions.

4.4.2.4 Effects of Climate Change in California
Public Health
Higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind 902
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-11
conditions. The Climate Scenarios Report indicates that large wildfires could become more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.

In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90°F in Los Angeles and 95°F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.

Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there may be years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding.
903
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-12
The State’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta – a major fresh water supply.

Agriculture
Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of its water supply. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate O3 pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.

Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits, and nuts.

In addition, continued GCC could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued GCC could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
904
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-13
Forests and Landscapes
GCC has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including: precipitation, winds, temperature, terrain, and vegetation, future risks would likely not be uniform throughout the state. For example, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90 percent due to decreased precipitation.

Moreover, continued GCC has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state’s forests has the potential to decrease as a result of GCC.

Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Increased sea level elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12 to 14 inches.

4.4.3 GCC REGULATORY SETTING
The current GHG regulatory setting is extensive and evolving. The GHG regulatory setting is discussed in detail at Project GHGA Section 3, Regulatory Setting. Current aspects of the GHG regulatory setting of relevance to the Project are summarized below. 905
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-14

4.4.3.1 State of California
Overview
The State of California legislature has enacted a series of bills and associated actions, described below, that collectively act to reduce GHG emissions. Certain state legislation, such as Assembly Bill (AB 32) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was specifically enacted to address GHG emissions. Other state legislation, such as Title 24 and Title 20 energy standards, originally adopted for other purposes (energy and water conservation), also facilitate GHG emissions reductions. Additionally, California’s Executive Branch has taken several actions to reduce GHGs through the use of Executive Orders. Although not regulatory, Executive Orders set the tone for the state and guide the actions of state agencies.

AB 32. The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, which requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide, methane, N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Since AB 32 was enacted, a seventh chemical, nitrogen trifluoride, has also been added to the list of GHGs. The California Air Resources Board (CARB, ARB) is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of GHGs.

The ARB approved the 1990 GHG emissions level of 427 MMTCO2e on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007). Therefore, emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or less than 427 MMTCO2e. Emissions in 2020 in a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario were estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e, which do not account for reductions from AB 32 regulations (ARB 2008). At that level, a 28.4 percent reduction was required to achieve the 427 million MMTCO2e 1990 inventory. In October 2010, ARB prepared an updated 2020 forecast to account for the recession and slower forecasted growth. The forecasted inventory without the benefits of adopted regulation is now estimated at 545 million MMTCO2e. Therefore, under the updated forecast, a 21.7 percent reduction from BAU is required to achieve 1990 levels (ARB 2010).
906
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-15
The State has made steady progress in implementing AB 32 and achieving targets included in Executive Order S-3-05. The progress is shown in updated emission inventories prepared by ARB for 2000 through 2012 (ARB 2014a). The State has achieved the Executive Order S-3-05 target for 2010 of reducing GHG emissions to 2000 levels. As shown below, the 2010 emission inventory achieved this target. • 1990: 427 million MMTCO2e (AB 32 2020 target)
• 2000: 463 million MMTCO2e (an average 8 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base)
• 2010: 450 million MMTCO2e (an average 5 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 base)
ARB has also made substantial progress in achieving its goal of achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020. As described earlier in this section, ARB revised the 2020 BAU inventory forecast to account for new lower growth projections, which resulted in a new lower reduction from BAU to achieve the 1990 base. The previous reduction from 2020 BAU needed to achieve 1990 levels was 28.4 percent and the latest reduction from 2020 BAU is

21.7 percent.
• 2020: 545 million MMTCO2e BAU (an average 21.7 percent reduction from BAU needed to achieve 1990 base)
ARB Scoping Plan. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to reduce the State’s emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and thereby comply with AB 32 GHG emissions reductions targets. The Scoping Plan identifies recommended measures for multiple GHG emission sectors and the associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions target—each sector has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving the 2020 GHG target include:
907
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-16
• Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
• Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent; • Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; • Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
• Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; and
• Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.

The ARB approved the First Update to the Scoping Plan (Update) on May 22, 2014. The Update identifies progress made to meet the near-term objectives of AB 32 and defines California’s climate change priorities and strategies. The Update does not set new targets for the State, but rather describes a path that would achieve the state’s 2050 goal to achieve GHG emissions levels that are 80 percent below 1990 baseline levels.

Forecasting the amount of emissions that would occur in 2020 if no actions are taken was necessary to assess the amount of reductions California must achieve to return to the 1990 emissions level by 2020 as required by AB 32. The no-action scenario is known as “business-as-usual” or BAU. The ARB originally defined the BAU scenario as emissions in the absence of any GHG emission reduction measures discussed in the Scoping Plan.

As part of CEQA compliance for the Scoping Plan, ARB prepared a Supplemental Functional Equivalent Document (FED) in 2011. The FED included an updated 2020 BAU emissions inventory projection based on current economic forecasts (i.e., as influenced by the economic downturn) and emission reduction measures already in place, replacing its prior 2020 BAU emissions inventory. ARB staff derived the updated emissions estimates 908
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-17
by projecting emissions growth, by sector, from the State’s average emissions from 2006– 2008. The new BAU estimate includes emission reductions for the million-solar-roofs program, the AB 1493 (Pavley I) motor vehicle GHG emission standards, and the Low Carbon Fuels Standard. In addition, ARB factored into the 2020 BAU inventory emissions reductions associated with 33 percent Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) for electricity generation. The updated BAU estimate of 507 MMTCO2e by 2020 requires a reduction of 80 MMTCO2e, or a 16 percent reduction below the estimated BAU levels to return to 1990 levels (i.e., 427 MMTCO2e) by 2020.

To establish a BAU reduction scenario that is consistent with the original definition in the Scoping Plan and with threshold definitions used in thresholds adopted by lead agencies for CEQA purposes and many climate action plans, the updated inventory without regulations was also included in the Supplemental FED. The ARB 2020 BAU projection for GHG emissions in California was originally estimated to be 596 MMTCO2e. The updated ARB 2020 BAU projection in the Supplemental FED is 545 MMTCO2e.

Considering the updated BAU estimate of 545 MMTCO2e by 2020, ARB estimates a 21.7 percent reduction below the estimated statewide BAU levels is necessary to return to 1990 emission levels (i.e., 427 MMTCO2e) by 2020, instead of the approximate 28.4 percent BAU reduction previously reported under the original Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008).
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. In November 2017, ARB released the final 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which identifies the State’s post-2020 reduction strategy. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill 32 (SB 32). Key programs that the proposed Second Update builds upon include the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and much cleaner cars, trucks and freight movement, utilizing cleaner, renewable energy, and strategies to reduce methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes.

The 2017 Scoping Plan establishes a new emissions limit of 260 MMTCO2e for the year 2030, which corresponds to a 40 percent decrease in 1990 levels by 2030. 909
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-18
California’s climate strategy will require contributions from all sectors of the economy, including the land base, and will include enhanced focus on zero- and near-zero-emission (ZE/NZE) vehicle technologies; continued investment in renewables, including solar roofs, wind, and other distributed generation; greater use of low carbon fuels; integrated land conservation and development strategies; coordinated efforts to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases); and an increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Requirements for direct GHG reductions at refineries will further support air quality co-benefits in neighborhoods, including in disadvantaged communities historically located adjacent to these large stationary sources, as well as efforts with California’s local air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts) to tighten emission limits on a broad spectrum of industrial sources. Major elements of the 2017 Scoping Plan framework include:
• Implementing and/or increasing the standards of the Mobile Source Strategy, which include increasing ZEV buses and trucks.
• Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030).
• Implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50 percent RPS and doubles energy efficiency savings by 2030. • California Sustainable Freight Action Plan, which improves freight system efficiency, utilizes near-zero emissions technology, and deployment of ZEV trucks.
• Implementing the proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy (SLPS), which focuses on reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions by 40 percent and anthropogenic black carbon emissions by 50 percent by year 2030. • Continued implementation of SB 375.
• Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program that includes declining caps. • 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from refineries by 2030. • Development of a Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.
910
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-19
In addition to the statewide strategies listed above, the 2017 Scoping Plan also recognizes local governments as essential partners in achieving the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals and identifies local actions to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the recommended actions, CARB advocates local government attainment of a community-wide goal of 6 MMTCO2e or less per capita by 2030, and 2 MMTCO2e or less per capita by 2050. For CEQA projects, CARB states that lead agencies may develop evidenced-based bright-line numeric thresholds—consistent with the Scoping Plan and the State’s long-term GHG goals—and projects with emissions over that amount may be required to incorporate onsite design features and mitigation measures that avoid or minimize project emissions to the extent feasible. Alternatively, a lead agency may employ performance-based metric using a climate action plan or other plan to reduce GHG emissions.

According to research conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and supported by ARB, under its existing and proposed GHG reduction policies, California is on track to meet the 2020 reduction targets established under AB 32 and could achieve the 2030 goals promulgated under SB 32.

Senate Bill 32. On September 8, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Senate Bill (SB) 32 and its companion bill, Assembly Bill (AB) 197. SB 32 requires the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, a reduction target that was first introduced in Executive Order B-30-15.

Cap-and-Trade Program. The Scoping Plan identifies a Cap-and-Trade Program as one of the key strategies for California to reduce GHG emissions. According to ARB, a capand-trade program will help put California on the path to meet its goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and ultimately achieving an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors is established, and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade permits to emit GHGs within the overall limit.

ARB adopted a California Cap-and-Trade Program consistent with authority established under AB 32. See 17 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §§ 95800 to 96023. The Cap911 © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-20
and-Trade Program is designed to reduce GHG emissions from major sources (deemed “covered entities”) by setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions and employing market mechanisms to achieve AB 32’s emission-reduction mandate of returning to 1990 levels of emissions by 2020. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped sectors (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, and cement production) commenced in 2013 and will decline over time, achieving GHG emission reductions throughout the program’s duration.

Covered entities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year must comply with the Capand-Trade Program. Triggering of the 25,000 MTCO2e per year “inclusion threshold” is measured against a subset of emissions reported and verified under the California Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions (Mandatory Reporting Rule or “MRR”).

Under the Cap-and-Trade Program, ARB issues allowances equal to the total amount of allowable emissions over a given compliance period and distributes these to regulated entities. Covered entities are allocated free allowances in whole or part (if eligible), and may buy allowances at auction, purchase allowances from others, or purchase offset credits. Each covered entity with a compliance obligation is required to surrender “compliance instruments” for each MTCO2e of GHG they emit. There also are requirements to surrender compliance instruments covering 30 percent of the prior year’s compliance obligation by November of each year. For example, in November 2014, a covered entity was required to submit compliance instruments to cover 30 percent of its 2013 GHG emissions.

The Cap-and-Trade Program provides a firm cap, ensuring that the 2020 statewide emission limit will not be exceeded. An inherent feature of the Cap-and-Trade program is that it does not guarantee GHG emissions reductions in any discrete location or by any particular source. Rather, GHG emissions reductions are only guaranteed on an accumulative basis. As summarized by ARB in the 2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (ARB First Update):
912
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-21
The Cap-and-Trade Regulation gives companies the flexibility to trade allowances with others or take steps to cost-effectively reduce emissions at their own facilities. Companies that emit more have to turn in more allowances or other compliance instruments. Companies that can cut their GHG emissions have to turn in fewer allowances. But as the cap declines, aggregate emissions must be reduced. In other words, a covered entity theoretically could increase its GHG emissions every year and still comply with the Cap-and-Trade Program if there is a reduction in GHG emissions from other covered entities. Such a focus on aggregate GHG emissions is considered appropriate because climate change is a global phenomenon, and the effects of GHG emissions are considered cumulative (ARB First Update, p. 86).

The Cap-and-Trade Program works with other direct regulatory measures and provides an economic incentive to reduce emissions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions more than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively fewer emissions reductions. If California’s direct regulatory measures reduce GHG emissions less than expected, then the Cap-and-Trade Program will be responsible for relatively more emissions reductions. In this manner, the Cap-andTrade Program assures that California will meet its 2020 GHG emissions reduction mandate:

The Cap-and-Trade Program establishes an overall limit on GHG emissions from most of the California economy—the “capped sectors.” Within the capped sectors, some of the reductions are being accomplished through direct regulations, such as improved building and appliance efficiency standards, the [Low Carbon Fuel Standard] LCFS, and the 33 percent [Renewables Portfolio Standard] RPS. Whatever additional reductions are needed to bring emissions within the cap is accomplished through price incentives posed by emissions allowance prices. Together, direct regulation and price incentives assure that emissions are brought down costeffectively to the level of the overall cap. The Cap-and-Trade Regulation 913
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-22
provides assurance that California’s 2020 limit will be met because the regulation sets a firm limit on 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. In sum, the Cap-and-Trade Program will achieve aggregate, rather than site specific or project-level, GHG emissions reductions. Also, due to the regulatory architecture adopted by ARB in AB 32, the reductions attributed to the Cap-and-Trade Program can change over time depending on the State’s emissions forecasts and the effectiveness of direct regulatory measures (ARB First Update, p. 88).

As of January 1, 2015, the Cap-and-Trade Program covered approximately 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumed in California, whether generated in-state or imported. Accordingly, GHG emissions associated with a CEQA projects’ electricity usage are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program.

The Cap-and-Trade Program also covers fuel suppliers (natural gas and propane fuel providers and transportation fuel providers) to address emissions from such fuels and from combustion of other fossil fuels not directly covered at large sources in the Program’s first compliance period. While the Cap-and-Trade Program technically covered fuel suppliers as early as 2012, they did not have a compliance obligation (i.e., they were not fully regulated) until 2015. The Cap-and-Trade Program covers the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of transportation fuels in California, whether refined in-state or imported. The point of regulation for transportation fuels is when they are “supplied” (i.e., delivered into commerce). Accordingly, as with stationary source GHG emissions and GHG emissions attributable to electricity use, virtually all, if not all, of GHG emissions from CEQA projects associated with vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) are covered by the Cap-and-Trade Program (ARB 2015).

In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between “capped” and “uncapped” strategies. “Capped” strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program. The Scoping Plan states that the inclusion of these emissions within the Program will help ensure that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in 914
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-23
the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure. Implementation of the capped strategies is calculated to achieve sufficient GHG emissions reductions by 2020 to achieve the emission target contained in AB 32. “Uncapped” strategies that will not be subject to the cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by accounting for additional GHG emission reductions.

SB 375 - Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. Passing the Senate on August 30, 2008, Senate Bill (SB) 375 was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of GHG emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total GHG emissions in California. SB 375 states, “Without improved land use and transportation policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32.” SB 375 does the following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing GHG emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified incentives for the implementation of the strategies.

Concerning CEQA, SB 375, as codified in Public Resources Code Section 21159.28, states that CEQA findings for certain projects are not required to reference, describe, or discuss (1) growth inducing impacts, or (2) any project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on global warming or the regional transportation network, if the project:

1. Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy that the ARB accepts as achieving the GHG emission reduction targets.

2. Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies).

3. Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior environmental document.

AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards. California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required ARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs 915
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-24
emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Implementation of the regulation was delayed by lawsuits filed by automakers and by the EPA’s denial of an implementation waiver. The EPA subsequently granted the requested waiver in 2009, which was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.

The standards phased in during the 2009 through 2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near-term (2009–2012) standards will result in about a 22 percent reduction compared with the 2002 fleet, and the mid-term (2013–2016) standards will result in about a 30 percent reduction. Several technologies stand out as providing significant reductions in emissions at favorable costs. These include discrete variable valve lift or camless valve actuation to optimize valve operation rather than relying on fixed valve timing and lift as has historically been done; turbocharging to boost power and allow for engine downsizing; improved multi-speed transmissions; and improved air conditioning systems that operate optimally, leak less, and/or use an alternative refrigerant.

The second phase of the implementation for the Pavley bill was incorporated into Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Program referred to as LEV III or the Advanced Clean Cars program. The Advanced Clean Cars program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The regulation will reduce GHGs from new cars by 34 percent from 2016 levels by 2025. The new rules will clean up gasoline and diesel-powered cars, and deliver increasing numbers of zero-emission technologies, such as full battery electric cars, newly emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell cars. The package will also ensure adequate fueling infrastructure is available for the increasing numbers of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned for deployment in California.

SB 350 - Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. In October 2015, the legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 350, which reaffirms California’s commitment to reducing its GHG emissions and addressing climate change. Key provisions include an increase in the renewables portfolio standard (RPS), higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, 916
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-25
and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Provisions for a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum statewide were removed from the Bill because of opposition and concern that it would prevent the Bill’s passage. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33 percent to 50 percent by 2030, with interim targets of 40 percent by 2024, and 25 percent by 2027.
• Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and local publicly-owned utilities. • Reorganize the Independent System Operator (ISO) to develop more regional electricity transmission markets and to improve accessibility in these markets, which will facilitate the growth of renewable energy markets in the western United States.

Executive Order S-3-05. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following reduction targets for GHG emissions:
• By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
• By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
• By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The 2050 reduction goal represents what some scientists believe is necessary to reach levels that will stabilize the climate. The 2020 goal was established to be a mid-term target. Because this is an executive order, the goals are not legally enforceable for local governments or the private sector.

Executive Order S-01-07 – Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Governor signed Executive Order S-01-07 on January 18, 2007. The order mandates that a statewide goal shall be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 917
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-26
10 percent by 2020. In particular, the Executive Order established a Low Carbon Fuel Standard and directed the Secretary for Environmental Protection to coordinate the actions of the California Energy Commission, the ARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop and propose protocols for measuring the “life-cycle carbon intensity” of transportation fuels. This analysis supporting development of the protocols was included in the State Implementation Plan for alternative fuels (State Alternative Fuels Plan adopted by California Energy Commission on December 24, 2007) and was submitted to ARB for consideration as an “early action” item under AB 32. The ARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard on April 23, 2009.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was challenged in the U.S. District Court in Fresno in 2011. The court’s ruling issued on December 29, 2011, included a preliminary injunction against ARB’s implementation of the rule. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction on April 23, 2012, pending final ruling on appeal, allowing ARB to continue to implement and enforce the regulation. The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, filed September 18, 2013, vacated the preliminary injunction. In essence, the court held that Low Carbon Fuel Standards adopted by ARB were not in conflict with federal law. On August 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeal (California) ruled ARB failed to comply with CEQA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when adopting regulations for Low Carbon Fuel Standards. In a partially published opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed issuance of a writ of mandate setting aside Resolution 09-31 and two executive orders of ARB approving Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) regulations promulgated to reduce GHG emissions. However, the court tailored its remedy to protect the public interest by allowing the LCFS regulations to remain operative while ARB complies with the procedural requirements it failed to satisfy.

To address the Court ruling, ARB was required to bring a new LCFS regulation to its Board for consideration in February 2015. The proposed LCFS regulation was required to contain revisions to the 2010 LCFS as well as new provisions designed to foster investments in the production of the low-carbon intensity (low-CI) fuels, offer additional flexibility to regulated parties, update critical technical information, simplify and 918
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-27
streamline program operations, and enhance enforcement. The second public hearing was held on September 24 and September 25, 2015, where the LCFS Regulation was adopted. The Final Rulemaking Package adopting the regulation was filed with Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on October 2, 2015. OAL had until November 16, 2015 to make a determination (ARB 2015d).

Executive Order S-13-08. Executive Order S-13-08 states that “climate change in California during the next century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to California’s economy, to the health and welfare of its population and to its natural resources.” As provided for under the Order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) was adopted. The Strategy is “. . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific, and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.” Objectives include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.

Executive Order B-30-15. On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments. The Order sets a new interim statewide GHG emission reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMCO2e). The Order also requires the state’s climate adaptation plan to be updated every three years, and for the State to continue its climate change research program, among other provisions. As with Executive Order S-3-05, this Order is not legally enforceable for local governments and the private sector. Legislation that would update AB 32 to make post 2020 targets and requirements a mandate is in process in the State Legislature.
919
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-28
Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Standards. California Code of Regulations, Title 20:

Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608: Appliance Efficiency Regulations regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Twenty-three categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment.

Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards.

California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. For nonresidential buildings, the 2016 Title 24 standards reduce energy consumption by 5 percent when compared to the 2013 Title 24 standards.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, and school buildings that went in effect on January 1, 2009.

CALGreen is updated on a regular basis, with the most recent approved update consisting of the 2022 California Green Building Code Standards, to be effective on January 1, 2023.

The State Building Code (including provisions of CALGreen) establishes minimum standards that buildings must meet in order to be certified for occupancy. These standards are typically enforced by the local building official. Local jurisdictions are permitted to adopt more stringent requirements, as state law provides methods for local enhancements. The Project would be required to comply with State Building Code 920
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-29
standards (including provisions of CALGreen) in effect at the time of building permit application(s).

Anticipated CALGreen requirements applicable to the Project include, but are not limited to, those listed below. CALGreen Section citations are presented parenthetically. • EV Charging (new one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages). For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. The raceway shall not be less than trade size 1 (nominal 1-inch inside diameter). The raceway shall originate at the main service or subpanel and shall terminate into a listed cabinet, box or other enclosure in close proximity to the proposed location of an EV charger. Raceways are required to be continuous at enclosed, inaccessible or concealed areas and spaces.

The service panel and/or subpanel shall provide capacity to install a 40-ampere minimum dedicated branch circuit and space(s) reserved to permit installation of a branch circuit overcurrent protective device (4.106.4.1). • Short-term bicycle parking. If the new project or an additional alteration is anticipated to generate visitor traffic, provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of the visitors’ entrance, readily visible to passers-by, for 5% of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces being added, with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack (5.106.4.1.1).
• Long-term bicycle parking. For new buildings with tenant spaces that have 10 or more tenant-occupants, provide secure bicycle parking for 5% of the tenantoccupant vehicular parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility (5.106.4.1.2).
• Designated parking for clean air vehicles. In new projects or additions to alterations that add 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles as shown in Table 5.106.5.2 (5.106.5.2).
• EV charging stations. New construction shall facilitate the future installation of EV supply equipment. The compliance requires empty raceways for future conduit and documentation that the electrical system has adequate capacity for the future 921
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-30
load. The number of spaces to be provided for is contained in Table 5.106. 5.3.3 (5.106.5.3).
• Outdoor light pollution reduction. Outdoor lighting systems shall be designed to meet the backlight, uplight and glare ratings per Table 5.106.8 (5.106.8). • Construction waste management. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65% of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1.1. 5.405.1.2, or 5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent (5.408.1). • Excavated soil and land clearing debris. 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed (5.408.3).
• Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling, including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, organic waste, and metals or meet a lawfully enacted local recycling ordinance, if more restrictive (5.410.1). • Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following:
o Water Closets. The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed o 1.28 gallons per flush (5.303.3.1)
o Urinals. The effective flush volume of wall-mounted urinals shall not exceed o 0.125 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.1). The effective flush volume of floormounted or other urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons per flush (5.303.3.2.2). o Showerheads. Single showerheads shall have a minimum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute and 80 psi (5.303.3.3.1). When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 1.8 gallons per minute at 80 psi (5.303.3.3.2).
o Faucets and fountains. Nonresidential lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi (5.303.3.4.1). Kitchen 922
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-31
faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute of 60 psi (5.303.3.4.2). Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute (5.303.3.4.3). Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.4). Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle (5.303.3.4.5).
• Outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas. Nonresidential developments shall comply with a local water efficient landscape ordinance or the current California Department of Water Resources’ Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), whichever is more stringent (5.304.1). • Water meters. Separate submeters or metering devices shall be installed for new buildings or additions in excess of 50,000 sf or for excess consumption where any tenant within a new building or within an addition that is project to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day (GPD) (5.303.1.1 and 5.303.1.2). • Outdoor water use in rehabilitated landscape projects equal or greater than 2,500 sf. Rehabilitated landscape projects with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 sf requiring a building or landscape permit (5.304.3). • Commissioning. For new buildings 10,000 sf and over, building commissioning shall be included in the design and construction processes of the building project to verify that the building systems and components meet the owner’s or owner representative’s project requirements (5.410.2).

Additionally, under California’s 2022 Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, solar photovoltaic systems are required for newly constructed low-rise residential buildings and shall be sized sufficient to offset the electricity use of the proposed building as if it was a mixed-fuel building.

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Model Ordinance) established under the Water Conservation Act, requires local agencies to adopt a local landscape ordinance at least as effective in conserving water as the Model Ordinance. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the Model Ordinance. 923
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-32
Reductions in water use of 20 percent consistent with (SBX-7-7) 2020 mandate are expected upon compliance with the ordinance. Governor Brown’s Drought Executive Order of April 1, 2015 (EO B-29-15) directed Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the Ordinance through expedited regulation. The California Water Commission approved the revised Ordinance on July 15, 2015 to be effective December 15, 2015. New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 square feet or more are subject to the Ordinance requirements, including:
• More efficient irrigation systems;
• Incentives for graywater usage;
• Improvements in on-site stormwater capture;
• Limiting landscaping that can be planted with high water use plants; and • Reporting requirements for local agencies.

ARB Refrigerant Management Program. ARB adopted a regulation in 2009 to reduce refrigerant GHG emissions from stationary sources through refrigerant leak detection and monitoring, leak repair, system retirement and retrofitting, reporting and recordkeeping, and proper refrigerant cylinder use, sale, and disposal. The regulation is set forth in sections 95380 to 95398 of Title 17, California Code of Regulations.

The rules implementing the regulation establish a limit on statewide GHG emissions from stationary facilities with refrigeration systems with more than 50 pounds of a high GWP refrigerant. The refrigerant management program is designed to (1) reduce emissions of high-GWP GHG refrigerants from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration equipment; (2) reduce emissions from the installation and servicing of refrigeration and air-conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and (3) verify GHG emission reductions.

Tractor‐Trailer GHG Regulation. Tractors and trailers subject to this regulation must either use EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers, or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53‐foot or longer box‐type trailers, including both dry‐van and refrigerated‐van trailers, and 924
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-33
owners of the heavy‐duty tractors that pull them on California highways. These owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance tires. Sleeper cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. There are also requirements for trailers to have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.

Phase I and 2 Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards. ARB has adopted a new regulation for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from heavy-duty trucks and engines sold in California. It establishes GHG emission limits on truck and engine manufacturers and harmonizes with the U.S. EPA rule for new trucks and engines nationally. Existing heavy-duty vehicle regulations in California include engine criteria emission standards, tractor-trailer GHG requirements to implement SmartWay strategies (i.e., the Heavy Duty Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation), and in-use fleet retrofit requirements such as the Truck and Bus Regulation.

ARB staff has worked jointly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the next phase of federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, called federal Phase 2. The federal Phase 2 standards were built on the improvements in engine and vehicle efficiency required by the Phase 1 emission standards and represent a significant opportunity to achieve further GHG reductions for 2018 and later model year heavy-duty vehicles, including trailers.

SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update. Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The code states “(a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions as required by this division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to subdivision (a).” Section 21097 was also added to the 925
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-34
Public Resources Code. It provided CEQA protection until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 or projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of GHGs would not violate CEQA.

On April 13, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its recommended amendments to the CEQA Guidelines addressing GHG emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05. Following a 55-day public comment period and two public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions to the text of the proposed amendments. The Natural Resources Agency transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of Administrative Law on December 31, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010.

The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The CEQA Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA Guidelines to reference climate change.

A new section, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, was added to assist agencies in determining the significance of GHG emissions. The new section allows agencies the discretion to determine whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis is best for a particular project. However, little guidance is offered on the crucial next step in this assessment process—how to determine whether the project’s estimated GHG emissions are significant or cumulatively considerable.
926
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-35
Also amended were Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address mitigation measures and cumulative impacts, respectively. GHG mitigation measures are referenced in general terms, but no specific measures are championed. The revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) simply directs agencies to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR when a project’s incremental contribution of emissions may be cumulatively considerable, however it does not answer the question of when emissions are cumulatively considerable.

Section 15183.5 permits programmatic GHG analysis and later project-specific tiering, as well as the preparation of GHG Reduction Plans. Compliance with such plans can support a determination that a project’s cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable, according to Section 15183.5(b).

In addition, the amendments revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on Energy Conservation. The sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include GHG questions.

4.4.3.2 Regional
The Project is within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. SCAQMD is the agency responsible for air quality planning and regulation in the Basin. Within the context of this EIR, SCAQMD acts as an expert commenting agency for impacts to air quality.

In 2008, SCAQMD formed a Working Group to identify GHG emissions thresholds for land use projects that could be used by lead agencies within the Basin. The Working Group identified several different options that are contained in the SCAQMD Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold. However, no thresholds for CEQA land use development projects were adopted. The Working Group has not convened since November 2009, nor has the Working Group provided subsequent additional guidance regarding appropriate GHG emissions thresholds for Basin development projects (other than projects for which SCAQMD is the Lead Agency). 927
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-36

4.4.3.3 City of Ontario
The City of Ontario initially adopted its Climate Action Plan on December 16, 2014 (2014 CAP). The 2014 CAP provided guidance on the City of Ontario’s GHG Inventory reduction goals, policies, guidelines, and implementation programs. The CAP also established guidance and protocols addressing analysis of GHG emissions impacts and determination of GHG emissions impact significance.

As part of the 2014 CAP, the City of Ontario published a guidance document titled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQA Thresholds and Screening Tables” (December 2014).

Under this guidance, “Mixed-Use Projects [such as the proposed RHSP - 2022 SPA considered herein] that garner at least 100 points will be consistent with the reduction quantities in the City’s CAP and are considered less than significant for GHG emissions (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Tables Directions, p. 1).

The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 includes an update to the 2014 CAP, referred to herein as the 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). The 2022 CCAP Update 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 the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S-03-05, 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. As noted in the TOP 2050 SEIR, the measures included in the 2022 CCAP Update are not substantially different than that of the 2014 CCAP and therefore there is no change in the environmental impacts associated with the CCAP.
928
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-37

4.4.4 SOURCES OF PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS

4.4.4.1 Construction-Source GHG Emissions
Project construction activities would generate emissions of CO2 and CH4. Project construction would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Project construction-source emissions are quantified and amortized over the life of the Project. To amortize the emissions over the life of the Project, the SCAQMD recommends calculating the total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction activities, dividing it by a 30-year project life, then adding that number to the annual operational GHG emissions. Accordingly, Project construction-source GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational-source GHG emissions of the Project. Please refer also to the Project GHGA Section 5.3, Construction Emissions for detailed information regarding Project construction GHG emissions sources.

4.4.4.2 Operational-Source GHG Emissions
Project operations would result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions
• Energy Source Emissions
• Mobile Source Emissions
• On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
• Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRU) Emissions
929
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-38
• Water Supply, Treatment, and Distribution
• Solid Waste Management
Area Source Emissions
Landscape and site maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project.

Energy Source Emissions
GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions.

Mobile Source Emissions
GHG emissions will also result from mobile sources associated with the Project. Trip characteristics available from the Project VMT Analysis were utilized in this analysis.

On-Site Cargo Handling Equipment Emissions
It is common for warehouse buildings to require the operation of exterior cargo handling equipment in the building’s truck court areas. For the Project, on-site modeled cargo handling equipment operational equipment includes up to one (1) 200 horsepower (hp), compressed natural gas or gasoline-powered tractors/loaders/backhoes operating at 4 hours per day, 365 days per year.

TRU Emissions
To account for the possibility of refrigerated uses, a portion of the trucks accessing the Project are assumed to comprise Transportation Refrigeration Units. The TRU emissions calculations are based on the 2017 Off-road Emissions model, version 1.0.1 (Orion), developed by the CARB.
930
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-39
Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution Emissions
Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water.

Solid Waste Management Emissions
The Project land uses would result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of solid waste generated by the Project would be diverted and recycled consistent with requirements of AB 39. The remainder of the waste not diverted would be disposed of at area landfills. GHG emissions would be generated by collection and transport of GHG emissions. GHG emissions would also result from anaerobic breakdown of landfilled materials.

Please refer also to the Project GHGA Section 5.3, Construction Emissions for detailed information regarding Project operations GHG emissions sources.

4.4.5 PROJECT GHG EMISSIONS IMPACTS

4.4.5.1 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Employed to Estimate GHG Emissions
In May 2022, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and other California air districts, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this Model is to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. The latest version of CalEEMod has been employed in this analysis. Detailed Model Outputs are appended to the Project GHGA.

4.4.5.2 Standards of Significance
The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project-related GHG impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG if it would:
931
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-40
• Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The City has determined that each of the CEQA threshold considerations presented herein establish a separate and independent basis upon which to substantiate the significance of the Project’s potential GHG emissions impact.

Potential Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Impact Analysis: An individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. A project participates in this potential impact by its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together may have a significant impact on global climate change.

Ontario City CouncilJune 20, 2023

Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023