Ontario City Council
June 20, 2023

Project construction and operations would result in direct and indirect emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Other GHGs that may be generated are not of sufficient quantity to affect the analysis presented here. Direct Project-related GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile sources, while indirect sources include emissions from electricity consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. Project-related GHG emissions were quantified employing CalEEMod. With regard to the first threshold condition, for the purposes of evaluating environmental 932
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-41
impacts of development-related GHG emissions, the SCAQMD GHG emissions screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year has been employed.2 Table 4.4-5
Annual Project GHG Emissions
Emission Source Emissions (metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants Total CO2E
Annual construction-related
emissions amortized over 30 years 851.17 0.04 0.04 0.96 865.37 Mobile Source 90,393.00 5.73 6.30 121.40 92,535.00
Area Source 1,553.00 0.03 0.05 0 1,567.00
Energy Source 25,030.00 2.30 0.17 0 25,138.00
Water Supply, Treatment, and
Distribution 1,514.00 33.47 0.81 0 2,591.00
Solid Waste Management 1,015.00 101.30 0 0 3,548.00
Refrigerants 0 0 0 117.00 117.00
TRU Source 2479.91
On-Site Equipment Source 473.67
129,314.95
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Note: Totals obtained from CalEEMod™ and may not total 100% due to rounding.

As shown, construction and operation of the Project would generate a total of approximately 129,314.95 MTCO2e/year, which would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year; therefore, Project-related GHG emissions are considered potentially significant.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation. The majority of the GHG emissions (approximately 72 percent unmitigated) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Responsibility and authority for regulation of vehicular-source emissions 2 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). 933
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-42
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 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. In effect, all Project traffic would need to be eliminated or be “zero GHG emissions sources” in order to achieve the SCAQMD threshold.

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

Additionally, 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. These measures are repeated below.

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.7 Legible, durable, weather-proof signs shall be placed at truck access gates, loading docks, and truck parking areas that identify applicable CARB anti-idling 934
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-43
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.

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 935
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-44
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 parttime basis shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 2202, On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. The purpose of this rule is to provide employees with a menu of options to reduce employee commute vehicle emissions. Tenants with less than 250 employees or tenants with 250 or more employees who are exempt from SCAQMD Rule 2202 (as stated in the Rule) shall either (a) join with a tenant who is implementing a program in accordance with Rule 2202 or (b) implement an emission reduction program similar to Rule 2202 with annual reporting of actions and results to the City. The tenant-implemented program would include, but not be limited to the following:
• Appoint a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) coordinator who would promote the TDM program, activities and features to all employees. • Create and maintain a “commuter club” to manage subsidies or incentives for employees who carpool, vanpool, bicycle, walk, or take transit to work. • Inform employees of public transit and commuting services available to them (e.g., social media, signage).
• Provide on-site transit pass sales and discounted transit passes. • Guarantee a ride home.
936
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-45
• Offer shuttle service to and from public transit and commercial areas/food establishments, if warranted.

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

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

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

4.3.18 Industrial building designs and site plans shall incorporate electrical supply lines and panels sized to support anticipated future requirements for heavy truck charging facilities. Such designs and plans shall be based on reasonable predictions derived from the most recent available truck manufacturer’s data.

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

Level of Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. 937
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-46
Potential Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Impact Analysis: For the Project, the City of Ontario 2022 CCAP Update (and by extension, requirements of AB 32, SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions) comprise “applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.”3 Background and Establishment of CAP Screening Table Thresholds/Mitigation As part of the City of Ontario 2014 CAP, the City 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 2022 CCAP Update builds on and updates the 2014 CAP and furthers the City efforts to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The 2022 CCAP Update includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of 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. Under the 2022 CCAP Update, mixed use developments 3 Subsequent to preparation of the EIR Initial Study, CARB approved the final proposed 2022 Scoping Plan in December 2022. The proposed 2022 Scoping Plan includes the need for an accelerated target of a 48% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by the end of this decade. By 2045, this economywide shift away from fossil fuels seeks to:
• Reduce fossil fuel consumption (liquid petroleum) to less than one-tenth of what we use today – a 94% reduction in demand.
• Cut greenhouse gas emissions by 85% below 1990 levels. • Reduce smog-forming air pollution by 71%.
• Create 4 million new jobs.
• Save Californians $200 billion in health costs due to pollution in 2045. 938
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-47
that garner at least 100 Screening Table points would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction targets in the City’s 2022 CCAP Update.

Means to achieve the required 2022 CCAP Update 100 Screening Table points are dependent on Project final site plan and building plan designs, approved by the City.

These designs have not yet been finalized at this concept stage of Project development.

There is therefore the potential for the Project to not achieve the requisite 2022 CCAP Update 100 Screening Table points, and therefore conflict with City of Ontario 2022 CCAP Update plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a potentially significant impact.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measure: To assure compliance with the City of Ontario 2022 CCAP Update, and plans, policies, and regulations contained (or incorporated by extension) therein, the following Mitigation Measure is required:

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.

For informational purposes, a representative example of how the Project could achieve a minimum of 100 Screening Table Points through implementation of 2022 CCAP Update Screening Table Measures pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 is provided at Table 4.4- 6 for the residential portions of the Project, and at Table 4.4-7 for the commercial and light industrial portions of the Project.
939
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-48
Table 4.4-6
Representative CAP Screening Table Measures (Residential Uses) Feature Description
2022 CCAP
Update
Assigned Point
Values
Project Point
Values
Reduction Measure PS E1: Residential Energy Efficiency
Building Envelope
Insulation Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation R-13; roof/attic:

R-38) 15 15
Windows Enhanced Window Insulation (0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 7 7 Cool Roof Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 12 12
Heating/Cooling
Distribution
System
Modest duct insulation (R-6) 7 7
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct Leakage or equivalent) 12 12
Space
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9
HSPF) 9 9
Water Heaters Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 energy factor) 18 18 Artificial Lighting Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 12 12
Reduction Measure PS W1: Residential Water Conservation Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 3 3
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm) 3 3
Faucets Water Efficient Faucets 3 3
Total Points Earned by Residential Project: 101
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

Table 4.4-7
Representative CAP Screening Table Measures (Commercial & Industrial Uses) Feature Description
2022 CCAP
Update
Assigned Point
Values
Project
Point
Values
Reduction Measure PS E3: Commercial/Industrial Energy Efficiency Building Envelope
Insulation Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation R-13; roof/attic:

R-38) 18 18
Windows Enhanced Window Insulation (0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 8 8 Cool Roof Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 14 14
940
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.4-49
Table 4.4-7
Representative CAP Screening Table Measures (Commercial & Industrial Uses) Feature Description
2022 CCAP
Update
Assigned Point
Values
Project
Point
Values
Heating/Cooling
Distribution
System
Modest duct insulation (R-6) 8 8
Distribution loss reduction with inspection (HERS Verified Duct Leakage or equivalent) 14 14
Space
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9
HSPF) 12 12
Water Heaters Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 energy factor) 19 19 Artificial Lighting Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 14 14
Total Points Earned by Commercial/Industrial Project: 107 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022.

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

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant. 941

4.5 ENERGY
942
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-1

4.5 ENERGY
Abstract
This Section identifies and addresses potential energy impacts that may result from construction and operation of the Project. More specifically, theenergy impact analysis evaluates the potential for the Project to cause or result in the following:
• A potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, potential energy impacts of the Project would be less-than-significant. The following discussions are based on information presented in RichHaven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Energy Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022. The Energy Analysis is presented as Appendix F to this EIR.

4.5.1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
In 1975, largely in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s, the State Legislature adopted AB 1575, which created the California Energy Commission (CEC). The statutory mission of the CEC is to forecast future energy needs; license thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or larger; develop energy technologies and renewable energy resources; plan for and direct responses to energy emergencies; and, perhaps most importantly, to promote energy efficiency through the adoption and enforcement of appliance and building energy efficiency standards.
943
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-2
AB 1575 also amended Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) to require EIRs to consider the potential for wasteful, inefficient, and/or unnecessary consumption of energy caused by or resulting from a project. Appendix F to the CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) assists EIR preparers in this regard. CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) Appendix F, Energy Conservation establishes parameters and context for determining whether a project would result in the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

Guidelines Section 15126.2 Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts, as amended December 28, 2018, recognizes the need to consider Guidelines Appendix F, Energy Conservation when analyzing project impacts (for EIRs). Guidelines Section 15126.2 (b), excerpted below, provides the following guidance:

Energy Impacts. If analysis of the project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the EIR shall mitigate that energy use. This analysis should include the project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include, among others, the project’s size, location, orientation, equipment use and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project. (Guidance on information that may be included in such an analysis is presented in Appendix F.) This analysis is subject to the rule of reason and shall focus on energy use that is caused by the project. This analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation or utilities in the discretion of the lead agency.

In summary, the Project would provide for, and promote, energy efficiencies consistent with applicable state or federal standards and regulations. The Project would also conform to City of Ontario energy efficiency and energy conservation measures. 944
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-3
Moreover, energy consumed by the Project would be comparable to, or less than, energy consumed by other development proposals of similar scale and intensity. On this basis, the Project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Further, the Project would not cause or result in the need for additional energy-producing facilities or energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. Nor would the Project result in significant environmental effects due to conflict with, or obstruction of, a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.5.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions providing general context for the Project energy demands are presented below. The following discussions are summarized from: Final 2020 Integrated Energy Policy Report [IEPR] Update (CEC) March 2021. See also: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2020-integrated-energy-policy-reportupdate.

Electricity
Electricity would be provided to the Project by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Project site is vacant and undeveloped and does not contain uses or facilities that consume or produce electricity.

SCE is an investor-owned utility providing electric power to an estimated 15 million persons in 15 counties and in 180 incorporated cities, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles.1 SCE derives electricity from varied energy resources including: fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out-of-state suppliers. The California Public 1 https://www.sce.com/about-us/who-we-are
945
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-4
Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned electric utilities operating in California, including SCE.

SCE is the electrical utility provider for the City. SCE also provides information on energy efficiency, rotating outages, emergency preparedness, electrical safety tips, and tree planting guidelines to ensure non-interference with electrical utility lines.

Natural Gas
Natural gas would be provided to the Project by Southern California Gas (SoCal Gas). The Project site is vacant and undeveloped and does not contain uses or facilities that consume or produce natural gas.

SoCal Gas is the nation’s largest natural gas distribution utility, serving approximately 21.8 million consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities. The SoCal Gas service territory encompasses approximately 24,000 square miles throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.2 Natural gas is available from a variety of in-state and out-of-state sources and is provided throughout the state in response to market supply and demand. Complementing available natural gas resources, biogas may soon be available via existing delivery systems, thereby increasing the availability and reliability of resources in total. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned natural gas utilities operating in California, including SoCal Gas.

Transportation Energy
California is home to approximately 35.8 million registered vehicles, which consume an estimated 17.4 billion gallons of fuel each year (Project Energy Analysis, p. 16). The state’s history has been, in part, a history of the automobile and the associated impacts on personal mobility, land-use planning, and air quality. In recognition of these challenges, California has enacted a suite of policies and goals to shift the transportation sector toward 2 https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile
946
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-5
cleaner, sustainable fuels and more efficient technology vehicles. IEPR data indicates very stable consumption rates for jet fuel and diesel through 2030. Gasoline consumption is forecasted to decline through 2030.

4.5.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the United States Department of Transportation, the United States Department of Energy, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the state level, the CPUC and the CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant federal and state energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below.

4.5.3.1 Federal Regulations
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Of 1991 (ISTEA) ISTEA promoted the development of inter‐modal transportation systems to maximize mobility as well as address national and local interests in air quality and energy. ISTEA contained factors that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, MPOs adopted explicit policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values guiding transportation decisions.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) TEA‐21 was signed into law in 1998 and builds upon the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. TEA‐21 authorizes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. TEA‐21 continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of good transportation decisions. TEA‐21 also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the 947
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-6
transportation system through, for example, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems, to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.

4.5.3.2 State Regulations
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code § 25301[a]). The CEC prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the IEPR.

The 2021 IEPR was adopted February 22, 2022, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2021 IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. Additionally, the 2021 IEPR provides the results of the CEC’s assessments of a variety of energy issues facing California. Many of these issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs.

State of California Energy Plan
The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and 948
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-7
increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards California Code of Regulations (CCR) 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. The 2019 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards are applicable to building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 standards require solar PV systems for new homes, establish requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities, encourage demand responsive technologies for residential buildings, and update indoor and outdoor lighting standards for nonresidential buildings. The CEC anticipates that single-family homes built with the 2019 standards would use approximately 7% less energy compared to the residential homes built under the 2016 standards. Additionally, after implementation of solar PV systems, homes built under the 2019 standards would use about 53% less energy than homes built under the 2016 standards. Nonresidential buildings would use approximately 30% less energy due to lighting upgrades compared to the prior code.

AB 1493 Pavley Regulations and Fuel Efficiency Standards California AB 1493, enacted on July 22, 2002, required CARB to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Under this legislation, CARB adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles (cars and light-duty trucks). Although aimed at reducing GHG 949
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-8
emissions specifically, a co-benefit of the Pavley standards is an improvement in fuel efficiency and consequently a reduction in fuel consumption.

California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
First established in 2002 under Senate Bill (SB) 1078, California’s Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) required retail sellers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable resources to 20% of total retail sales by 2017. The program was accelerated in 2015 with SB 350 which mandated a 50% RPS by 2030. SB 350 includes interim annual RPS targets with three-year compliance periods and requires 65% of RPS procurement to be derived from long-term contracts of 10 or more years. In 2018, SB 100 was signed into law, which increases the RPS to 60% by 2030 and requires all the state’s electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) 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 RPS discussed above, higher energy efficiency requirements for buildings, initial strategies towards a regional electricity grid, and improved infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations. Specifically, SB 350 requires the following to reduce statewide GHG emissions:
• Increase the amount of electricity procured from renewable energy sources from 33% to 50% by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 25% by 2027. • Double the energy efficiency in existing buildings by 2030. This target will be achieved through the CPUC, the CEC, and local publicly owned utilities. • Reorganize the California 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 (California Leginfo 2015).
950
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-9
City Of Ontario, 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Update Energy efficiency performance standards are provided in the City of Ontario, 2022 CCAP Update. As presented in Table 3-1 and 3-2 of the Energy Analysis, the Project is consistent with all applicable performance standards.

4.5.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines indicate a Project will have a potentially significant effect related to energy if it would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

4.5.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.5.5.1 Impact Statements
Potential Impact EN-1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

Impact Analysis:

PROJECT ENERGY DEMANDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY/CONSERVATION MEASURES The Project in total would be required to comply with incumbent performance standards established under the Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards). Also, developers and owners/tenants have vested financial incentives to avoid imprudent energy 951
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-10
consumption practices. In this regard, there is growing recognition among developers and owners/tenants that efficient and sustainable construction and operational practices yield both environmental and economic benefits. On this basis, and as further supported by the following discussions, the Project would not result in or cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.

CONSTRUCTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY/

CONSERVATION MEASURES
Construction Fuel/Power Consumption Estimates
Energy consumption in support of, or related to, Project construction would include electricity consumption by various equipment and tools; diesel fuel consumed by construction equipment and construction vendor trips; and gasoline consumed by construction worker commutes. As presented in the Project Energy Analysis:
• Over the approximately 4-year construction period, Project construction activities would consume approximately 11,310,591 kWH of electricity (Project Energy Analysis, p. 28).
• Over the approximately 4-year construction period, Project construction equipment operations would consume approximately 792,643 gallons of diesel fuel (Project Energy Analysis, p. 29).
• Over the approximately 4-year construction period, Project construction worker commutes would consume and estimated 1,455,871 gallons of fuel (Project Energy Analysis, p. 32).
• Over the approximately 4-year construction period, Project construction vendor trips would consume approximately 325,768 gallons of fuel (Project Energy Analysis, p. 36).
952
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-11
Diesel fuel and fuel for construction activities would be provided by existing area vendors.

Construction electricity demands would be provided via connection to existing SCE services.

Project construction activities would comprise temporary, single-event demands for diesel fuel and electricity and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of fuel for these purposes.

Construction Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Equipment and vehicles used during Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards, and would demonstrate related fuel efficiencies. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of vehicles or equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to incumbent power/fuel efficiency standards. Project construction activities would therefore not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of power or fuel.

Additionally, certain incidental construction-source energy efficiencies would likely accrue through implementation of California regulations. More specifically, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment.

Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by City building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.

Indirect construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved through the use of recycled/recyclable materials and related procedures, and energy efficiencies realized from bulk purchase, transport and use of construction materials. Use of recycled and recyclable materials and use of materials in bulk also reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced 953
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-12
demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations.

Construction Waste Management Plan
A Project Construction Waste Management Plan would be required consistent with Section

5.408.1.1 of the CALGreen Code. Consistent with Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), as adopted by the City of Ontario. The Project would be required to recycle or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50 percent of the non-hazardous construction and demolition waste.

OPERATIONAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY/CONSERVATIONMEASURES Operational Energy Consumption
Energy consumption in support of, or related to, Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by vehicles accessing the Project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). As presented in the Project Energy Analysis:
• Vehicles accessing the Project site activities would consume approximately 9,921,947 gallons of fuel annually (Project Energy Analysis, p. 40). • Project building and site operations would consume approximately 233,744,273 kBtu natural gas annually (Project Energy Analysis, p. 41).
• Project building and site operations would consume approximately 80,413,660 kWh electricity annually (Project Energy Analysis, p. 41).
954
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-13
Operational Energy Efficiency/Conservation Measures
Facilities Energy Demand Efficiencies
The Project would be required to meet or surpass standards established under incumbent California Code Title 24, Part 6 (the California Energy Code) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City, to include building “solar zones” accommodating on-site photovoltaic energy sources.3 Enhanced Vehicle Fuel Efficiencies
Under future conditions, average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can be expected to improve as older, less fuel-efficient vehicles are removed from circulation.

Average fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site can also be expected to improve over time in response to fuel economy and emissions standards imposed on newer vehicles entering the transportation system.

Project Design and Access
The Project proposes typical urban land uses within an urbanizing context proximate to, and readily accessible from, regional and local roadways. In these regards, the Project setting proximate to transportation corridors generally facilitates access to the Project.

SUMMARY
Construction Summary
Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed, as there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are 3 Per the 2019 California Energy Code, the Project building roof designs would be required to provide “solar zones” reserved for the future installation of a solar electric or solar thermal system. Energy Code Section 110.10 B states that: ”The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building or on the roof or overhang of another structure located within 250 feet of the building or on covered parking installed with the building project, and shall have a total area no less than 15 percent of the total roof area of the building excluding any skylight area. The solar zone requirement is applicable to the entire building, including mixed occupancy.”
955
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-14
unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies.

CCR Title 13, Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(2) Idling, limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than 5 minutes, thereby precluding unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment.

Enforcement of idling limitations is realized through periodic site inspections conducted by local building officials, and/or in response to citizen complaints.

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

As supported by the preceding discussions, Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

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

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

Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In 956
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-15
compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and County requirements, the Project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations.

As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Facility Demand Summary
The Project proposes conventional land uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other land use projects of similar scale and configuration. The Project’s compliance with applicable Title 24 standards would ensure that Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

Conclusion
As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, and potential Project impacts in these regards would be less-than-significant. Further, energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy-producing or energy transmission facilities and would not create or otherwise result in a potentially significant impact affecting energy resources or energy delivery systems. On this basis, the potential for the Project to result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact EN-2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
957
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-16
Impact Analysis: The Project’s consistency with the applicable federal, state, and local plans is discussed below.

Consistency with ISTEA
Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems. The Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct, intermodal transportation plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the ISTEA, as SCAG has no plans for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site.

Consistency with TEA-21
The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The location of the Project site facilitates access, acts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through collocation of similar uses. The Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under TEA‐21. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of TEA‐21.

Consistency with IEPR
Electricity would be provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Pathway (CPEP) white paper builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR.

Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. As such, development of the proposed Project would support the goals presented in the 2021 IEPR.

Consistency with State of California Energy Plan
The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the Interstate freeway system. The location of the Project site facilitates access and takes 958
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-17
advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes identified under the State of California Energy Plan. As such, the Project is consistent with and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct, implementation of the State of California Energy Plan.

Consistency with California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and will become effective on January 1, 2023. It should be noted that the analysis herein assumes compliance with the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The Project would not interfere with implementation of Title 24.

Consistency with AB 1493
AB 1493 is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure establishing vehicle emissions standards. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under AB 1493.

Consistency with RPS
California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS.

Consistency with SB 350
The proposed Project would use energy from SCE. SCE has committed to diversify their portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new industrial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption.
959
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Energy
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.5-18
Summary
As demonstrated above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Additionally, regulatory measures, standards, and policies directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and GHG emissions would also act to promote energy conservation and reduce Project energy consumption. Please refer to related discussions presented at EIR Sections 4.3, Air Quality and 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency is considered less-thansignificant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
960

4.6 NOISE
961
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-1

4.6 NOISE
Abstract
This Section assesses whether the Project would substantially increase ambient noise levels, or expose land uses to noise, groundborne noise, or groundborne vibration levels exceeding established standards. Potential impacts considered within this Section include:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project exceeding standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; and • Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. • 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.

As substantiated herein, all potential noise impacts of the Project would be less-than-significant or can be mitigated to levels that are less-than-significant. 962
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-2

4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section presents the noise setting, methodology, standards of significance, and potential noise impacts associated with the Project. Where impacts are determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are proposed to avoid or reduce the severity of impacts. The information presented herein has been summarized from the Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022 (Project Noise Impact Analysis). The Project Noise Impact Analysis in its entirety is presented at EIR Appendix G.

4.6.2 SETTING
Following are discussions of noise fundamentals applicable to the Project, together with assessments of existing ambient noise levels and noise sources in the Project vicinity.

4.6.2.1 Fundamentals of Noise
Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale in decibels which are then weighted and added over a 24-hour period to reflect not only the magnitude of the sound, but also its duration, frequency, and time of occurrence. In this manner, various acoustical scales and units of measurement have been developed, including equivalent sound levels (Leq), day-night average sound levels (Ldn) and community noise equivalent levels (CNEL). “A-weighted” decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against the very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. The decibel scale has a value of 0.0 dBA at the threshold of hearing and 120 dBA at the threshold of pain. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. Thus, a 1.0 decibel increase is just audible, whereas a 10-decibel increase means the sound is perceived as being twice as loud as before.

Examples of the decibel level of various noise sources are provided in the following Figure 4.6-1.
963
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc.

Figure 4.6-1
Typical Noise Levels
964
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-4
Noise Rating Schemes
Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly, but rather are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The equivalent sound level (Leq) is the constant level that, over a given period, transmits the same amount of acoustic energy as the actual time-varying sound. Equivalent sound levels are the basis for both the Ldn and CNEL scales.

Day-night average sound levels (Ldn) are a measure of the cumulative noise exposure of the community. The Ldn value results from a summation of hourly Leqs over a 24-hour period with an increased weighting factor applied to the nighttime period between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This noise rating scheme account for subjectively more annoying noise events that may occur during normal sleep hours.

Community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) also carry a weighting penalty for noise that occurs during nighttime hours. In addition, CNEL levels include a penalty for noise events that occur during the evening hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Because of the weighting factors applied, CNEL values at a given location will always be larger than Ldn values, which in turn will exceed Leq values. However, CNEL values are typically within one decibel of the Ldn value.

Sound Propagation
For a “line source” of noise, such as a heavily traveled roadway, the noise level drops off by a nominal value of 3.0 decibels for each doubling of distance between the noise source and the noise receptor. The nominal value of 3.0 dBA with doubling applies to sound propagation from a line source: (1) over the top of a barrier greater than 3 meters in height; or (2) where there is a clear unobstructed view of the highway, the ground is hard, no intervening structures exist and the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor averages more than three meters above the ground.

Notwithstanding, environmental factors such as wind conditions, temperature gradients, characteristics of the ground (hard or soft) and the air (relative humidity), and the presence of vegetation combine to typically increase the attenuation achieved outside 965
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-5
laboratory conditions to approximately 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance. The increase in noise attenuation in exterior environments is particularly true: (1) for freeways with an elevated or depressed profile or exhibiting expanses of intervening buildings or topography; (2) where the view of a roadway is interrupted by isolated buildings, clumps of bushes, scattered trees; (3) when the intervening ground is soft or covered with vegetation; or (4) where the source or receptor is located more than three meters above the ground.

In an area which is relatively flat and free of barriers, the sound level resulting from a single “point source” of noise drops by six decibels for each doubling of distance or 20 decibels for each factor of ten in distance. This applies to fixed noise sources and mobile noise sources which are temporarily stationary, such as an idling truck or other heavyduty equipment operating within a confined area (such as industrial processes or construction).

Noise Barrier Attenuation
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA. Noise barriers are most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise source.

4.6.2.2 Factors Affecting Motor Vehicle Noise
According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks.

Assuming speed and vehicle mix do not change, a doubling of traffic volumes can be expected to result in a 3.0 dBA increase in noise levels. The vehicle mix on a given roadway may also influence community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise 966
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-6
levels will increase. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway.

To account for the ground-effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft-site, and hard-site conditions. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. A drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 3.0 dBA dropoff rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth.

The Project Noise Study indicates that, generally, soft site conditions better reflect predicted noise levels within the Study Area. Related, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) research has shown that the use of soft site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis.

4.6.2.3 Community Responses to Noise
Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment.

Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, populations generally can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels. An increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments. A 3.0 dBA increase may be perceptible outside of the laboratory. An increase of 5.0 dBA is often necessary before any noticeable change in community response (i.e., complaints) would be expected.

Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon individual susceptibility to noise and 967
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-7
personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including:
• Fear associated with noise-producing activities;
• Noise receptor’s perception that they are being unfairly treated; • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity; and • Receptor’s belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Recent studies have shown that changes in long-term noise levels are noticeable and are responded to by people. For example, about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 Ldn will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one Ldn is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed.

When traffic noise exceeds 60 Ldn or aircraft noise exceeds 55 Ldn, people begin complaining. Group or legal actions to stop the noise should be expected to begin at traffic noise levels near 70 Ldn and aircraft noise levels near 65 Ldn.

4.6.2.4 Land Use Compatibility with Noise
Some land uses are less tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or liveability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process.

4.6.2.5 Sensitive Receptors
Land uses classified as noise-sensitive by the State of California include: schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term care centers, and mental care facilities. Some jurisdictions also consider day care centers, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas to be noise-sensitive. Moderately noise-sensitive land uses typically include: multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out968 © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-8
patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs.

Land uses which are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

4.6.2.6 Ambient Noise Conditions
To assess existing noise levels in the Project vicinity, eight long-term 24-hour measurements were taken at locations throughout the Study Area. These locations are illustrated at Figure 4.6-2 and are representative of sites that may be affected by Projectgenerated noise. Ambient noise measurements in the Project Study Area are summarized at Table 4.6-1.

Table 4.6-1
24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements
Location Description
Energy Average Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located near the northwest corner of the Project
Site near the Colony High School Football Field. 56.0 55.6 L2 Located east of the Project Site just south of the
existing residence at 3271 S. Quincy Way. 48.9 48.4
L3 Located within the Rich Haven Specific Plan north
of Ontario Ranch Road. 69.1 64.0
L4 Located south of the Project Site near the existing
residence at 10823 Edison Avenue. 56.3 52.1
L5 Located within the Rich Haven Specific Plan near
the existing residence at 3965 S. Sunrise Avenue. 63.1 55.1 L6 Located west of the Project Site near the existing
residence at 3860 S. Oasis Paseo. 68.8 62.4
L7 Located west of the Project Site near the existing
residence at 3393 Clover Place. 65.4 60.2
L8 Located north of the Project Site near the existing
residence at 2943 S. Alder Creek Drive. 68.5 64.3
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022. 969

NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4.6-2
Noise Monitoring Locations
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc.
970
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-10

4.6.3 EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging, as well as intrusive, noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains fairly constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

4.6.3.1 State of California
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards and provides noise/land use compatibility guidance. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared according to guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The purpose of the Noise Element is to “limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels.” In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

4.6.3.2 City of Ontario
Noise Element
The City of Ontario General Plan (Policy Plan) identifies several policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. Policy Plan Section S4, Noise Hazards, establishes a goal of maintaining an environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. To satisfy this goal, the Policy Plan identifies seven policies related to: noise mitigation; coordination with transportation authorities; noise mitigation; truck traffic; roadway design; airport noise compatibility and rail noise mitigation. The noise criteria identified at Table 5-13-3 of The 971
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-11
Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report provides guidelines to evaluate land use compatibility within various noise environments. Table 5-13-3 is provided at Exhibit 3-A of the Project Noise Impact Analysis.

Noise Standards
The potential noise impacts originating from stationary-source (operational) noise are evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. The City of Ontario requires that noise from new stationary sources in the City comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, which limits the acceptable noise at the property line of the impacted property, to reduce nuisances to sensitive land uses. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would result in noise levels that are acceptable to the City and would result in less-than-significant noise impacts from stationary sources.

Municipal Code Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. The maximum acceptable Project-related operational noise levels received at off-site land uses in the City of Ontario are identified at Table 4.6-2.

Table 4.6-2
Operational Noise Standards
Noise Zone Land Use Exterior Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Daytime (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m.-7 a.m.)
I Single-Family Residential 65 45
II Multi-Family Residential 65 50
III Commercial 65 60
IV Residential Mixed-Use 70 70
V Manufacturing and Industrial 70 70
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

Construction Noise Standards
The City of Ontario Municipal Code has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction. Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud 972
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-12
noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. or between the hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations.

Construction noise would be considered significant if construction activities occurring outside of the hours specified (7 a.m. and 6 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. weekends, excluding federal holidays) or if construction activities substantially elevate the ambient noise environment at noise-sensitive uses for a substantial period. It is assumed that Project construction activities would comply with the City’s hour of activity restrictions, thereby precluding construction activities during noise-sensitive time periods. However, neither the City of Ontario General Plan Noise Element or Municipal Code establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, a numerical construction threshold based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA Leq as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive land use.

Construction Vibration Standards
To analyze vibration impacts originating from the construction and operations of a project, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Ontario does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual standards are used to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations.

For uses adjacent to the Project site, a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) is appropriate.
973
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-13
Airport Land Use Compatibility
The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles south of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). The Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, according to Policy Map 2-1 of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP). As such, the Project site is subject to the Noise Criteria established at Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. The Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area but outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone.

4.6.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the noise criteria presented above, and direction provided within the CEQA Guidelines as implemented by the City of Ontario, Project noise impacts would be considered potentially significant if the Project is determined to result in or cause the following conditions:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project exceeding standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • 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.

Noise Impact Thresholds
Noise impact thresholds applicable to the Project are summarized at Table 4.6-3. Please refer also to the discussion of thresholds presented at Project Noise Impact Analysis Section 4, Significance Criteria.
974
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-14
Table 4.6-3
Noise Impact Thresholds
Analysis Receiving
Land Use Baseline Condition(s) Significance Threshold Criteria Daytime Nighttime
Off-Site Traffic
NoiseSensitive
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non NoiseSensitive if ambient is > 75 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Operational
Residential Exterior Noise Level Limit 55 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq NoiseSensitive
If ambient is < 60 dBA Leq ≥ 5 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA Leq ≥ 3 dBA Leq Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA Leq ≥ 1.5 dBA Leq Project increase Construction
NoiseSensitive
Noise Level Threshold 80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold 0.3 PPV (in/sec) n/a
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

4.6.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.6.5.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant noise/vibration impacts, based on the analysis presented within this Section and included within the EIR Initial Study (EIR Appendix A, Initial Study Checklist Item XIII. Noise).

4.6.5.2 Impact Statements
Following is an analysis of potential noise impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the Project. Noise levels will change both on-site and off-site if the Project is approved and implemented. The discussion of potential noise impacts is organized to reflect categories or types of noise sources, including:
• Construction-Source Noise;
• Vehicular-Source Noise;
975
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-15
• Operational/Area-Source Noise; and
• Vibration.

For each topical discussion, potential impacts are evaluated under applicable criteria established above at Section 4.6.4, Standards of Significance.

To assess the potential for long-term operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts, eight receiver locations were identified for focused analysis, as shown at Figure 4.6-3 and described below.

R1: Location R1 represents the Colony High School Football Stadium, approximately 76 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R1 is placed in the bleachers just north of Planning Area (PA) 1. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 3271 S. Quincy Way, approximately 219 feet east of the Project site. Receiver R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R3: Location R3 represents an on-site receiver location within the planned PA7 residential mixed use overlay area. Receiver R3 is placed approximately 460 feet south of the light industrial use within PA 6A. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R4: Location R4 represents the existing noise sensitive 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, receiver R4 is placed at the building’s façade. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.
976
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-16
R5: Location R5 represents the existing on-site noise sensitive residence at 3959 S.

Sunrise Avenue within the standalone residential overlay (PA4). Receiver R5 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the light industrial use within PA5A. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R6: Location R6 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 3455 Pine Ridge Loop, approximately 150 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R6 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L6, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R7: Location R7 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 3379 S. Myrtle Drive, approximately 156 feet west of the Project site. Receiver R7 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L7, to describe the existing ambient noise environment.

R8: Location R8 represents the existing noise sensitive residence at 2943 S. Alder Creek Drive, approximately 189 feet north of the Project site. Receiver R8 is placed in the private outdoor living areas facing the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L8, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. 977
NOT

TO SCALE
Figure 4.6-3
Receiver Locations
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc.
978
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-18

CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE NOISE
Potential Impact NOI-1: 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 noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Impact Analysis: Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that, when combined, can reach high levels. Construction is expected to occur in the following stages:
• Site Preparation;
• Grading;
• Building Construction;
• Architectural Coating; and
• Paving.

The construction-source noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. Please refer to Noise Impact Analysis Table 11-1, Construction Reference Noise Levels for a listing of reference noise levels employed in the evaluation of construction-source noise.

Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 70 dBA to more than 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver, and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver. 979
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-19
Based on the construction equipment reference noise levels and distance to the Project site, peak noise levels at the receiver locations have been developed, and are summarized at Table 4.6-4.

Table 4.6-4
Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary
Receiver Location
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels
Threshold Threshold Exceeded ?
R1 56.0 80 No
R2 53.3 80 No
R3 63.7 80 No
R4 55.8 80 No
R5 63.8 80 No
R6 55.1 80 No
R7 54.8 80 No
R8 52.5 80 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

As indicated at Table 4.6-4, peak received construction-source noise levels would range from 52.5 to 63.8 dBA Leq. These levels would not exceed the applicable threshold of 80 dBA Leq. Construction-source noise levels that comply with applicable standards do not comprise a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, or a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant. The following measures act to further reduce already less-than-significant construction noise levels.

4.6.1 Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the Project complies with the following:
• All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the Noise Control Officer; 980
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-20
• 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
Potential Impact NOI-2: 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.

Impact Analysis: To assess the off-site transportation CNEL noise level impacts, noise contours were developed based on the Project traffic analyses. Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios:
• Existing 2022 Traffic Conditions
• Existing Plus Project 2022 Traffic Conditions
• Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) 2027 Without Project
• Opening Year Cumulative (OYC) 2027 With Project
• Horizon Year (HY) 2050 Without Project
• Horizon Year (HY) 2050 With Project
981
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-21
Project Noise Impact Analysis Tables 7-1 through 7-6 present the noise contours developed for the above scenarios for all Study Area roadways. Based on these noise contours, the following Tables 4.6-5 through 4.6-7 present a comparison of noise conditions along Study Area roadways without and with development realized pursuant to the Project under the above-described scenarios.

Table 4.6-5
Existing Conditions With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Archibald
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 79.3 79.5 0.2 1.5 No
Haven
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 78.6 79.3 0.7 1.5 No Haven
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 76.2 77.5 1.3 1.5 No Haven
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 77.4 78.7 1.3 1.5 No
Mill Creek
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Sensitive 69.7 71.1 1.4 1.5 No
Milliken
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 78.9 79.8 0.9 3.0 No Milliken
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 78.6 79.4 0.8 3.0 No Hamner
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Non-Sensitive 78.6 79.4 0.8 3.0 No Hamner
Avenue
s/o Ontario Ranch
Road Non-Sensitive 80.1 80.4 0.3 3.0 No
Riverside
Drive w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 77.2 77.3 0.1 1.5 No
Riverside
Drive
w/o Milliken
Avenue Sensitive 74.9 75.5 0.6 1.5 No
Chino
Avenue
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 71.1 71.4 0.3 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 79.1 79.9 0.8 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 79.9 81.0 1.1 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 80.4 81.5 1.1 1.5 No 982
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-22
Table 4.6-5
Existing Conditions With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Ontario
Ranch Road e/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 81.5 82.6 1.1 1.5 No Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 81.3 83.1 1.8 3.0 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 82.2 83.5 1.3 3.0 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

Table 4.6-6
OYC With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Archibald
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 80.1 80.3 0.2 1.5 No
Haven
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 80.2 80.7 0.5 1.5 No Haven
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 79.3 79.9 0.6 1.5 No Haven
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 78.7 79.8 1.1 1.5 No
Mill Creek
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Sensitive 70.1 71.4 1.3 1.5 No
Milliken
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 79.4 80.3 0.9 3.0 No Milliken
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 79.2 80.0 0.8 3.0 No Hamner
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Non-Sensitive 79.1 79.9 0.8 3.0 No Hamner
Avenue
s/o Ontario Ranch
Road Non-Sensitive 80.7 80.9 0.2 3.0 No
Riverside
Drive w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 78.0 78.1 0.1 1.5 No
Riverside
Drive
w/o Milliken
Avenue Sensitive 76.5 76.9 0.4 1.5 No
983
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-23
Table 4.6-6
OYC With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Chino
Avenue
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 73.5 73.7 0.2 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 80.1 80.7 0.6 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 80.8 81.7 0.9 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 81.2 82.2 1.0 1.5 No Ontario
Ranch Road e/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 82.1 83.1 1.0 1.5 No Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 83.0 84.3 1.3 3.0 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 83.7 84.6 0.9 3.0 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

Table 4.6-7
HY (2050) With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Archibald
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 81.7 81.8 0.1 1.5 No
Haven
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 81.2 81.6 0.4 1.5 No Haven
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Sensitive 80.6 81.1 0.5 1.5 No Haven
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road Sensitive 79.9 80.7 0.8 1.5 No
Mill Creek
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Sensitive 73.8 74.4 0.6 1.5 No
Milliken
Avenue n/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 83.2 83.6 0.4 3.0 No Milliken
Avenue s/o Riverside Drive Non-Sensitive 82.1 82.5 0.4 3.0 No 984
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-24
Table 4.6-7
HY (2050) With Project
Traffic Noise Level Increases
Roadway Roadway
Segment
Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
CNEL at Receiving
Land Use (dBA)
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition Limit ThresholdExceeded?
Hamner
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue Non-Sensitive 82.2 82.6 0.4 3.0 No Hamner
Avenue
s/o Ontario Ranch
Road Non-Sensitive 80.9 81.1 0.2 3.0 No
Riverside
Drive w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 80.4 80.4 0.0 1.5 No
Riverside
Drive
w/o Milliken
Avenue Sensitive 80.8 80.9 0.1 1.5 No
Chino
Avenue
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 74.1 74.3 0.2 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 80.5 81.0 0.5 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Archibald
Avenue Sensitive 80.7 81.7 1.0 1.5 No
Ontario
Ranch Road w/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 84.9 85.4 0.5 1.5 No Ontario
Ranch Road e/o Haven Avenue Sensitive 84.0 84.6 0.6 1.5 No Ontario
Ranch Road
w/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 84.3 85.3 1.0 3.0 No
Ontario
Ranch Road
e/o Hamner
Avenue Non-Sensitive 84.8 85.5 0.7 3.0 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

As shown above, Project traffic would not result in increased noise levels that would exceed the thresholds presented at Table 4.6-3. As such, off-site land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less-than-significant noise level increases due to the Project-related traffic.

However, on-site residential uses proposed along Haven Avenue, Mill Creek Avenue, Hamner Avenue, Riverside Drive, Chino Avenue and Ontario Ranch Road may be subject to noise levels above 65 dBA. Therefore, on‐site residential land uses located along these roadways would require additional noise attenuation to ensure that noise levels comply with the City’s exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA 985
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-25
CNEL. To this end, Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 requires the preparation of project-specific acoustical analysis for residential uses upon submittal of final site design plans.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant (on-site residential uses only).

Mitigation Measure:

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

Level of Significance With Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.

OPERATIONAL/AREA-SOURCE NOISE
Potential Impact NOI-3: 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.

Impact Analysis: To estimate the Project operational/area-source noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. Please refer to Noise Impact Analysis Table 10-5 for a listing of reference noise levels employed in the evaluation of operational/area-source noise.

It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the idling trucks, delivery truck activities, backup alarms, as well as loading and unloading of dry goods, roof-top air conditioning units, and parking lot 986
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-26
vehicle movements all operating simultaneously. These noise levels will likely vary throughout the day.

Using the reference noise levels, it is possible to estimate the operational source noise levels generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Please refer also to Noise Impact Analysis Appendix 10.1 for detailed calculations of the Project operational/area-source noise levels.

Daytime and nighttime operational/area-source noise levels that can be expected to be generated by the various Project noise sources, and received at area receptors are presented at Tables 4.6-8, 4.6-9 below.

Table 4.6-8
Daytime Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Levels
Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Loading Dock Activity 44.6 44.4 40.6 41.7 39.3 38.6 34.1 32.3 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 29.2 30.0 42.0 32.6 36.1 30.3 28.7 21.9 Trash Enclosure Activity 24.1 24.5 37.5 27.2 20.4 21.3 17.8 16.0 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 27.3 29.2 36.8 29.2 37.4 26.7 25.9 19.8 Truck Movements 27.2 28.6 27.8 30.1 30.4 23.3 20.9 17.6 Park Activities 24.6 22.6 26.1 23.5 28.5 28.8 31.5 20.5 Total (All Noise Sources) 44.9 44.8 45.8 42.8 42.9 39.6 35.9 33.1 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

Table 4.6-9
Nighttime Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Levels
Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Loading Dock Activity 44.6 44.4 40.6 41.7 39.3 38.6 34.1 32.3 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 26.8 27.5 39.6 30.2 33.7 27.9 26.3 19.5 Trash Enclosure Activity 20.1 20.5 33.5 23.2 16.4 17.3 13.9 12.1 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 27.3 29.2 36.8 29.2 37.4 26.7 25.9 19.8 987
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-27
Table 4.6-9
Nighttime Project Operational/Area-Source Noise Levels
Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8
Truck Movements 27.2 28.6 27.8 30.1 30.4 23.3 20.9 17.6 Park Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total (All Noise Sources) 44.8 44.7 44.5 42.5 42.4 39.3 35.5 32.9 Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project operational/areasource noise levels received at area receptors were evaluated against City of Ontario exterior noise level thresholds. Please refer to Table 4.6-10.

Table 4.6-10
Operational/Area-Source Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 44.9 44.8 65.0 45.0 No No
R2 44.8 44.7 65.0 45.0 No No
R3 45.8 44.5 65.0 45.0 No No
R4 42.8 42.5 65.0 45.0 No No
R5 42.9 42.4 65.0 45.0 No No
R6 39.6 39.3 65.0 45.0 No No
R7 35.9 35.5 65.0 45.0 No No
R8 33.1 32.9 65.0 45.0 No No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

As shown at Table 4.6-10, Project operational/area-source noise levels would not exceed the City of Ontario 65 dBA Leq daytime or 45 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise standards.

As such, the potential for Project operational noise to result in exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies is considered less-thansignificant. 988
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-28
Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact NOI-4: Project operational noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

Impact Analysis: To describe the Project operational noise level contributions, the Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the off-site receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Tables 4.6-11 and 4.6-12 present the daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases associated with the Project.

Table 4.6-11
Daytime Noise Level Contributions
Location
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels
Combined
Project and
Ambient
Project
Increase Threshold ThresholdExceeded?
R1 44.9 L1 56.0 56.3 0.3 5.0 No
R2 44.8 L2 48.9 50.3 1.4 5.0 No
R3 45.8 L3 69.1 69.1 0.0 1.5 No
R4 42.8 L4 56.3 56.5 0.2 5.0 No
R5 42.9 L5 63.1 63.1 0.0 5.0 No
R6 39.6 L6 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.5 No
R7 35.9 L7 65.4 65.4 0.0 1.5 No
R8 33.1 L8 68.5 68.5 0.0 1.5 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022. 989
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-29
Table 4.6-12
Nighttime Noise Level Contributions
Location
Total Project
Operational
Noise Level
Measurement
Location
Reference
Ambient
Noise Levels
Combined
Project and
Ambient
Project
Increase Threshold ThresholdExceeded?
R1 44.9 L1 55.6 56.0 0.4 5.0 No
R2 44.8 L2 48.4 50.0 1.6 5.0 No
R3 45.8 L3 64.0 64.1 0.1 5.0 No
R4 42.8 L4 52.1 52.6 0.5 5.0 No
R5 42.9 L5 55.1 55.4 0.3 5.0 No
R6 39.6 L6 62.4 62.4 0.0 5.0 No
R7 35.9 L7 60.2 60.2 0.0 5.0 No
R8 33.1 L8 64.3 64.3 0.0 5.0 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

As indicated at Tables 4.6-11 and 4.6-12, Project contributions to the ambient noise environment would not exceed the threshold conditions presented at previous Table 4.6-

3. On this basis, the potential for Project operational noise to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant. The following measures act to further reduce already less-than-significant operational 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:
990
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-30
• Mechanical equipment shall include specifications of quiet equipment; • Mechanical equipment shall be properly selected and installed, and shall include sound attenuation packages;
• To the extent possible, mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from the nearest noise sensitive receptors; and
• The need for sound attenuation measures, and design of, such measures shall be determined as part of the final engineering design on a project‐by‐project basis.

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

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

VIBRATION
Potential Impact NOI-5: The Project would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise.

Impact Analysis:

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that groundborne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion.
991
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-31
Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration.

Table 4.6-13 presents the expected Project-related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

Table 4.6-13
Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver
Distance to
Const.

Activity
Received Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) Levels (in/sec) Thresholds PPV
(in/sec)
Threshold
Small Exceeded?
Bulldozer
JackhammerLoaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Peak
Vibration
R1 76’ 0.001 0.007 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.3 No
R2 219’ 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.3 No
R3 30’ 0.002 0.027 0.058 0.068 0.068 0.3 No
R4 94’ 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.012 0.012 0.3 No
R5 30’ 0.002 0.027 0.058 0.068 0.068 0.3 No
R6 150’ 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.3 No
R7 156’ 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.3 No
R8 189’ 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.3 No
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

As shown above, the highest construction vibration levels are expected to range from

0.003 to 0.068 in/sec PPV, and will satisfy the maximum acceptable vibration threshold of

0.3 PPV (in/sec). Moreover, the impacts at the closest sensitive receivers are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. On this basis, the potential for the Project to result in exposure persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise is considered lessthan-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact NOI-6: 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 992
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Noise
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.6-32
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Impact Analysis: The Project site is located approximately 2.4 miles southerly of the Ontario International Airport (ONT) and is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area.

The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was amended July 2018 to promote compatibility between airport and surrounding land uses.

Since the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the Project is subject to the Noise Criteria established at Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP.

The Project site is located outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL airport noise impact zone.

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

Based on the preceding, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
993

4.7 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
994
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-1

4.7 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Abstract
This Section identifies and addresses potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that may result from the implementation and operations of the Project. More specifically, the hazards and hazardous materials analysis presented here examines whether the Project would:
• 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; or
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, with the application of mitigation, and the Project’s mandated compliance with existing rules and regulations, potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Project are less-than-significant.

4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
The analysis presented in this Section addresses the potential impacts of hazards and/or hazardous materials associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Project. The analysis considers potential hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the Project site; and also considers potential hazards resulting from the Project, including 995
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-2
potential effects at off-site land uses. As discussed at 2007 EIR Section 5.5, Hazards, comprehensive Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) and Methane Gas Investigations were conducted for properties within the Specific Plan boundaries. The 2007 EIR Phase I Environmental Assessments and Methane Gas Investigations include:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Approximate 77-Acre Property, Rich Haven Specific Plan Mixed Use District, RBF Consulting, October 3, 2005. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Approximate 106-Acre Property, Rich Haven Specific Plan Mixed Use District, RBF Consulting, October 3, 2005. • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Visser Property, GeoKinetics, February 1, 2003.
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Randall Property, GeoKinetics, January 17, 2005.
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Di Tommaso Property, GeoKinetics, February 18, 2004.
• Preliminary Subsurface Methane Gas Investigation, Randall Property, GeoKinetics, January 31, 2005.
• Subsurface Methane Gas Investigation, Scritsmier Property, GeoKinetics, January 26, 2004.
• Subsurface Methane Gas Investigation, Visser Property, GeoKinetics, February 1, 2003.
• Subsurface Methane Gas Investigation, Di Tommaso Property, GeoKinetics, February 18, 2004.
• Subsurface Methane Gas Investigation, Van Der Eyk Property, GeoKinetics, November 25, 2002.
• Letter from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, June 12, 2006.

The above studies are available for review through the City of Ontario Planning Department. Information from the above studies is summarized in this Section and the 2007 EIR Section 5.5, Hazards is presented at EIR Appendix H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
996
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-3

4.7.2 SETTING
The physical setting of the Project provided here serves as context for potential hazards associated with, or resulting from, the Project.

4.7.2.1 Project Site Land Use
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. Within developed or developing portions of the Specific Plan Area, the City has verified that all hazards/hazardous materials mitigation required under the 2007 EIR has been completed including, but not limited to, Methane Gas remediation as required by the City of Ontario Building Department Methane Assessment for Projects in the New Model Colony (City Methane Assessment Protocol). Developed areas and areas under development are illustrated at Figure 4.7-1.

The remainder of the 2021 Specific Plan Area is yet to be developed. Existing land uses in these areas include a dairy farm in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (the “Hillardis Property” identified at Figure 4.7-1) and various vacant/disturbed properties through 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.
997
Figure 4.7-1
Mapped Properties
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment; Applied Planning, Inc.

Former
Hillardis
Property
Former
Scritsmier
Hog Ranch
998
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-5

4.7.2.2 Project Site History
Based on historical research conducted as part of the 2007 EIR Phase I ESAs and Methane Gas Investigations, the Project site has historically comprised vacant land, agricultural uses, dairy farms, residences, wells, unimproved roads, and power transmission lines. Contemporary site investigations conducted as part of this EIR,1 historic and recent aerial photos, information provided by the Applicant, and review of TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 EIR confirm historical use of the site as described in the 2007 EIR Phase I ESAs and Methane Gas Investigations.

4.7.2.3 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.

4.7.3 EXISTING HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS
Other than on-going development of the Project site per the currently approved Specific Plan entitlements, site conditions have not changed substantially since preparation of the 2007 EIR. Contemporary site investigations conducted as part of this EIR, historic and recent aerial photos, information provided by the Applicant, and review of TOP 2050 and TOP 2050 EIR confirm that hazards and hazardous conditions affecting the Project site have not changed substantially since preparation of the 2007 EIR.

Conclusions regarding potential hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the Specific 1 See: Project Biological Resources Assessment, July 2022 [EIR Appendix K] p. 1 et. al; Project Cultural Resources Assessment, August 2022 [EIR Appendix L] p. 11 et. al; Project Geotechnical Investigation, September 2022 [EIR Appendix J]. p. 3, et. al.
999
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-6
Plan Area site as summarized in the 2007 EIR Phase I ESAs are excerpted in pertinent part below.
• Due to past use of the project site as a dairy farm and hog farm, the potential exists for elevated soil organic levels and the associated generation of subsurface methane gas.
• The potential for asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint on the project site exists because of some structures built before 1978. • Based on the past and present agricultural usage of portions of the site, the potential exists for the presence of organic pesticides within the onsite soils. Soil samples should be collected and analyzed for organic pesticides in order to screen for their presence.
• Several homes present on the project site reportedly use onsite sewage disposal systems.
• The residences and other structures onsite may contain lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials.
• Water supply wells were identified onsite, and it is necessary to verify that they have been properly abandoned.
• A 500-gallon diesel fuel aboveground storage tank (AST) is onsite, and should be deactivated and properly disposed of in conjunction with the site development activities.
• A debris pile with improperly disposed of waste oil was observed onsite.
• A concrete wastewater collection sump and associated underground water distribution piping, as well as an abandoned manufactured home are onsite.
• A Southern California Edison transmission line exists onsite with triple high-tension lines, which may impose some restrictions on development.
1000
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-7
Based on the findings of the Phase I ESAs described previously, several methane studies were conducted for the properties that were used as dairies. Out of the 96 gas probes that were installed as a part of the methane studies, only 3 revealed elevated methane concentrations. These methane studies contained the following recommendations:
• Careful clearing, grubbing, segregation, and stockpiling or disposal of the near surface organic-rich soils at the site prior to the initiation of mass grading activities should occur.
• Identification and segregation/stockpiling or disposal of deeper soils which contain elevated levels of organic material should be conducted. • Soils with organic contents in excess of 0.4 percent should not be placed as “deep” fill. Ideally, soils with significant levels of organic material should be placed in open areas within approximately two feet of the finished ground surface.
• Soils with organic contents in excess of 2 percent should typically not be placed as structural fill - even at shallow depths. The project geotechnical engineer should provide more specific recommendations in this regard.

No additional investigation of the project site was recommended. [2007 EIR Section 5.5, Hazards, pp. 5.5-4 – 5.5-6].

4.7.4 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS POLICIES AND REGULATIONS A number of federal, state, and local laws have been enacted to regulate and manage hazardous materials. Implementation of these laws and the associated management of hazardous materials are regulated independently of the CEQA process, through programs administered by various agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. An overview of regulatory agencies and certain key hazardous materials laws and regulations applicable to the Project, and to which the Project must conform, is provided below.
1001
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-8

4.7.4.1 Federal
Hazardous materials are extensively regulated at the federal level. Regulatory agencies include: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (USOSHA), United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Applicable Federal Regulations are contained primarily in Titles 10, 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In particular, Title 49 of the CFR governs the manufacture of packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling and the marking of hazardous material transport. Some of the major federal laws and issue areas include the following statutes and implementing regulations:
• Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - hazardous waste management;
• Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA) - hazardous waste management;
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) - cleanup of contamination;
• Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - cleanup of contamination; and
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (SARA Title III) - business inventories and emergency response planning.

The USEPA is the primary federal agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of hazardous materials regulations. In most cases, enforcement of environmental laws and regulations established at the federal level is delegated to state and local environmental regulatory agencies.

In addition, with respect to emergency planning, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for ensuring the establishment and development of policies and programs for emergency management at the federal, state, and local levels. 1002
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-9
This includes the development of a national capability to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from a full range of emergencies.

Hazardous Waste Handling
The USEPA has authorized the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) to enforce hazardous waste laws and regulations in California. Requirements place “cradle-to-grave” responsibility for hazardous waste disposal on the shoulders of hazardous waste generators. Waste generators must ensure that their wastes are disposed of properly, and legal requirements dictate the disposal requirements for many waste streams (e.g., a ban on many types of hazardous wastes from landfills).

Hazardous Materials Transport
The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has developed regulations pertaining to the transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes by all modes of transportation, as outlined in Title 49 of the CFR. The U.S. Postal Service has developed additional regulations for the transport of hazardous materials by mail. USDOT regulations specify packaging requirements for different types of materials. USEPA has also promulgated regulations for the transport of hazardous wastes. These more stringent requirements include tracking shipments with manifests to ensure that wastes are delivered to their intended destinations.

4.7.4.2 State
The primary state agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the DTSC and the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB). Other state agencies involved in hazardous materials management are the Department of Industrial Relations, California OSHA (Cal OSHA) implementation, Office of Emergency Services (OES - California Accidental Release Prevention Implementation), Air Resources Board (ARB), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA - Proposition 65 implementation) and CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, CIWMB). The enforcement agencies for hazardous materials 1003
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-10
transportation regulations are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans.

Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations.

Relevant hazardous materials management laws in California include, but are not limited to, the following statutes and implementation regulations:
• Hazardous Materials Management Act - business plan reporting; • Hazardous Waste Control Act - hazardous waste management; • Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) - release of and exposure to carcinogenic chemicals;
• Hazardous Substance Act - cleanup of contamination; and • Hazardous Materials Storage and Emergency Response.

California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has broad jurisdiction over hazardous materials management in the state. Within CalEPA, the DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for hazardous waste management and cleanup. Enforcement of regulations has been delegated to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with DTSC for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law.

Along with the DTSC, the SWQCB is responsible for implementing regulations pertaining to management of soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup. SWQCB regulations are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).

Additional state regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Title 22 of the CCR. Title 26 of the CCR is a compilation of those sections or titles of the CCR that are applicable to hazardous materials.
1004
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-11
Department of Toxic Substances Control
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is the principal federal law that regulates the generation, management, and transportation of hazardous materials and other wastes. The DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. In addition, DTSC reviews and monitors legislation to ensure that the position reflects the DTSC’s goals. From these laws, DTSC’s major program areas develop regulations and consistent program policies and procedures. The regulations spell out what hazardous waste handlers must do to comply with the laws.

California law provides the general framework for regulation of hazardous wastes by the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) passed in 1972. DTSC is the State’s lead agency in implementing the HWCL. The HWCL provides for state regulation of existing hazardous waste facilities, which include “any structure, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous wastes,” and requires permits for, and inspections of, facilities involved in generation and/or treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP) The CalARP program (CCR Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.7) covers certain businesses that store or handle more than a certain volume of specific regulated substances at their facilities. The list of regulated substances is found in Article 8, Section 2770.5 of the CalARP program regulations. The businesses that use a regulated substance above the noted threshold quantity must implement an accidental release prevention program, and some may be required to complete a Risk Management Plan (RMP). An RMP is a detailed engineering analysis of the potential accident factors present at a business and the mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this accident potential. The purpose of an RMP is to decrease the risk of an off-site release of a regulated substance that might harm the surrounding environment and community. An RMP includes the 1005
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-12
following components: safety information, hazard review, operating procedures, training, maintenance, compliance audits, and incident investigation. The RMP must consider the proximity to sensitive populations located in schools, residential areas, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, and child day-care facilities, and must also consider external events such as seismic activity.

Hazardous Materials Transportation
In California, the CHP has the primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies.

Specifically, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code requires that when hazardous materials are transported on state or interstate highways, the highway(s) that offer the shortest overall transit time possible shall be used. Transportation of hazardous materials along any city or state roadways is subject to all hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the CHP and Caltrans. Transporters of hazardous materials and waste are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations.

Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Sites
The oversight of hazardous materials release sites often involves several different agencies that may have overlapping authority and jurisdiction. The DTSC and SWQCB are the two (2) primary state agencies responsible for issues pertaining to hazardous materials release sites. Air quality issues related to remediation and construction at contaminated sites are also subject to federal and state laws and regulations that are administered at the local level.

Investigation and remediation activities that would involve potential disturbance or release of hazardous materials must comply with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous materials laws and regulations. The DTSC has developed standards for the investigation of sites where hazardous materials contamination has been identified or could exist based on current or past uses. The standards identify approaches to determine if a release of hazardous wastes/substances exists at a site and delineate the 1006
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-13
general extent of contamination; estimate the potential threat to public health and/or the environment from the release and provide an indicator of relative risk; determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce an existing or potential threat; and complete preliminary project scoping activities to determine data gaps and identify possible remedial action strategies to form the basis for development of a site strategy.

4.7.4.3 Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
SCAG is the regional agency for coordination between various local agencies within the six-county region covering Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial counties. The region covers more than 38,000 square miles and is home to more than 18 million people. SCAG is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and is responsible for preparing plans and developing goals, policies, and programs to ensure regional cooperation. One such program is the Southern California Compass Blueprint Growth Vision. SCAG works with local governments and other entities in the region to implement the program’s four (4) principles: Mobility, Livability, Prosperity, and Sustainability. SCAG is also responsible for preparing the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), an advisory plan to achieve a sustainable balance between environmental, economic, and social interests throughout the SCAG region.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
The SCAQMD establishes Rules that regulate or control various air pollutant emissions and emissions sources within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The SCAQMD coordinates its actions with local, state, and federal government agencies, the business community, and private citizens to achieve and maintain healthy air quality for San Bernardino County, including the City of Ontario.
1007
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-14

4.7.4.4 Local
San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division Under the California Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Material Management Regulatory Program, (Chapter 6.11, Division 20, Section 25404 of the Health and Safety Code), hazards/hazardous materials management is addressed locally through the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The primary CUPA for the City of Ontario is the San Bernardino County Fire Department.

As a CUPA, San Bernardino County Fire Department manages the following six hazardous material and hazardous waste programs:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plan); • California Accidental Release Program (CalARP);
• Underground Storage Tanks (UST);
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA)/Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC Plan);
• Hazardous Waste Generation and On-site Treatment; and • Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Inventory Statements under Uniform Fire Code Article 80.

Chino Basin Watermaster
Eleven existing wells have been identified within the Project site. In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from the County Health Department. A copy of such 1008
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-15
permit shall be provided to the Engineering and Public Works Agency prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits.

City of Ontario
The Ontario Plan includes Goals and Policies which act to reduce potential hazards within the City. Additionally, the City of Ontario has published Methane Design Guidelines for projects located within the New Model Colony. These guidelines are applicable to any building development on farm properties (including dairy farms) and is independent of the planned building use (i.e., residential or commercial/industrial).

In summary, a Methane Site Assessment is required for any parcels used as animal farms or composting/fertilizer farms, and the survey must be completed within “all lots in potential methane areas.” The Methane Site Assessment must be completed within 30 days after building footprints have been put in place.

The City further presents Design Guidelines to be implemented within affected properties. Building permits will be issued when the test report is approved by the City Building Department, and any required mitigation measures are shown on building plans.

4.7.4.5 Waste Handling Procedures
As presented above, the identification, characterization, handling, transportation and disposal of wastes are primarily regulated under 40 CFR, part 261.24 (Federal) and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (State) and other applicable DOT, CA DTSC, and OSHA laws and regulations. The following discussions detail how these regulations are applied to the specific hazardous materials most likely to be encountered as part of the demolition and site preparation phase of the Project. 1009
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-16
Manifesting and Transportation
Waste must be hauled under proper shipping manifests as follows:
1) Non-hazardous : A uniform non-hazardous manifest ;
2) Cal-haz/Non-RCRA (State system): A uniform hazardous manifest, identifying the waste as non-RCRA, using an appropriate EPA number; 3) RCRA-hazardous (Federal system): A uniform hazardous manifest, identifying the waste as RCRA, using an appropriate EPA number.

The transporter must have the required and appropriate hauling permits and licenses in order to be able to haul the waste.

Disposal
Landfills are classified based on the type of waste accepted; hazardous waste must be disposed of at a Class I landfill, “designated waste”2 at a Class II, non-hazardous solid waste at a Class III, and inert waste is disposed of at an unclassified disposal site. All designated landfills must have the proper local, State and Federal operating permits.

Waste, as classified, is disposed of as follows:
1) Non-hazardous: At a non-hazardous Class III landfill or at a Treatment and Recycling facility.
2) Cal-haz/Non-RCRA: At a hazardous Class I landfill or at an out of State nonhazardous landfill. 3) RCRA-hazardous: At a hazardous Class I landfill.

While non-hazardous waste from the Project site could be transported to a number of Class III landfills, non-hazardous waste generated at the site and vicinity is currently 2 “Designated waste” is defined as hazardous waste that has been granted a variance from hazardous waste management requirements; or non-hazardous waste that could be released in concentrations exceeding applicable water quality objectives or that could reasonably be expected to affect beneficial uses of waters of the State.
1010
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-17
sent to the West Valley Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Fontana for processing, recycling, or landfilling. Most refuse is transported from the MRF to the El Sobrante Landfill, located in the City of Corona. Any hazardous waste encountered as part of site preparation activities will be disposed of at a Class I landfill. There are currently three (3) Class I landfills located in California. These sites are located in Imperial, Kings, and Kern Counties. The precise location will be determined by the contractor in charge of demolition and site preparation.

Pesticides
There are State and Federal thresholds dictating the characterization of pesticide contaminated soils. Specifically, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and California EPA monitor a number of pesticides that were once widely used, but are currently banned or heavily regulated in the United States due to concerns regarding their environmental impact and/or human health risks. Risk-based soil screening levels have been calculated and published by the U.S. EPA, as well as the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) for guidance purposes. Both agencies have developed screening levels for both residential and industrial/commercial settings, as seen in Table 4.7-1.

Table 4.7-1
Pesticide Screening Level Thresholds (µg/kg)
Agency
Pesticide
DDT DDE DDD Dieldrin
U.S. EPA
Residential 1700 1400 2000 30
Commercial/Industrial 7000 5100 7200 100
Cal EPA
Residential 1600 1600 2300 35
Commercial/Industrial 6300 6300 9000 130
Source: GeoKinetics, August 1, 2013.
1011
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-18
Based on testing results, contaminated soils may be treated on-site (by blending/diluting with clean soil) or disposed of off-site, as follows:
1) Non-hazardous: The soil must pass the State and Federal regulatory thresholds.

In that case, the soil may be disposed of as non-hazardous at a Class III landfill or, as discussed above, a treatment or recycling facility. 2) Cal-haz/Non-RCRA: In this case, the soil fails the State regulatory thresholds but passes the Federal requirements. Therefore, the soil may be disposed of as nonRCRA at a Class I hazardous landfill or at an out-of-state non-hazardous landfill. 3) RCRA-hazardous: In this case, the soil fails both the State and Federal regulatory thresholds. Therefore, the soil will have to be disposed of as Federal, RCRAhazardous at a Class I landfill.

Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs)
Prior to demolition of structures, testing for ACMs is performed by a licensed contractor and any ACMs are disposed of based on the testing results. In California, if asbestos is friable and contains more than 1% asbestos, it is considered hazardous.

ACMs are disposed of as follows:
1) Non-friable: This ACM waste may be disposed of at a Class III local landfill subject to their acceptance criteria.
2) Friable: This ACM waste may be disposed of at a Class I hazardous landfill or at an out-of-state landfill, depending on the level of contamination.

Depending on whether or not the ACMs are friable or non-friable, they will need to be handled, contained, and wrapped accordingly based on the applicable State regulations and the landfill requirements for transportation and disposal purposes. 1012
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-19
Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Prior to demolition, testing for LBP is performed by a licensed contractor and any LBP is disposed of based on the testing results. LBP waste is disposed of as follows:
1) Non-hazardous: If the lead content is less than 50 ppm (presumes it passes the State Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLC) and the Federal Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) levels of 5.0 mg/l), the waste can be disposed of at a Class III non-hazardous landfill.
2) Cal-haz/Non-RCRA: If the waste contains 1,000 ppm lead and it fails the State STLC of 5 mg/l, it is considered cal-hazardous and may be disposed of at an outof-state landfill as non-RCRA waste. 3) RCRA-hazardous: If the waste fails the Federal TCLP of 5 mg/l, it will then have to be disposed of at a hazardous Class I landfill.

4.7.5 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines as adopted and implemented by the City of Ontario, and for purposes of this EIR, implementation of the Project may result in or cause potentially significant hazards/hazardous materials impacts if it would:
• 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;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 1013
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-20
• 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;
• 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.

4.7.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.7.6.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts, pursuant to comments received through the NOP process, and based on the analysis presented within this Section and included within the Initial Study. As substantiated in the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A) under the following topics, the Project was determined to have less-than-significant impacts. On this basis, the following topics are not further discussed here:
• 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; 1014
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-21
• For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for the people residing or working in the project area;
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

All other CEQA topics concerning the Project’s potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts are discussed below. Please refer also to Initial Study Checklist Item IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

4.7.6.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact HAZ-1: 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.

Impact Analysis:

Existing On-site Hazards
Hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions affecting the subject site have been previously and extensively analyzed as part of the 2007 Rich-Haven Specific Plan EIR (2007 EIR). In summary, the 2007 EIR concluded that development of the site could result in potentially significant hazards/hazards materials impacts due to structure demolition, potential presence of methane gas, presence of organic materials, and general hazards or hazardous conditions associated with current and historic 1015
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-22
agricultural and dairy farming uses. As noted previously in this Section, hazardous/hazardous conditions affecting the Project site are materially the same as those identified in the 2007 EIR.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measures that would reduce the above-noted hazards/hazardous materials impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant were identified in the 2007 EIR. For ease of reference, the 2007 EIR Mitigation Measures are excerpted below.

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

HM-2 Subsequent to grading activities, testing for the presence of methane in the soil shall be performed. This testing shall conform to applicable City of Ontario standards. If methane is detected, mitigation would include the installation of under-slab methane vents, methane barrier, and sealing utilities in locations where they enter a structure and penetrate the methane barrier.

HM-3 Post-grading methane gas investigation should take place near the former Scritsmier Hog Ranch (13571 Haven Avenue) where subsurface methane levels exceed 5,000 ppm. A passive vent system and gas 1016
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-23
membrane beneath the floor slab should be installed, along with utility trench dams and conduit seals.

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

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

HM-6 Prior to approval of a discretionary permit or approval for development of proposed residential uses on the Hillardis Property, such as a parcel map or tentative tract map, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted and the results of that ESA implemented. The Phase I ESA shall be provided to the City of Ontario and shall be included in any CEQA analysis prepared in connection with the consideration of a discretionary approval for development of the eastern half of the project site.
[2007 EIR, pp. 5.5-12, 5.5-13]
Subsequent to Certification of the 2007 EIR, Methane Gas investigation and remediation of the former Scritsmier Hog Ranch (13571 Haven Avenue) per Mitigation Measure HM-3 has been successfully accomplished and accepted by the City. Development of this site is on-going (see Figure 4.7-1). Mitigation Measure HM-3 has been implemented and is no longer required.

Additionally, per Mitigation Measure HM-6, the required Phase I ESA for the “Hillardis Property” (APNs 218-161-04, 218-161-05, 218-161-10, 218-161-11) has been completed 1017
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-24
and is provided at Appendix H of this EIR.3 The Hillardis Property Phase I ESA recommends that a Phase II Environmental Assessment be conducted for that site to address the following items:
• Agricultural/orchard usage of the southern portion of the Property, • Methane Gas Testing for the northern portion of the Property, • Soils in the areas of unregulated dumping, and
• Soils in the area of the leaking air compressors in the garage [in the northern portion of the property].
[Hillardis property Phase I ESA, p. 7]
The requirement to conduct a Phase II Assessment and comply with its provisions is added as mitigation to this EIR (see Mitigation Measure 4.7.4).

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

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

4.7.2 Testing for methane gas shall be conducted subsequent to mass grading of any site within the Specific Plan Area. Methane gas testing shall conform to requirements of “City of 3 See: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 (Hillman Consulting) July 28, 2016.
1018
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-25
Ontario Building Department Methane Gas Assessment for Projects in the New Model Colony.”4 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 requirements of the Phase II ESA, and shall provide documentation to the City of Ontario to that effect.

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

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.

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

During the normal course of construction and operation activities, there would be limited transport of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, 4 See:https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Building/general/methane_assessment.pdf. 1019
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-26
solvents, fertilizer, etc.) to and from the Project site. However, the Project would be required to comply with all City and County Hazardous Materials Management Plans and regulations addressing transport, use, storage and disposal of these materials. The Project does not propose or require uses or activities that would result in atypical transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials not addressed under current regulations and policies.

Further, any occupancies that would store or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with California Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) requirements (California Health & Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) The HMBP contains detailed information on the storage of hazardous materials at regulated facilities. The purpose of the HMBP is to prevent or minimize damage to public health, safety, and the environment, from a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. The HMBP also provides emergency response personnel with adequate information to help them better prepare and respond to chemical-related incidents at regulated facilities.

The Project does not propose or require uses that would handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Heavy duty truck traffic accessing the Project would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM). DPM is a known carcinogen.

The Project Health Risk Assessment (HRA, EIR Appendix D) substantiates that the DPM emissions generated by Project construction and operations would not result in potentially significant hazardous impacts.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact HAZ-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Impact Analysis: Colony High School is located approximately 0.2 miles north of nearest light industrial uses proposed by the Project. The Project does not propose or require uses or facilities that would generate or use hazardous or acutely hazardous 1020
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hazards/Hazardous Materials Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.7-27
materials. The Project HRA substantiates that DPM emissions generated by the Project would not result in potentially significant impacts at vicinity schools. As a matter of course, the Lead Agency consults with potentially affected school districts throughout the EIR process for development proposals.

On this basis, the potential for the Project to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
1021

4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
1022
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-1

4.8 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
Abstract
This Section addresses potential impacts of the Project related to hydrology and water quality. The analysis presented focuses on the potential for the Project to:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would:
o substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that would result in flooding on- or offsite;
o create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o impede or redirect flood flows.
• Under a flood, tsunami, or seiche event, release pollutants due to project inundation; or • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

As substantiated by the analysis in this Section, potential hydrology/water quality impacts would be less-than-significant.
1023
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-2

4.8.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section evaluates potential impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality.

Information contained and referenced in this Section was obtained from: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, Hydrology Report (X Engineering & Consulting, Inc.) September 2022 (EIR Appendix I).

Additional background information and context are provided by Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment (EIR Appendix B); City of Ontario Policy Plan, A Component of the Ontario Plan 2050 (Placeworks) August 2022; The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, SCH No. 2021070364 (Placeworks) August 2022; City of Ontario Development Code; Hydrology and Water Quality, and Fact Sheet Region 8 (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board)1 and Project Application Materials.

4.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Please refer to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a general discussion of the Project’s regional and vicinity setting. The hydrologic setting described below establishes the baseline against which the Project’s potential hydrology/water quality impacts were evaluated. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final SEIR (TOP 2050 SEIR) at Section 5.10, and Hydrology and Water Quality, and Fact Sheet Region 8 (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board)describe area hydrologic and water quality characteristics, as summarized and paraphrased in the following discussions.

4.8.2.1 Regional
Drainage
The Santa Ana River Watershed encompasses approximately 2,800 square miles, and includes portions of San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside Counties. The Santa Ana River is the main surface drainage course in the region, and the largest river in the Chino 1 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. (n.d.). Fact Sheet Region 8. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/factsheets/rb8_cw101.pdf 1024
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-3
Basin. The River originates in the San Bernardino Mountains, travels southwest, and discharges to the Pacific Ocean near the Huntington Beach/Newport Beach city boundary. Water flow in the river is regulated by the Prado Dam, the Seven Oaks Dam, and other flood-control facilities along the river and its tributaries. The City of Ontario is nearest to Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River.

Surface Water
The City of Ontario lies within the Chino Watershed, which consists of most of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley and portions of the San Gabriel Mountains and Puente Hills and Chino Hills. The Santa Ana River forms the southern boundary of the Watershed. The primary direction of drainage flow is from the San Gabriel Mountains southward to the Santa Ana River, then continues southwest in the River.

Within the City, streams in the Watershed include the West Cucamonga, Deer Creek, Day Creek, and Etiwanda Creek Channels, and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel.

West Cucamonga Channel and Deer Creek Channel discharge into the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, which discharges into the Santa Ana River. Within the City, some stormwater runoff is diverted for recharge in flood retention and spreading basins, including the Eighth Street, Ely, Turner, Chris, Cucamonga, and Wineville Basins.

The USEPA denotes four surface water bodies within the Chino Watershed on its list of Water Quality Limited Segments under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (USEPA 2007). One of these water bodies passes through the City of Ontario—Valley Reach of Cucamonga Creek is included on the Section 303(d) list for coliform bacteria from an unknown nonpoint source.

Groundwater
The Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in southern California, covering approximately 235 square miles of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. The basin is bounded by the Rialto-Colton Fault on the northeast, the Jurupa Mountains and La Sierra Hills to the southeast, the Central Avenue Fault to the southwest, and the San Jose Fault 1025
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-4
and Red Hill Fault to the northwest. Groundwater is produced from the basin by cities, other water supply entities, and by agricultural users overlying the basin. Before 1978, the basin was in overdraft. Since 1978, the basin has been managed via ongoing court adjudication in the 1978 judgment Chino Basin Municipal Water District vs. City of Chino et al.

The City of Ontario draws all of its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin.

Groundwater flows through the Chino Basin in a north/south alignment, and groundwater quality is better in the northern portion of the basin, where significant recharge occurs. Salinity, measured as total dissolved solids (TDS), and nitrate concentrations increase in the southern portion of Chino Basin. TDS and nitrate generally originate from nonpoint sources such as land application of wastes and fertilizer from previous and current agricultural activities. In addition, there are several point sources of contamination in the basin that affect groundwater quality in localized areas. The primary water quality concerns for the City’s groundwater wells are nitrate and perchlorate levels. Other contaminants of concern are volatile organic compounds (VOC) and TDS.

Flood Hazards
While significant hydrologic improvements have been made within the City, including channelization of many of the City’s watercourses, flooding associated with peak 100- year and 500-year floods and dam inundation remains a potential hazard.

Types of Floods
Flash floods are short but have high peak volumes and velocities. The local mountains are very steep and consist of rock types fairly impervious to water. Little precipitation infiltrates the ground. Instead, rainwater flows across the surface as runoff, collecting in major drainages that pass through the City. When a major storm event moves in, water collects rapidly and runs off quickly. Because of the steep terrain and scarcity of vegetation in the mountains, flood flows often carry large amounts of mud, sand, and 1026
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-5
rock. Sheet flow occurs when the capacity of the existing channels, either natural or manmade, are exceeded and water flows over and into the adjacent areas.

Recent Historical Floods
In the winter of 1969, flood flows were greater than the estimated 100-year flood, and exceeded the capacity of levees, storm drains, and flood-control channels. About 1,000 people were reportedly evacuated from the Cucamonga area. In Ontario, most of the floodwaters were contained in improved channels and basins; however, overbank flow from Deer and Etiwanda Creeks flooded portions of the City.

In 1998, the area received more than double its average annual rainfall, and this, combined with a lack of storm drains in south Ontario, resulted in significant flooding of the dairy preserve. The flooding caused significant property damage, the deaths of about 16,000 dairy cows, with losses to farmers in the millions of dollars. The winter storms of 2004/2005 dropped record rainfall on southern California. Ontario experienced localized flooding and sedimentation, mainly due to inadequacies in the local storm drain system, but the damage was considerably less than the 1998 losses.

Designated Flood Zones
The 100-year flood in Ontario is generally confined to the major watercourses, channels, and basins that traverse the City. Please refer to Figure 4.8-1. The majority of the City watercourses are channelized to prevent flood hazards. However, in the event of a peak 100-year or 500-year storm event, flood waters can flow over their banks and inundate adjacent areas. Large portions of the City would be affected by shallow and/or infrequent flooding, primarily by sheet flow as storm drains and channels become overwhelmed.

This flooding is also exacerbated by graded embankments along the rail lines and east/west roadway embankments within the City that cause ponding. The Project site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain, but within the 500-year floodplain. 1027
Figure 4.8-1
Flood Hazard Zones
Source: The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental EIR

NOTTO SCALE
1028
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-7

4.8.2.2 City of Ontario
City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage (MPD)
Under the City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage (MPD), the City is divided into 4 Study Areas, “Original Model Colony West” (OMC-West,), OMC-East, “New Model Colony West” (NMC-West), and NMC-East. Each of the MPD Study Areas is subdivided into Drainage Areas (denoted by Roman Numerals I – XIV). For example, the OMC-East Study Area is subdivided into Drainage Areas III (part), Drainage Area X and Drainage Area XI (part). The MPD Study Area and Drainage Area boundaries generally coincide with physical attributes or political boundaries that define drainage areas within the City.

Location of the Project site within the MPD is presented at Figure 4.8-2. The Project site lies within the MPD NMC-East Study Area, Drainage Area X. Drainage Area X is tributary to the County Line Channel. The County Line Channel is owned and maintained by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) and runs along the southerly edge of the Ontario Ranch portion of the City.

4.8.2.3 Project Hydrology Report Area (Rich-Haven Watershed) The Project Hydrology Report evaluates hydrologic changes that would result from the Project and related implications for the serving MPD stormwater management system.

The Project Hydrology Report Area (the “Rich-Haven Watershed”) includes the Project site and comprises approximately 4.5 square miles (2,880 acres) within the northeast portion of Drainage Area X. The Watershed captures northeast-to-southwest trending stormwater inflows to the Project site, as well as stormwater discharges from the Project site to the south/southwest.
1029
Figure 4.8-2
Project Site Within the MPD
Source: City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage

NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
1030
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-9

4.8.3 Serving MPD Stormwater Management System
Under the MPD, stormwater discharges from the Rich-Haven Watershed would be conveyed by three main planned backbone storm drain lines: 1) Haven Avenue Storm Drain, 2) Mill Creek Avenue Storm Drain, and 3) Milliken Avenue Storm Drain. These storm drains exist or are planned along north – south alignments, connect ultimately to the County Line Channel. Alignments of these planned backbone storm drain lines are illustrated at Figure 4.8-3. Description of each backbone storm drain line and its current status are summarized at Table 4.8-1. Consistent with City requirements, the Project would construct serving MDoP facilities, or would participate financially in their construction. Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within the Project site would be contingent on City verification of the adequacy of serving infrastructure including, but not limited to, adequacy of the serving MPD facilities.

Table 4.8-1
Serving MPD Storm Drains
Storm Drain Line Location Status
Haven Avenue Storm Drain
Haven Avenue Storm Drain (hereafter, Haven SD) is a network of storm drain lines 48” to 84” in size, with a mainline (HAVN-X-1) that runs north from Bellegrave Avenue to Riverside Drive along Haven Avenue and branches to storm drain line (HAVN-X-2, -X-3, and -X-4) and several unnamed laterals that extend from planned/future development within the Rich-Haven Watershed.

HAVN-X-1 Runs north from Bellegrave Avenue to Riverside Drive along Haven Avenue
Partially Constructed
HAVN-X-2 Branches westerly off HAVN-X-1 in Ontario Ranch Road Constructed HAVN-X-3
(Twinkle Storm Drain)
Branches from HAVN-X-1 Partially Constructed
HAVN-X-4 Branches easterly off HAVN-X-1 in Chino Avenue Not Constructed Mill Creek Avenue Storm Drain
Mill Creek Avenue Storm Drain (hereafter, Mill Creek SD) is a network of storm drain pipes ranging in size from 48” to a 10’ x 8’ box, with a mainline (MLCR-X-1) that runs north from Bellegrave Avenue to Chino Avenue along Mill Creek Avenue, and extends to the east in Chino Avenue. MLCR-X-1 branches to MLCR-X-4, -5, and -6 and minor laterals that extend from planned/future development within the Rich-Haven Watershed along Mill Creek Avenue.

MLCR-X-1 Runs north from Bellegrave Avenue to Chino Avenue along Mill Creek Avenue and turns east along Chino Avenue
Partially Constructed
MLCR-X-4 Branches easterly off MLCR-X-1 in Ontario Ranch Road Constructed MLCR-X-5 Branches westerly off MCLR-X-1 in Ontario Ranch Road Constructed MLCR-X-6 Branches easterly off MLCR-X-1 in SCE access road Not Constructed 1031
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-10
Table 4.8-1
Serving MPD Storm Drains
Storm Drain Line Location Status
Milliken Avenue Storm Drain
Milliken Avenue Storm Drain (hereafter, Milliken Avenue SD) is a main line storm drain that varies in size from 36” to 54” that drains south from Ontario Ranch Road to Bellegrave Avenue along Hamner Avenue (also known as Milliken Avenue). Storm drain laterals extend from planned development within a minor portion of the southeastern area of the Rich-Haven Watershed.

MLKN-X-1 Runs north from Bellegrave Avenue to Riverside Drive along Milliken/Hamner Avenue
Partially Constructed
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, Hydrology Report (X Engineering & Consulting, Inc.) September 2022.

4.8.2.5 Project Stormwater Management System Improvements The Project backbone storm drain system is illustrated at Figure 4.8-4. Ultimate sizing and alignment of storm drains within the Project site would be subject to review and approval by the City. See also: 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, Section 4, Infrastructure and Services. As concluded in the Project Hydrology Report, the Project would also be required to construct on-site stormwater detention facilities to ensure that capacities of receiving MPD storm drains are not exceeded. Please refer to Section 4.8.5, Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

4.8.3 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations that act to reduce potential hydrologic impacts and/or act to protect and preserve water quality are summarized below.
1032
Figure 4.8-3
Planned Backbone Storm Drains
Source: City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage

NOT TO SCALE
1033
Figure 4.8-4
Project Backbone Storm Drain System

NOT TO SCALE
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022
SCE Corridor
Proposed Regional Backbone Storm Drain
Direction of Flow
Project Boundary
Existing Regional Backbone Storm Drain
Major Watershed Boundary 36” 48”
60”
1034
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-13

4.8.3.1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) The principal law governing pollution of the nation’s surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act (CWA), which was substantially revised by amendments in 1972 that created the bulk of the current statutory scheme. The CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards. To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the nation’s waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The CWA states that discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge complies with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The NPDES is a national program under Section 402 of the CWA. The CWA establishes the framework for regulating municipal and industrial (point sources) storm water discharges under the NPDES program. In California, the NPDES program is administered through the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards, including the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB).

Locally, the SARWQCB determines the City of Ontario’s compliance with the water quality requirements of the CWA. The Board has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (Basin Plan), which is discussed in greater detail subsequently within this Section.

Non-point pollution sources are also regulated by the SARWQCB through the General Construction Activity Storm Water NPDES permits, which are issued for storm water discharges. Construction activities subject to this general permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation that result in soil disturbances. Storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) are required as part of the construction NPDES permitting process. SWPPPs typically include both structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality impacts. 1035
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-14

4.8.3.2 State of California and San Bernardino County
At the federal level, the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to delegate its NPDES system permitting authority to states with an approved regulatory program. The Clean Water Act authorizes discharge of pollutants into waters of the State by issuance of NPDES permits. An NPDES permit has been issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to San Bernardino County and local agencies. The City of Ontario is one of many cities included as a “co-permittee” in the NPDES permit issued to the County. The regulated entities must obtain coverage under an NPDES storm water permit and implement construction storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs), and operational Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), both using best management practices (BMPs) that effectively reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters.

The NPDES permit imposes various requirements of the discharger. Provided the discharger complies with such requirements, the discharger is considered compliant with the CWA and the Permit. Most requirements imposed by the Permit comprise BMPs, which are construction and operational discharge control practices and mechanisms deemed to comply with the CWA requirements.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Required
In September 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued an NPDES General Permit for the discharge of storm water associated with Construction Activities.

Federal regulations promulgated by USEPA (40 CFR Parts, 9, 122, 123, and 124) expanded the NPDES storm water program to include storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) and construction sites that were smaller than those previously included in the program. The SWRCB issued a NPDES General Permit for the discharge of storm water associated with construction activities. The existing state NPDES Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, General Permit No. CAS000002, Permit) addresses storm water discharges associated with construction activities. The Permit applies to all of California, which is inclusive of the City of Ontario and the Project site. 1036
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-15
Requirements of this Permit include a mandate that all construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land area, shall obtain coverage under the statewide General Construction permit, obtain a Waste Discharger Identification Number and develop and implement a SWPPP. Under NPDES General Permit Section XIV, the SWPPP shall address these objectives: all pollutant sources shall be identified; BMPs shall be implemented to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from the construction site during construction; and a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction shall be implemented.

BMPs shall be described for control of discharges from waste handling and disposal areas and methods of on-site storage and disposal of construction materials and construction waste.

An effective combination of erosion and sediment control on all disturbed areas during the rainy season must be implemented. The SWPPP shall describe the erosion control practices. The SWPPP shall describe the BMPs to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges after Project construction. The beneficial uses of the receiving waters are protected through implementation of these BMPs.

Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Required
Consistent with provisions of the County’s Urban Runoff (NPDES) Permit, the Project is also required to develop and implement a post-construction Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) addressing potential operational storm water pollutant discharges over the life of the Project.

The WQMP requirements are articulated in the County’s Urban Runoff (NPDES) Permit, and include such Low Impact Development (LID) measures as retention/infiltration basins, infiltration trenches/swales, pervious pavement, vegetated swales, drywells, underground storage, biotreatment and biofiltration, roof runoff controls, recessed grading in all landscaped areas, education programs, and maintenance practices. The NPDES permitting program also includes measures to reduce the release of pollutants such as sediment, construction materials, or accidental spillage of polluting materials 1037
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-16
during construction. Consistent with provisions of the County’s NPDES Permit, the City of Ontario requires implementation of development-specific SWPPPs and incorporation of BMPs that reduce storm water and urban runoff pollutant discharges to the waters of Southern California.

SWPPP Components
Typical SWPPP elements include:
• Introduction and Purpose
• Compliance Requirements and Certifications
• Facility Information/Pollution Prevention Team Members • Site Map
• List of Significant Materials
• Potential Storm Water Pollutants and Sources
• Best Management Practices
• Summary of Pollutants, Sources, and BMPs
• Annual Comprehensive Site Evaluation
• Definitions
• State Notice of Intent Form and Instructions
SWPPP BMPs incorporated in the Project would likely include, but not be limited to:

Construction BMPs
• Silt Fences
• Check Dams
• Gravel Bag Berms and Checkdams in concentrated flow lines • Street Sweeping and Vacuuming
• Storm Drain Inlet Protection
• Wind Erosion Control
• Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit
• Entrance/Outlet Tire Wash
1038
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-17
• Scheduling construction work around inclement weather • Preservation of Existing Vegetation (wherever possible) • Application of Soil Binders and Hydromulches, before forecasted storms • Construction of Earth Berms and Dikes
Contingent on final designs of proposed uses within the Project site, the range of WQMP incorporated BMPs would likely include, but not be limited to:

Non-Structural BMPs
• Tenant Education
• Activity Restrictions
• Common Area Landscape Management
• Catch Basin Inspection
• Common Area Litter Control
• Private Street/Lot Sweeping
• Housekeeping of Loading Docks
• Employee Training
• BMP Maintenance
Structural BMPs
• Infiltration and Biofiltration Basins, Trenches, Swales • Pervious Pavement
• Underground retention/infiltration storage facilities • Control of Impervious Runoff
• Common Area Efficient Irrigation
• Common Area Runoff-Minimizing Landscape
• Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas
• Covered Trash Container Areas
• Self-contained Areas for Washing/Steam Cleaning/Repair/Material Processing • Outdoor Storage
• Energy Dissipators
1039
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-18
• Catch Basin Stenciling
• Inlet Trash Racks
The Project would implement and comply with State of California and San Bernardino County water quality protection policies and mandates.

4.8.3.3 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
Section 303 of the federal Clean Water Act and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act establish water quality objectives for ground and surface waters in the State.

Protection and maintenance of surface water quality is the combined responsibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), water supply and wastewater management agencies, and City and County governments.

The RWQCB has purview over point and non-point sources of pollution. Point source water pollutants consist of controlled wastewater releases commonly generated by activities that use water to collect pollutants and transport them from the processing facility. When such wastewater discharges are proposed, the applicant must obtain a set of Waste Discharge Requirements from the RWQCB that control water pollution to a nonsignificant level from such point sources.

Non-point sources of water pollution consist of surface runoff from a site or area during or following a storm where the source of pollution cannot be traced to a specific location.

Typical non-point water pollution sources consist of agricultural fields with sediment and fertilizers, construction sites with sediment and debris, and roads with oil, tire particles, and debris common to roads.

4.8.3.4 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Santa Ana Region The Basin Plan describes existing water quality of conditions and establishes water quality goals and policies. The Basin Plan is also the basis for the Regional Board’s 1040
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-19
regulatory programs. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all the ground and surface waters of the region. The term “water quality standards,” as used in the federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality which must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain target water quality standards.

The primary goal of the Santa Ana Basin Plan is to protect the public health and welfare, while maintaining or enhancing water quality potential beneficial uses of the water. The Basin Plan reflects amendments approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Office of Administrative Law, and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through 2005. The Basin Plan in its entirety can be reviewed at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb8/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml.

The Project would be required to implement and comply with SARWQCB water quality protection policies and mandates.

4.8.3.5 City of Ontario
General Plan Goals and Policies
TOP Policy Plan, Environmental Resources Element and Safety Element establish Goals and Policies addressing hydrologic and water quality issues and concerns. Goals and policies implemented by the City support avoidance of flood hazards, protection against potential flooding impacts, establishment and maintenance of safe and efficient storm water management systems, and protection and maintenance of water quality.

City Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Flood Damage Prevention Program (FDPP) is codified at Ontario Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 13. The FDPP applies to all areas of special flood hazards, areas of flood-related erosion hazards and areas of mudflow hazards within the City. The FDPP includes standards for construction, for utilities, subdivisions, 1041
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-20
manufactured homes, and floodways. Construction standards include requirements for anchoring, floodproofing, and minimum elevations of floors.

4.8.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with the standards of significance outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, hydrology/water quality impacts would be considered potentially significant if the Project would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
o create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o impede or redirect flood flows.
• Result in release of pollutants due to project inundation. 1042
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-21
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

4.8.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.8.5.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on topical areas and issues where it has been determined, pursuant to the EIR Initial Study/NOP processes, that the Project may result in or cause potentially significant hydrology/water quality impacts. Of the CEQA threshold considerations identified above at Section 4.8.4, and as substantiated in the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A), the Project’s potential impacts under the following topics are determined to be less-than-significant, and are not further substantively discussed here:
• Potential to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Potential to 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.2
All other CEQA topics concerning the Project’s potential impacts to hydrology/water quality are discussed below. Please also refer to Initial Study Checklist Item X., Hydrology and Water Quality.
2 Please refer also to related discussions presented at EIR Section 4.9, Geology and Soils. 1043
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-22

4.8.5.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact HYD-1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.

Impact Analysis:

Project SWPPPs and Compliance with Regulatory Requirements Address Construction-Source Water Quality Impacts
During site preparation activities prior to construction, existing groundcover will be removed from the site, exposing the Project area to increased wind and water erosion potentials. Further, construction site runoff may carry increased loads of sediment, heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons (from machinery) which could degrade water quality. In accordance with NPDES requirements, the Project Development Contractors (Contractors) would be required to prepare a construction activities erosion control plan to alleviate potential sedimentation and storm water discharge contamination impacts of the Project.

Contractors shall also be responsible for compliance with the General Construction NPDES permit from the SARWQCB by filing a Notice of Intent to Commence Construction Activities. Under the General Construction Permit, discharge of materials other than storm water is prohibited. Contractors shall prepare, retain at the construction site, and implement Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) that identify the sources of sediments and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharge, and implement practices to reduce sediment and other pollutants to storm water discharge. The SWPPPs also identify both construction and post-construction BMPs to reduce sediments and other pollutants. BMPs mandated by the requisite NPDES permit typically include installation of filter fabric fences, sandbars and checkdams. 1044
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-23
Construction BMPs for developments within the Project site would likely include, but not be limited to:
• Silt Fences;
• Check Dams;
• Gravel Bag Berms;
• Street Sweeping and Vacuuming;
• Sandbag Barriers;
• Storm Drain Inlet Protection;
• Wind Erosion Control;
• Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit; and
• Entrance/Outlet Tire Wash.

Implementation of the SWPPPs and compliance with applicable NPDES and SARWQCB requirements will reduce potential construction-source water quality impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant.

Project WQMPs and Compliance with Regulatory Requirements Address Operational-Source Water Quality Impacts
Over the life of the Project uses, contaminants such as oil, fuel and grease that are spilled or left behind by vehicular traffic, collect and concentrate on paved surfaces. During storm events, these contaminants are washed into the storm drain system and may potentially degrade receiving water quality. Storm water runoff from paved surfaces within the developed Project site could carry a variety of urban wastes, including greases and oils and small amounts of metals which are common by-products of vehicular travel.

In addition, storm runoff will likely contain residual amounts of fertilizers and plant additives washed off from landscaped areas within the Project site.

Recognizing the potential hazards of such urban runoff, the EPA has issued regulations which required municipalities to participate in the NPDES. As part of this program, San Bernardino County has received an NPDES permit for urban runoff. Compliance with 1045
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-24
the provisions specified in the NPDES permit ensures proper management and disposal of urban runoff from the Project.

Contractors shall be responsible for obtaining a General Permit for storm water discharge from the SARWQCB, in accordance with the Notice of Intent instructions. Under the General Permit, discharge of materials other than storm water is prohibited. In support of the above requirements, contractors shall also develop and implement a developmentspecific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) addressing all post-construction pollutant discharges. To the extent feasible, individual development proposals implemented within the Project site would employ permeable materials and landscaped areas to enhance on-site capture and absorption of stormflows. The Project would also provide for elimination/reduction of pollutant discharges, including capture and treatment of dry weather and first flush runoff in a manner consistent with City and SARWQCB policies and requirements. BMPs to be implemented under the WQMPs would likely include, but not be limited to the following:

Source Control/Non-Structural BMPs
• Education of Property Owners;
• Spill Contingency Plan;
• Employee Training/Education Program;
• Street Sweeping of Private Streets and Parking Lots;
• Common Areas Catch Basin Inspection;
• Landscape Planning;
• Hillside Landscaping;
• Roof Runoff Controls;
• Efficient Irrigation;
• Protection of Slopes and Channels;
• Storm Drain Signage;
• Inlet Trash Racks;
• Energy Dissipaters;
• Trash Storage Areas and Litter Control;
1046
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-25
• Maintenance Bays and Docks Drainage Controls; and
• Outdoor Material Storage Area Drainage Controls.

Site Design/Structural BMPs
• Infiltration and Biofiltration Basins;
• Maximize Permeable Areas;
• Minimize Street, Sidewalk, and Parking Lot Aisle Widths; • Minimize Impervious Hardscape Features;
• Maintain Natural Drainage Patterns;
• Incorporate Drought-Tolerant Landscaping;
• Perforated Pipes and Gravel Filtration Areas;
• On-site Vegetated Swales;
• Convey Runoff to Landscaping/Permeable Areas Prior to Discharge to Storm Drains;
• Drain Sidewalks and Walkways to Adjacent Landscape Areas; and • Integration of Landscaping and Drainage Designs.

All individual development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with all requirements of the City’s MS4 Permit, as well as the Trash Mandate adopted by the SARWQCB. All storm water discharges from individual development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Consistent with SARWQCB and City requirements, waste materials will not be discharged to drainage areas, streambeds, or streams. Nor will spoil sites be located in areas that could result in spoil materials being washed into a water body.

Additionally, all development proposals within the Project site would be required to comply with Standard City Conditions of Approval including implementation of development-specific WQMPs, thereby avoiding/minimizing potential water quality impacts.
1047
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-26
The City, as one element of its established development review processes would ensure NPDES Permit compliance concurrent with application(s) for development permits within the Project site.3
Implementation of the WQMPs and compliance with applicable NPDES and SARWQCB requirements will reduce potential operational-source water quality impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant.

As supported by the preceding discussions, the potential for the Project to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality is determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact HYD-2: 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.

Impact Analysis: The Project overall drainage concept maintains the site’s predominant north – south/northeast – southwest trending drainage pattern. Within the Project site, new development types proposed under the 2022 SPA would redefine hydrologic patterns when compared to assumptions of the 2012 City of Ontario’s Master Plan of Drainage (MPoD).
3 See: City of Ontario – Engineering Department, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements for New Development, https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/npdes_requirements_for_new_development_- _redevelopment.pdf
1048
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-27
In this latter regard, the Project Hydrology Report concludes that under postdevelopment conditions, peak stormwater flow rates from Specific Plan Planning Areas 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 3C, 5A, 6A, 6B could exceed capacities of the receiving MPD Haven and Mill Creek storm drains.4 The Project could therefore create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. This is a potentially significant impact. Stormwater flow discharges from the affected Planning Areas need to be reduced to ensure adequate storm water conveyance and flood protection along the mainlines upstream of the County Line Channel (Hydrology Report, p. 17).

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measures: The Project Hydrology Report identifies mitigation to reduce potentially increased runoff resulting from Project development – represented here as Mitigation Measures 4.8.1 through 4.8.3. The Project Hydrology Report also notes that Planning Area and development-specific studies may be performed to demonstrate that no adverse impact to the storm drain system would result from proposed development.

In these cases, the City may determine that no or alternative mitigation would be required.

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 Detailed analysis of developed stormflows and adequacy of serving MPD facilities is presented at Project Hydrology Report, pp. 14 – 19. Maximum allowable flow rates for serving MPD storm drain mainlines are identified at Project Hydrology Report, Appendix A, Exhibit 3. 1049
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-28

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

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

Other Programs and Requirements Acting to Minimize Stormwater Impacts Within the Project site, individual development proposals would be required incorporate all necessary drainage and stormwater management systems, and comply with all stormwater system design, construction, and operational requirements mandated through the City’s established development review processes. In these regards, the individual development proposals within the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with City Standard Conditions of Approval addressing hydrology and water quality concerns. These Conditions of Approval include:
• Standard Condition (SC) 3.66: A hydrology study and drainage analysis, prepared in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual and the City of Ontario’s Standards and Guidelines, and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to Grading Plan approval. Additional drainage facilities may be required as a result of the findings of the study.
1050
Figure 4.8-5
Storm Drain Control Measures

NOT TO SCALE
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022; Applied Planning, Inc.

Existing
Detention Basin
Haven
Storm Drain
Control Measures
Mill Creek
Storm Drain
Control Measures
1051
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-30
• SC 3.68: Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented by the Project during construction in order to reduce the discharge of sediment and other pollutants into the City’s storm drain system.
• SC 3.69: Prior to Grading Plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit, a completed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Engineering Department. The WQMP shall be submitted using the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program’s model template and shall identify all Post Construction, Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs), that will be incorporated into the Project, in order to minimize any potential adverse impacts to receiving waters. 5 As discussed previously in this Section, the Project would not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise adversely affect water quality.

In combination, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8.1 through 4.8.3, and mandated compliance with City Conditions of Approval and regulatory requirements act to preclude potentially adverse drainage and stormwater runoff impacts.

Based on the preceding, with application of mitigation, the potential for the Project to:
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of runoff that would result in flooding on- or offsite; or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing 5 City of Ontario. “Standard Conditions of Approval for New Development, Applicable to ‘Ontario Ranch’” pp. 13, 14. City of Ontario, California. http://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/20170418-standard_conditions_for_new_development.pdf 1052
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-31
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff is determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact HYD-3: Impede or redirect flood flows.

Impact Analysis: As shown at Policy Plan Figure S-2, Flood Hazards, the Project site is located within a 500-year flood plain and is within the San Antonio Creek Dam Failure Inundation Area. The Project site does not, however, lie within a designated 100-year floodplain or other areas known to be subject to moving or high-velocity floodwaters.

The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise impede or redirect flood flows. On this basis, the potential for the Project to impede or redirect flood flows is determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact HYD-4: Under a flood, tsunami, or seiche event, release pollutants due to project inundation.

Impact Analysis: The Project site is not located within an area subject to tsunami, or seiche events. There is no potential for the Project to be adversely affected in these regards.

The Project site does, however, lie within a 500-year floodplain and is within the San Antonio Creek Dam Failure Inundation Area. There is, therefore, the potential for the Project generally to be subject to inundation under 500-year flood conditions or in the event of the San Antonio Creek Dam failure. Either of these are relatively low probability events. Catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam when it is at or near capacity could spread water two to four feet deep over the western and central parts of the City.

However, the City has never experienced such an event.
1053
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-32
TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that the probability of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low. Furthermore, the City of Ontario Fire Department maintains a list of emergency procedures to be followed in the event of a dam failure (TOP 2050 SEIR, p.

5.10-26). Because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City is prepared in the event of such failure, impacts related to potential release of pollutants under dam failure conditions are considered less-than-significant.

Potential for release of pollutants under 500-year flood conditions or in the event of dam failure is minimized through the location, orientation, and construction of Project facilities consistent with City Building Code requirements and implementation of the Project stormwater management system improvements described in this Section.

Additionally, the Project commercial and light industrial uses would be required to develop and implement Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory (Business Plans) that specifically address storage and use of hazardous materials so as to minimize their potential release, containment of hazardous materials and related pollutants that may be released under emergency conditions, and measures to reduce potential effects of hazardous materials and related pollutants if released.

Based on the preceding, the potential for release of pollutants due to project inundation under a flood, tsunami, or seiche event is determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact HYD-5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Impact Analysis: As discussed within this Section, the Project would implement water quality control measures consistent with City and SARWQCB requirements. The Project would there not result in potentially adverse water quality impacts and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan, in this instance, the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region. 1054
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Hydrology and Water Quality Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.8-33
The City of Ontario draws all of its groundwater supply from the Chino Basin. Since 1978, the basin has been managed via ongoing court adjudication in the 1978 judgment Chino Basin Municipal Water District vs. City of Chino et al. The Project does not propose or require direct withdrawal of groundwater. Neither would the Project adversely affect designated groundwater recharge areas or groundwater recharge facilities. To the extent practical, individual development proposals within the Project site would implement LID measures facilitating infiltration of treated stormwaters to the groundwater table.

It is also noted that eleven existing wells have been identified within the Project site. In compliance with the Chino Basin Water Master’s Well Procedure for Developers, a well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing private/agricultural wells shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for approval prior to the issuance of permits for any construction activity. If a private well is actively used for water supply, the Developer shall submit a plan to abandon such well and connect users to the City’s water system (residential to the domestic water system and agricultural to the recycled water system) when available. Wells shall be destroyed/abandoned per the California Water Resource Guidelines and require permitting from the County Health Department. A copy of such permit shall be provided to the Engineering and Public Works Agency prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan is determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
1055

4.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1056
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-1

4.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Abstract
This Section addresses the potential for the Project to result in substantial geology or soils-related impacts. More specifically, this analysis presented here focuses on whether the Project would:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking; • Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; • 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;
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; • 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; or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, potential geology and soils impacts of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant with incorporation of proposed mitigation. 1057
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-2

4.9.1 INTRODUCTION
This Section examines geologic characteristics and surface and subsurface soil conditions and evaluates potential related geology/soils impacts that would directly or indirectly result from the Project.

Geologic, soils, and geotechnical conditions affecting the subject site and Project are described and evaluated 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. In summary, the Preliminary Project Geotechnical Report concludes that the subject site is suitable for development of the Project, provided that recommendations of the Report are implemented during Project design and construction.

The Project Geotechnical Report is provided at EIR Appendix J.

It is also noted that the Project is required to conform to future final site- and designspecific geotechnical investigations that will be prepared for each increment of construction.

4.9.2 SETTING
Following are summary discussions of the Project’s geologic setting, prevalent site soils, geotechnical considerations, and seismic design considerations.

4.9.2.1 Regional Geology
The Project site is located south of the San Gabriel Mountains within the broad alluvial plain of the Santa Ana River Basin within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province.

Specifically, the Specific Plan area is located within the northern portion of the Perris Block, a geologic zone consisting of granitics overlain by sedimentary deposits that are bounded by active faults including the northwest-trending Whittier-Elsinore Fault Zone at the southwest and the northwest-trending San Jacinto Fault Zone at the northeast. The roughly rectangular Perris Block is transected by the southwest-trending Santa Ana River that passes several miles south of the site.
1058
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-3
Regional geologic mapping and local topographic expressions do not indicate the presence of large-scale landslides within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area.

4.9.2.2 Existing Site Conditions
Site Geology
The Project site is underlain by Holocene to Pleistoceneage eolian (wind-blown) sedimentary deposits. The materials below the eolian deposits are young alluvial fan deposits. Soils generally consist of medium dense to dense sands with varying amounts of silt interbedded with thinner layers of stiff to very stiff fine-grained soils (i.e., silts and clays) to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade.

Due to previous and current land uses, localized areas are underlain by near surface fill materials, topsoil, manure, etc.

Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade. Groundwater levels recorded in the area by California Department of Water Resources are at depths greater than 120 feet below the ground surface.

Localized perched groundwater was found at a depth of approximately 40 feet below existing grade in the southeastern portion of the site. In general, groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons. Groundwater conditions below the site may be variable, depending on numerous factors including seasonal rainfall, local irrigation and groundwater pumping, among others.

Field Infiltration Testing
Estimation of infiltration rates was performed in general accordance with guidelines set forth by the County of San Bernardino. The observed infiltration rates are considered representative of the site soils in the area of the proposed infiltration basins/systems. 1059
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-4
Observed infiltration rates have been normalized to correct the three-dimensional flow that occurs within the field test to one-dimensional flow out of the bottom of the boring.

Eleven infiltration tests were conducted within the limits of the site, at depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet below existing grade. Infiltration rates ranged from approximately 0.6 inch/hr. to 7.0 inch/hr. for an average of approximately 2.6 inch/hr.

These rates do not include a factor of safety. Infiltration tests are performed using relatively clean water free of particulates, silt, etc.

Faulting and Seismic Hazards
A fault is considered “active” if evidence of surface rupture in Holocene time (the last approximately 11,000 years) is present. Secondary effects of seismic shaking resulting from large earthquakes on the major faults in the Southern California region, which may affect the site, include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, and dynamic settlement. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are a possibility throughout the Southern California region and are dependent on the distance between the site and causative fault and the onsite geology. The closest major active faults that could produce these secondary effects include the Chino-Central, San Jose, Elsinore, Sierra Madre and San Andreas Faults, among others.

The Specific Plan area is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (i.e., Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Act Zone) and no active faults are known to cross the site. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since no active faults are known to cross the site.

Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Loose, saturated, near-surface, cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils, and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction 1060
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-5
potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Furthermore, dynamic settlement of dry sands can occur above the groundwater table as the sand particles tend to settle and densify as a result of a seismic event.

According to the City of Ontario General Plan, the Project site is located in an area of “low to moderate” liquefaction susceptibility based only on soil type (sediments being less than 10,000 years old and unconsolidated). Additionally, site soils are generally not susceptible to liquefaction due to a lack of groundwater in the upper 50 feet and liquefaction potential is considered low to very low.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of liquefaction induced ground failure associated with the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of sediment resulting from liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into a fluid mass, gravity plus the earthquake inertial forces may cause the mass to move downslope towards a free face (such as a river channel or an embankment). Lateral spreading may cause large horizontal displacements and such movement typically damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, and structures. Due to the depth to groundwater, low potential for liquefaction and lack of nearby “free face” conditions, the potential for lateral spreading at the site is considered very low.

Expansion Potential
The CBC provides methodologies and guidelines for identification of expansive soils and establishes design standards which act to avoid potentially adverse effects of expansive soils on facilities. Section 1802.3 of the 2010 California Building Code directs expansive soil tendency be graded by its Expansion Index. A soil’s Expansion Index is defined by its potential to swell when wet or saturated. The CBC mandates that “special [foundation] design consideration” be employed if the Expansion Index is 20, or greater. 1061
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-6
Based on testing performed as part of the Geotechnical Report, site soils are anticipated to have a very low expansion potential (EI of 20 or less). Final expansion potential of site soils should be determined at the completion of grading. Results of expansion testing at finish grades will be utilized to confirm final foundation design recommendations.

4.9.3 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The Project site and Southern California generally are subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes with resulting damage to structures. However, it is not generally considered reasonable or feasible to design a structure that is entirely resistant to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. Proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life.

The California Building Code (CBC) provides earthquake design criteria and seismic design coefficients (CBC Seismic Design Parameters) that would be applicable to all development within the Project site.

The CBC Seismic Design Parameters are based on area soils profiles and proximity of known faults. Within the context of the CBC Seismic Design Parameters, seismic design(s) for the Project structures need to consider on-site soil conditions, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. Please refer to Project Geotechnical Report Section 2.6, Seismic Design Criteria.

4.9.4 GEOLOGY/SOILS/SEISMIC POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Following are summary descriptions of geology/soils/seismic policies and regulations applicable to the Project. In many instances, compliance with existing policies and regulations eliminates, or substantially reduces, potential environmental effects. 1062
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-7

4.9.4.1 City of Ontario Policy Plan (Policy Plan)
The Policy Plan, Safety Element Section S1, Seismic and Geologic Hazards establishes Citywide Goals and Policies that act to minimize potential structural damage and injury or loss of life due to earthquakes, other seismic, or adverse geologic/soils/slopes conditions.

4.9.4.2 City of Ontario Geotechnical/Seismic Design Review Processes The City Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering Departments implement General Plan Goals and Policies addressing geology, soils, and seismic conditions through established development permit review processes. To these ends, City staff ensures that site and development-specific geotechnical investigations are completed where appropriate, and that requirements and recommendations of these investigations are incorporated in construction plans, are followed through during construction processes, and are functionally complete before buildings are occupied and/or infrastructure systems or other improvements are accepted. In all instances, the City ensures that, at a minimum, applicable provisions of the CBC are incorporated throughout development design and implementation.

4.9.5 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines indicates a Project will have a potentially significant geology and soils impact if it would:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • 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;
1063
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-8
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property; • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water; or
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

4.9.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.9.6.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on topical areas and issues where it has been determined pursuant to the EIR Initial Study/NOP processes, that the Project may result in or cause potentially significant geology or soils impacts. As substantiated in the Initial Study (EIR Appendix A), under the following topics, the Project was determined to have no impact or impacts would be less-than-significant. On this basis, the following topics are not further discussed here:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; • Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides;
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; 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.
1064
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-9
All other CEQA topics concerning the Project’s potential geology and soils impacts are discussed below. Please refer also to Initial Study Checklist Item VII. Geology and Soils.

4.9.6.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact GEO-1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.

Impact Analysis: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates there are no active faults known within the Project site. The Project site is outside any Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). The Geotechnical Report determined that the risk of surface fault rupture is considered low. The Project does not propose actions or facilities that would otherwise exacerbate known or probable adverse earthquake fault conditions.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact GEO-2: 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.

Impact Analysis: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates that the potential at the site for landslides, lateral spreading, and/or liquefaction is low. However, existing nearsurface soils include fill materials, topsoil, manure, etc. These loose and compressible soils are not suitable for development. As such, the Report presents recommendations for site improvements to preclude impacts in this regard. These recommendations include site preparation, earthwork, remedial grading depths, and foundation recommendations. 1065
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-10
Compliance with the recommendations presented in the Project Geotechnical Report are required by Mitigation Measure 4.9.1, below.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measure:

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

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant. The Project Geotechnical Report concluded that the Project site is acceptable for the proposed development, contingent on compliance with recommendations and performance standards identified in the Report.

Potential Impact GEO-3: 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.

Impact Analysis: The Project Geotechnical Report substantiates that onsite soils have a very low expansion potential. “Based on the results of previous laboratory testing by others and our recent laboratory testing, site soils are anticipated to have a ‘Very Low’ expansion potential [EI of 20 or less per ASTM D4829]” (Project Geotechnical Report, p. 10). As such, the potential for the Project to 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 is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
1066
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-11
Potential Impact GEO-4: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Impact Analysis:

Paleontological Resources
The geologic unit underlying the Project site are mapped as young Eolian sand and dune deposits from the Holocene period. Eolian units are considered to be of some preservation value, but any material found is unlikely to be fossil material due to the relatively modern associated dates of the deposits. The Western Science Center does not have any localities within the Project site or within a one-mile radius. The Cultural Resources Assessment determined that significant impacts in this regard would be unlikely.
1 Level of Significance [impacts to paleontological resources]: Less-Than-Significant.

Geological Features
With regard to unique geological features, the City has not established criteria for determining what comprises a unique geological feature. Other relevant agency criteria however indicates that a geological feature could be generally considered unique if it:
• Is the best example of its kind locally or regionally; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a geologic principle that is exclusive locally or regionally;
• Provides a key piece of geologic information important in geology or geologic history;
• Is a “type locality” of a geological feature;
• Is a geologic formation that is exclusive locally or regionally; • Contains a mineral that is not known to occur elsewhere in the County; or 1 Cultural Resources Assessment, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (BCR Consulting LLC) August 18, 2022; Appendix E, Paleontological Resources Overview. 1067
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Geology and Soils Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.9-12
• Is used repeatedly as a teaching tool.2
As presented in the Project Geotechnical Report: . . . “the subject site is underlain by Holocene- to Pleistocene- age eolian (wind-blown) sedimentary deposits. The materials below the eolian deposits are young alluvial fan deposits…soils generally consisted of medium dense to dense sands with varying amounts of silt interbedded with thinner layers of stiff to very stiff fine-grained soils (i.e., silts and clays) to the maximum explored depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade…Due to previous/current land use as farming, localized areas are underlain by near surface fill materials, topsoil, manure, etc.” (Project Geotechnical Report, p. 6).

These soil types are common within the City and Southern California, and do not comprise unique geological features as described above. The Project does not propose uses or activities that would indirectly contribute to or result in potentially adverse impacts to a unique geological feature.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique geological feature is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance [impacts to geological features]: Less-Than-Significant. 2 County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance Unique Geology (County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public Works) June 30, 2007, p. 1. 1068

4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1069
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-1

4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Abstract
This Section identifies and addresses potential impacts to biological resources resulting from the Project. More specifically, the analysis presented here examines whether the Project would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
• 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;
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
1070
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-2
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, with application of proposed mitigation measures, the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources are determined to be less-thansignificant.

4.10.1 INTRODUCTION
Following are discussions of existing biological resources characteristic of the Project area, with focused consideration on species of special interest known to occur, or that could potentially occur on the Project site. Potential impacts to biological resources are identified, and mitigation of potentially significant impacts is proposed. Information presented in this Section is summarized and excerpted from: Biological Report for the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Site (Harmsworth Associates) July 2022. The Project Biological Report is included in its entirety at EIR Appendix K.

4.10.2 SETTING

4.10.2.1 Overview
The Project site has a history of agricultural use, and has been extensively altered, with the entire area having been cleared, leveled, or otherwise reshaped at some point, which is evident from conditions on the site, and from comparing satellite imagery of the Project site over the last several decades. No discernible natural hills, rock formations, or natural drainages or water courses remain at the site. Disking occurs regularly on portions not currently in active agricultural use. Earth movement and stockpiling of soils occur in portions of the site.
1071
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-3

4.10.2.2 Biologic Setting
The following discussions provide the existing biologic setting for the Project site.

Soils
Historically, the soils in the area are from the Delhi association and are nearly level to strongly sloping, somewhat excessively drained, very deep soils on alluvial fans in coarse-textured, wind-re-formed granitic material.

The Project site has a history of agricultural use, and site soils have been extensively altered and amended over time. Current soils are significantly altered compared with historic conditions. Soils mapping of the Project site is presented at Figure 4.10-1. The following soils are mapped as occurring within the Project area:

Delhi fine sand (Db)
This nearly level to strongly sloping soil is on alluvial fans that have been reworked by wind action. Typically, the upper 40 inches consist of pale-brown sand and fine sand - single grained, loose when dry. This soil is used for grapes, pasture plants, alfalfa and some citrus.

Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (HcC)
This soil consists of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soil on alluvial fans, and is derived from granitic materials. The upper 18 inches consist of grayish-brown and very dark grayish brown coarse sandy loam. This soil is used for irrigated citrus, truck crops, grapes, dryland grain, pasture and non-farm purposes.

Hilmar loamy fine sand (Hr)
Hilmar loamy fine sand consists of moderately well-drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils that formed in alluvium from granitic sources. They occur on alluvial fans.

Surface soils are sandy loam; light grayish-brown when dry, dark grayish brown when moist. Vegetation is mostly annual forbs and grasses. Soils may be used for dryland crops and pasture.
1072
NOT

TO SCALE
Figure 4.10-1
Project Site Soils Map
Source: Harmsworth Associates
1073
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-5
Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB)
This gently to moderately sloping soil occurs on alluvial fans and on flood plains. This soil is developed in alluvium predominantly from granitic materials. The upper 36 inches consist of light-gray, gray when moist, loamy sand. This soil is used for dryland grain, pasture, range and, if protected from flooding, for irrigated truck crops.

Vegetation
The Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, dumping, disturbance and agriculture. Currently, the site contains one vegetation community and three additional land types: Ruderal grassland, agriculture, disturbed, and developed.

Project site vegetation is mapped at Figure 4.10-2.

Vegetation types within the site were mapped according to A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) to the extent possible. Since this system focuses on native vegetation communities, many disturbed and man-made land covers do not fit cleanly into the system. The best fit possible was made to map and classify the onsite vegetation.

The equivalent vegetation community under the old Holland classification system is also noted. Dirt roads and disturbed areas were mapped as the vegetation community which they occur.

Ruderal grassland
Ruderal is a low to medium growing herbaceous vegetation type dominated by annual grasses and forbs of Mediterranean origin. It is a type of non-native grassland community, mapped under the semi-natural herbaceous stands by Sawyer et al. Ruderal communities occurred in areas that were recently and frequently disturbed. Holland classified this habitat type as non-native grasslands.
1074

NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4.10-2
Project Site Vegetation Map
Source: Harmsworth Associates
1075
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-7
Within the Project site, the ruderal grassland is associated with areas of recent disking, old agriculture and frequent disturbances. The dominant species varied across this area, but the most abundant species were Menzies’ fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), common red sage (Kochia scoparia) and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio). Other species present included redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum) and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

Native species Spencer primrose (Camissoniopsis micrantha), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) occurred at a few locations.

Within the areas mapped as ruderal grassland were a few Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), Spanish false fleabane (Pulicaria paludosa), southern cattail (Typha domingensis), and fragrant flatsedge (Cyperus odoratus) that occurred in the old ponds and wet areas associated with former agriculture practices. A total of 179.7 acres of Ruderal grassland occurred on the Project site.

Agriculture
Agricultural areas can include irrigated row crops, exotic trees, fields not in current use, recently disked fields and glass-houses, in addition to sheds, temporary dwellings and other structures.

On the Project site, agriculture included dairy areas (with associated buildings and structures) and irrigated fields (that were very strongly dominated by wall barley). There were some old ponds and wet areas associated with agriculture practices. Within this area, there were also dirt piles, disturbed areas devoid of vegetation, and access roads. A total of 171.5 acres of Agriculture occurred onsite.

Disturbed
Disturbed areas include recently and frequently disked or graded areas lacking vegetation. On the Project site, the disturbed areas consisted of former agriculture areas and open areas that are devoid of vegetation. Within this area, there were also dirt 1076
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-8
moving operations, stock-piling of soil and recently graded areas. A total of 110.1 acres of disturbed areas occurred onsite.

Developed
A significant portion of the site has been developed and was in active use by the residents.

The developed areas are a mixture of residential structures, associated parks, and roads.

Also included is an area in the southern portion of the site that is under active development for new homes. A total of 129.2 acres of developed areas occurred onsite.

Plant Species
Plant species at the Project site consisted of species associated with open and disturbed habitats. A total of 68 vascular plant species, representing 31 families, were detected at the Project site during the current surveys. Twenty-five species were native and the remaining 43 species were exotic or planted. The best represented family was Asteraceae (12 species). Please refer to Appendix B of the Project Biological Report for a full list of all plant species.

Wildlife Species
Wildlife at the Project site consisted of common species and species associated with open, disturbed habitats. The most abundant species detected during the site visits1 were birds such as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). A total of 39 wildlife species were detected during the site visits, including three reptile, 32 bird, and four mammalian species. Please refer to Appendix D of the Project Biological Report for a full list of all wildlife species.

Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities 1 Vegetation mapping, habitat assessments and general botanical surveys were conducted on 21 February, 1 March, 28 and 30 May and 7 June 2022. Field surveys for wildlife and habitat assessment for special status wildlife species were conducted on 11 February, 10 and 24 March, 18 and 26 May, 2 and 26 June 2022. (Project Biological Resources Report, p. 7).
1077
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-9
for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area.

No wildlife corridors or linkages are known at the Project site. The site is open but much of the vicinity is already developed and it is unlikely that the site is of any significance to wildlife movement.

Jurisdictional Areas
The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, temporary rain pools or riparian areas. There are no areas onsite that are subject to the jurisdiction to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Some wet areas, shallow temporary ponds, and earthen detention basins did occur within the old and existing agricultural areas. These were all man-made and associated with agricultural activities. They were not associated with any natural drainages, creeks or wetlands and are not subject to the jurisdiction to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board.

A formal jurisdictional delineation conducted in 2006 found no areas of the site subject to the jurisdiction to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or Regional Water Quality Control Board (Project Biological Report, p. 17).

Special-Status Biological Resources
Special-Status Plants
There are no historic site records for any special status plant species onsite. Based on a review of CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and field surveys, a few special-status species were identified for additional analysis, although none are expected to occur onsite. Please refer also to Table 1 of the Biological Report.
1078
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-10
No special-status plants were observed on the Project site during the 2022 site surveys.

Due to the extensive historical and ongoing human use of the site, and the alteration of land features (rocky outcrops, hillsides, creeks, drainages etc.) that would typically provide refuge for rare plants and threatened plants amidst human activity, it is exceedingly unlikely that any special-status plants could occur on the Project site.

Furthermore, the lack of any native-dominated plant cover, which would be the typical habitat for any potentially rare species in this area, suggests this is unlikely (Project Biological Report, p. 12).

Special-Status Wildlife
Three special-status wildlife species; California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii); were observed on the Project site during the 2022 site surveys. Based on a review of CNDDB, published literature, and field surveys and assessments, a number of special-status wildlife species were identified as potentially occurring onsite, including some species with historic records from the Project vicinity. All special-status wildlife species with some potential to occur onsite are addressed in Table 3 of the Project Biological Report. The three special-status species detected and two additional special status species; Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) are discussed further below.

California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia)
California horned larks occur in open areas with little or no ground cover, such as grassland or ruderal vegetation and disturbed areas within scrub habitats. A few California horned larks were observed foraging along dirt roads onsite several times in Spring 2022. No horned larks were detected during subsequent site visits, indicating that the larks were non-breeding wintering or migrating individuals. No nesting onsite was detected (Project Biological Report, p. 18).

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Loggerhead shrikes occur in grassland, scrub and other open habitats with perching structures. Nests are placed in trees and shrubs. Two loggerhead shrikes were observed foraging onsite during the February site visit. No loggerhead shrikes were detected 1079
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-11
during subsequent site visits, indicating that the shrikes were non-breeding wintering or migrating individuals. No nesting onsite is expected (Project Biological Report, p. 18).

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit occurs along the coastal side of the southern California mountain ranges. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, agricultural fields and sparse coastal scrub. Nests under bushes or shrubs that have shallow depressions. Two San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit were observed foraging onsite during the February site visit (Project Biological Report, p. 18).

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) The federally endangered Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly is restricted to the Delhi Sands formation, on ancient inland sand dunes. The Project site is located within the Ontario Recovery Unit of the Recovery Plan for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly. Historically, much of the Project site supported Delhi fine sand, which is the soil type required for Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly occurrence.

However, the site has a history of agricultural use, and site soils have been extensively altered and amended over time. Current soils are significantly altered compared with historic conditions; and degraded from the perspective of supporting Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly.

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly lay eggs in fine sand, where the larva develop over a 1 – 2 year period. Soil disturbances from agricultural and other activities likely kill the larva, which precludes the fly from these areas.

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly require habitat with vegetation cover from absent (windblown sand) to sparse (less than 50% vegetation cover). Suitable vegetation includes telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californicus), annual bur-sage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa) and other native or non-native species. All of these plant species are either absent from the site or present in very low numbers and site vegetation is typically dense from non-native plant species (in most areas close to 100% vegetation cover). 1080
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-12
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly are unlikely to occur onsite for the following reasons:
• Soils are significantly altered and degraded;
• Soil disturbances from agricultural and other activities likely kill any fly larva; • Suitable native vegetation species are absent from the site; and, • Site vegetation is generally too dense to support flies. [Project Biological Report, p. 19]
Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia)
Burrowing owls occur in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), prairies, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas as a yearlong resident. They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows. As a critical habitat feature, they require the use of rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover. They can also use pipes, culverts, and nest boxes.

No burrowing owls or their sign were detected during the surveys and there was no evidence that any burrowing owls occur onsite. No onsite burrows showed any evidence of owl occupancy. Burrowing owls are presumed absent from the site.

Focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted over the northern portions of the site in 2022 (VCS Environmental). No burrowing owls or their sign were detected during the surveys and there was no evidence that any burrowing owls occur onsite (Project Biological Report, p. 19).
1081
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-13

4.10.3 EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Federal Endangered Species Act/California Endangered Species Act The United States Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The State of California enacted a similar law, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984.

The State and Federal Endangered Species Acts are intended to operate in conjunction with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for implementation of ESA, while the CDFW implements CESA. During Project review, each agency is given the opportunity to comment on the potential for the Project to affect listed plants and animals.

State of California, Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

The CDFW has jurisdiction under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code over fish and wildlife resources of the state. Under Section 1602, a private party must notify the CDFW if a project will “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the department, or use any material from the streambeds, except when the department has been notified pursuant to Section 1601.” If an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected by the activity, the CDFW may propose reasonable measures that will allow protection of those resources. If these measures are agreeable to the initiating party, they may enter into an agreement with the CDFW identifying the approved activities and associated mitigation measures.

4.10.3.1 Other Statutes, Codes, and Policies
In addition to ESA and CESA listings, plant and wildlife species receive consideration during the CEQA review processes, as discussed below.
1082
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-14
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern are generally defined as those California species whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened. Potential impacts to Species of Special Concern receive consideration under CEQA review.

CNPS-Listed Plants
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California with minimal populations, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review.

Raptors and Migratory Birds
Raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by state and federal laws. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Interior. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Potential impacts to raptors and migratory birds receive consideration under CEQA review.

4.10.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
CEQA has identified the following significance thresholds relative to biological resources.

If the Project would result in any one of the following, its impacts to biological resources would be considered significant.
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 1083
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-15
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

4.10.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.10.5.1 Introduction
All CEQA topics concerning the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources are discussed below. Please refer also to Draft EIR Appendix A, Initial Study Checklist Item IV., Biological Resources.

4.10.5.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact BIO-1: 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).
1084
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-16
Impact Analysis: Although no nesting birds were observed on-site, raptors (birds of prey), migratory birds, and other avian species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 has been incorporated to ensure avoidance of any potential impacts, in accordance with MBTA requirements.

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

Although the California horned lark, Loggerhead shrike, and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit are listed as state Species of Special Concern (SSC) in California, they are not federally or state listed as threatened or endangered. These species and their habitats are considered widespread and relatively common throughout coastal southern California.

Due to the presence of suitable habitat throughout southern California and the widespread and common nature of these species, impacts of the Project on these species would not be considered significant. Potential nesting California horned larks and Loggerhead shrikes would be protected by Mitigation Measure 4.10.1.

Level of Significance before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.10.1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by 1085
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-17
the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed.

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

Level of Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of Mitigation Measures

4.10.1 and 4.10.2, the Project’s potential impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species are considered less-than-significant.

Potential Impact BIO-2: 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 (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. 1086
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-18
Impact Analysis: The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, or temporary rain pools. No other wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive communities exist within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantially or adversely affect any other off-site wetlands or riparian areas.

Level of Significance before Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact BIO-3: 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.

Impact Analysis: No regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, most of which is ill suited for the purposes of wildlife movement (TOP SEIR, p. 5.4- 33). No wildlife habitat linkages or movement corridors have been identified at the Project site (Project Biological Report, p. 30). Nor does the Project propose facilities or activities that would substantively and adversely affect any off-site designated wildlife habitat linkage or movement corridor. Impacts to potential nesting birds are addressed by Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, presented previously.

Based on the preceding, impacts to wildlife corridors, habitat linkages, or wildlife nursery sites that would occur as a result of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact BIO-4: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance; Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Impact Analysis: TOP 2050 supports protection of high value habitat areas (TOP 2050 Goal ER-5). The Project site has been significantly impacted due to years of disking, dumping, disturbance and agriculture. As a result of these historic disturbances and on1087 © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Biological Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.10-19
going urbanization of the site per the 2021 Specific Plan, the Project site does not contain or support high value habitats or protected species. See also: Project Biological Report, pp. 12 – 19. The Project does not propose or require uses or operations that would adversely affect any off-site high value habitat areas.

City of Ontario Municipal Code Division 6.05—Landscaping establishes standards that would preserve existing protected trees where possible. City of Ontario Chapter 2:

Parkway Trees (Parkway Tree Regulations) regulates the maintenance and removal of parkway trees, and establishes varieties, minimum size, methods, and locations for or relating to the preservation and planting of parkway trees.

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

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance; Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan is considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
1088

4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES/

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1089
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-1

4.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES/

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Abstract
This Section examines the potential for implementation of the Project to impact cultural resources in the Project area. Specifically, this analysis seeks to determine whether the Project would result in any of the following:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.

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

Information contained within this Section is based on Cultural Resources Assessment, RichHaven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (BCR Consulting, Inc.) August 18, 2022 (Project Cultural Resources Assessment). 1090
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-2
The Project Cultural Resources Assessment is presented at EIR Appendix L. As supported by the analysis presented in this Section, as mitigated, the Project’s potential to impact cultural resources is determined to be less-than-significant.

4.11.1 INTRODUCTION
Cultural resources can be of scientific, aesthetic, educational, archaeological, architectural, or historical significance to the community. The following discussion identifies and classifies the significance of prehistoric and/or historic cultural resources which may exist on the subject site, and assesses the Project’s potential to impact such resources.

4.11.2 BACKGROUND
Prehistoric Context
The Project site is located within the traditional boundaries of the Gabrielino. The Gabrielino probably first encountered Europeans when Spanish explorers reached California’s southern coast during the 15th and 16th centuries. The first documented encounter, however, occurred in 1769 when Gaspar de Portola’s expedition crossed Gabrielino territory. Other brief encounters took place over the years. The Gabrielino name has been attributed by association with the Spanish mission of San Gabriel, and refers to a subset of people sharing speech and customs with other Cupan speakers (such as the Juaneño/Luiseño/Ajachemem) from the greater Takic branch of the UtoAztecan language family. Gabrielino villages occupied the watersheds of various rivers (locally including the Santa Ana) and intermittent streams. Chiefs were usually descended through the male line and often administered several villages. Gabrielino society was somewhat stratified and is thought to have contained three hierarchically ordered social classes which dictated ownership rights and social status and obligations.

Plants utilized for food were heavily relied upon and included acorn-producing oaks, as well as seed-producing grasses and sage. Animal protein was commonly derived from rabbits and deer in inland regions, while coastal populations supplemented their diets with fish, shellfish, and marine mammals. Dog, coyote, bear, tree squirrel, pigeon, dove, 1091
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-3
mud hen, eagle, buzzard, raven, lizards, frogs, and turtles were specifically not utilized as a food source.

History
Historic-era California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish or Mission Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican or Rancho Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present).

Spanish Period. The first European to pass through the area is thought to be a Spaniard called Father Francisco Garces. Having become familiar with the area, Garces acted as a guide to Juan Bautista de Anza, who had been commissioned to lead a group across the desert from a Spanish outpost in Arizona to set up quarters at the Mission San Gabriel in 1771 near what today is Pasadena. Garces was followed by Alta California Governor Pedro Fages, who briefly explored the region in 1772. Searching for San Diego Presidio deserters, Fages had traveled through Riverside to San Bernardino, crossed over the mountains into the Mojave Desert, and then journeyed westward to the San Joaquin Valley.

Mexican Period. In 1821, Mexico overthrew Spanish rule and the missions began to decline. By 1833, the Mexican government passed the Secularization Act, and the missions, reorganized as parish churches, lost their vast land holdings, and released their neophytes.

American Period. The American Period, 1848–Present, began with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In 1850, California was accepted into the Union of the United States primarily due to the population increase created by the Gold Rush of 1849. The cattle industry reached its greatest prosperity during the first years of the American Period. Mexican Period land grants had created large pastoral estates in California, and demand for beef during the Gold Rush led to a cattle boom that lasted from 1849–1855.

However, beginning about 1855, the demand for beef began to decline due to imports of sheep from New Mexico and cattle from the Mississippi and Missouri Valleys. When the beef market collapsed, many California ranchers lost their ranchos through 1092
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-4
foreclosure. A series of disastrous floods in 1861–1862, followed by a significant drought, further diminished the economic impact of local ranching. This decline combined with ubiquitous agricultural and real estate developments of the late 19th century, set the stage for diversified economic pursuits that continue to this day.

Ontario. Ontario, California was founded as a township in September 1882 by George and William B. Chaffey, named after their home of Ontario, Canada. The brothers purchased 6,218 acres of land with water rights and set aside 640 acres for the community of Ontario. Half of the initial 640 acres was deeded to the Chaffey Agricultural College as an endowment. On December 10, 1891, Ontario was incorporated as a city under the California Constitution with a City Council-City Manager form of government. In 1903, Ontario was proclaimed a “Model Irrigation Colony” by an Act of Congress. Ontario had many modern innovations, many of which still show their value today. An impressive two-hundred feet wide and eight miles long, Euclid Avenue (on the National Register) was the stately back-bone of the colony.

Provisions for an electric railway, water rights for each landowner, a local educational institution, electric lights, one of the first long distance telephone lines, and public access to water and transportation set a new standard for rural communities and irrigation practices and ensured the success of the Model Colony. Water originating from the nearby San Gabriel Mountains was readily available. In addition to accessible water, climate conditions in Ontario were similar to those in the Mediterranean with dry, hot summers and cool, moist winters as regular occurrences. Ontario first developed as an agricultural community, largely, but not exclusively, devoted to the citrus industry. In addition to oranges, the production of peaches, walnuts, lemons, olives and grapes were also important to the growth of Ontario and neighboring cities.

In 1923, airplane enthusiasts Waldo Waterman and Archie Mitchell established Latimer Field. From that point on, Ontario became an aviation town. Urban growth pushed the fliers east until they took up their permanent residence located at the Ontario World Airport. During WWII, this airport was a busy training facility for pilots. After WWII, construction boomed in Ontario as the City’s growth more than doubled by the end of the ’50s. In 1954, four new schools were built, with land for three more being purchased. 1093
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-5
That same year, the Interstate 10 opened for public use, diminishing or altering commercial traffic through Ontario. The downtown area found competition in neighborhood shopping centers that featured large parking lots and national brand chain stores. As the citrus industry declined, large tracts of orange groves gave way to new housing for settlers to the region. Following the ’60s and ’70s, the City’s population had grown from 46,617 to 87,300 residents as Ontario expanded its boundaries eastward to encompass Guasti and the large tracts of vineyards beyond it. Ontario has become a diversified community with approximately 173,000 residents in 2015. Although the City boundaries have been extended from 0.38 square miles in 1891 to almost 50 square miles today, Ontario’s Historic Downtown still retains the original subdivision pattern established by the Chaffey brothers.

Local Dairies. Dairies within the Chino Valley followed three distinct phases: Free grazing of cattle (1900-1930), mechanization of milking (1931-1949), and scientific, large capacity dairies (Post-1950). The first phase from 1900 to 1930, was marked by the free grazing of cattle with dairies that were situated around the perimeter of population centers to service those areas. The second phase of dairies was spurred by the growing population and saw the transition from free grazing to dry-lot dairying that utilized mechanization in the milking process. Due to a combination of labor shortage caused by World War II and subsequent population increase throughout the ’50s and ’60s, dairies were forced to move onto smaller plots of land and utilize machinery. Technological advancements allowed for feeding and breeding techniques that produced larger herds which could be handled more efficiently by mechanization. The dairy industry in the Chino Valley had its peak in production during the ’80s, but as residential needs collided with agricultural land uses developers began to buy up the dairy properties and convert the land to residential subdivisions and other commercial and industrial uses.
1094
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-6

4.11.3 EXISTING POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

4.11.3.1 Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are cultural resources (e.g., archeological sites, historic built environment features, or Native American sites) that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places. The implementing regulations of this mandate, found in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 800), outline an involved consultation process known as the Section 106 process. The Section 106 process requires a project lead federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, passed in 1978, serves to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians. Before the Act was passed, certain federal laws interfered with the traditional religious practices of many American Indians.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act establishes a federal policy of respect for, and protection of, Native American religious practices. It also has provisions for allowing limited access to Native American religious sites. The Act provides for the repatriation of certain items from the federal government and certain museums to the native groups to which they once belonged. The Act defines “cultural items,” “sacred objects,” and “objects of cultural patrimony” and establishes a means for determining ownership of these items. However, the provisions for repatriation only apply to items found on federal lands.
1095
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-7
Executive Order 13007 and Executive Order 13084
Executive Order 13007 requires federal agencies with land management responsibilities to allow access to and use of Indian sacred sites on public lands, and to avoid adversely affecting these sites. Executive Order 13084 reaffirms the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and recognized Indian tribes, and requires federal agencies to establish procedures for consultation with tribes. These executive orders only apply to projects that include federal undertakings.

4.11.3.2 State
CEQA and the California Register of Historical Resources Historical resources are recognized as part of the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is the authoritative guide for the State’s historical resources, and properties included in the California Register are considered significant for the purposes of CEQA. The California Register includes resources listed, or formally determined eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, and some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. Properties of local significance designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts), or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory, may be eligible for listing in the California Register and are presumed to be significant resources for the purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC § 5024.1, 14 CCR § 4850).

An archaeological site may be considered a historical resource if it is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California (PRC § 5020.1(j)), or if it meets the criteria for listing on the California Register (14 CCR § 4850).

The CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate an archaeological site to determine if it meets the criteria for listing in the California Register. If it does, potential adverse impacts must be considered. If an archaeological site is not a historical resource, but 1096
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-8
meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in PRC §21583.2, then it should be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.

Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired (PRC § 5020.1(q)).

While demolition and destruction would constitute significant impacts, it is sometimes more difficult to assess when change, alteration, or relocation results in a substantial adverse change. The CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that alters those physical characteristics of historical resources that convey its significance (i.e., its characterdefining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource’s significance.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001) The California Health and Safety Code, Division 7, Part 2, Chapter 5 (Sections 8010- 8030) contains broad provisions for the protection of Native American cultural resources. The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act establishes policy to ensure that California Native American human remains and cultural items are treated with respect and dignity. The Act also provides the mechanism for disclosure and return of these items held by publicly-funded agencies and museums in California. Additionally, the Act outlines the mechanism by which California Native American tribes not recognized by the federal government may file claims for human remains and cultural items held in agencies or museums.

California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code contains several sections applicable to the preservation of cultural resources and human remains. These sections detail procedures to be followed whenever Native American remains are found, and delineate the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, paleontological resources, or human remains as an act punishable by law (Sections 5020, 5097.5, 5097.9- 5097.996, 7050.5, 7051). As matter of law, the Project would comply with applicable provisions of the California Public Resources Code addressing preservation and protection of cultural resources and human remains.
1097
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-9
California Code of Regulations
Under Title 14, Division 3, Section 4308, no person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of archeological or historical interest or value.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) Tribal Cultural Resources
Enacted as of July 1, 2015, AB 52 established a new category of resources under CEQA called “tribal cultural resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation. The Bill was built on the concept that California Native American tribes have the expertise “with regard to tribal history and practices” to identify significant cultural resources. To this end, AB 52 requires early consultation in the CEQA process to ensure that local and Tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have information available, early in the CEQA environmental review process, for the purpose of identifying and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources.

AB 52 requires that the lead agency contact (in writing) all culturally affiliated tribes that could be affected by a project, within 14 days of deeming a development application complete. The notice commences a 30-day period for the tribe to request consultation. Upon receipt of a request consultation, the lead agency has an additional 30 days to begin the consultation process. AB 52 states that the consultation concludes when either “1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal resource, or 2) a party, acting on good faith and after a reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.” AB 52 notes that the consultation can be ongoing throughout the CEQA process.

4.11.4 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with the standards of significance outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, Projectrelated impacts to cultural resources would be considered potentially significant if they cause or result in any of the following:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5;
1098
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-10
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5;
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074.

For the purposes of CEQA, an “important archaeological, historical, or paleontological resource” is defined as follows.

A) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.

B) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in an historical resource survey, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

C) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, including the following:
1) A resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 1099
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-11
2) A resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3) A resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

City of Ontario Designation Criteria is as follows:
a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City’s history; b. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;
c. It is representative of the work of a notable builder, designer, architect, or artist;
d. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction;
e. It is a noteworthy example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
f. It embodies elements that represent a significant structural, engineering, or architectural achievement or innovation;
g. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City; or h. It is one of the few remaining examples in the City, region, state, or nation possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical type or specimen.
1100
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-12

4.11.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.11.5.1 Introduction
The following analysis is focused on areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts, based on the analysis included within the Initial Study. In this regard, as substantiated in the Initial Study, the Project’s potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries was previously determined to be less-than-significant. Please refer to EIR Appendix A, Initial Study Checklist Items V., Cultural Resources and XVIII., Tribal Cultural Resources.

All other potential cultural resources impacts of the Project are discussed below.

4.11.5.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact CUL-1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Impact Analysis: During the records search conducted for the Cultural Resources Assessment, five (5) potential historical resources were identified within the Project site. Potential resources included three (3) historical period residences and two (2) historical period transmission lines. These potential resources were evaluated for listing as “historically significant” as provided for at Section 5024.1 of the Cal. Public Res. Code. Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 14(3), § 15064.5(a)(3)). The eligibility criteria for the California Register are similar to those of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and a resource that meets one or more of the eligibility criteria of the National Register will be eligible for the California Register. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA. Criteria for Designation:
1101
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-13

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.

4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the California Register requires that sufficient time has passed since a resource’s period of significance to “obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resources.” (CCR 4852 [d][2]). Fifty years is normally considered sufficient time for a potential historical resource, and in order that the evaluation remain valid for a minimum of five years after the date of this report, all resources older than 45 years (i.e., resources from the “historic-period”) will be evaluated for California Register listing eligibility, or CEQA significance. The California Register also requires that a resource possess integrity. This is defined as the ability for the resource to convey its significance through seven aspects: location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

In the context of the above criteria, Table 4.11-1 presents the findings of the research and field surveys conducted as part of the Cultural Resources Assessment for each potential resource.

Table 4.11-1
Potential On-Site Cultural Resources
Description Findings
P-36-12621 Historical Period Residence This residence was evaluated for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a
City Historical Landmark. The residence fails to meet
the eligibility criteria for any listing.
1102
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-14
Table 4.11-1
Potential On-Site Cultural Resources
P-36-12622 Historical Period Residence Field survey confirmed that this residence was previously demolished, and the site now contains
modern condominiums. No further assessment
necessary.

P-36-12623 Historical Period Residence This residence was evaluated for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a
City Historical Landmark. The residence fails to meet
the eligibility criteria for any listing.

P-36-25440 Historical Period Transmission Line Field survey and additional research determined that the portion of this line that crosses the Project site is not historic in age. No further assessment necessary.

P-36-26051 Historical Period Transmission Line This transmission line was evaluated for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources, or as a City Historical Landmark. The transmission line fails
to meet the eligibility criteria for any listing.

Source: Cultural Resources Assessment, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (BCR Consulting, Inc.) August 18, 2022.

As shown above, none of the potential resources identified within the records search qualify as significant historical resources when evaluated against the criteria presented at Section 4.11.4, presented previously. As such, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on historical resources.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact CUL-2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.

Impact Analysis: Although no archeological resources were identified as part of the Project Cultural Resources Assessment, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to reveal buried resources not observed during the field survey. Cultural materials that may be encountered during ground-disturbing activities could include:
• Historic-period artifacts such as glass bottles and fragments, cans, nails, ceramic and pottery fragments, and other metal objects;
1103
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-15
• Historic-period structural or building foundations, walkways, cisterns, pipes, privies, and other structural elements;
• Prehistoric flaked-stone artifacts and debitage (waste material), consisting of obsidian, basalt, and or cryptocrystalline silicates;
• Groundstone artifacts, including mortars, pestles, and grinding slabs; • Dark, greasy soil that may be associated with charcoal, ash, bone, shell, flaked stone, groundstone, and fire affected rocks;
• Human remains.
[Project Cultural Resources Assessment, p. iii]
Mitigation Measure 4.11.1 would ensure proper protocol is undertaken and a treatment plan is developed, should resources be discovered during ground-disturbing activities.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measure:

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 1104
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-16
and treatment of the deposits. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American Monitor of Gabrieleño Ancestry shall 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.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact CUL-3: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined at Public Resources Code section 21074.

Impact Analysis: The City has contacted tribes on its most current AB 52 Consultation list. A request to initiate formal consultation regarding the Project site was subsequently received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Pending formal response from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) are presumed to be potentially significant. Based on previous similar environmental analyses conducted in the City, the following measures are recommended for incorporation. These measures establish monitoring protocols, and provisions for avoidance, protection, or curation of TCRs.

Level of Significance: Potentially Significant.
1105
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-17
Mitigation Measures:

The following measures shall apply to all individual development proposals within the Specific Plan Area:

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 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 ground-disturbing 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 evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. 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 1106
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-18
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 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 sites. Once complete, a final report of all activities shall be submitted to the NAHC. 1107
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.11-19

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 nonNative 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 protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less-Than-Significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11.2 through 4.11.9 ensures that TCRs would be avoided, or would be appropriately collected, documented, and curated. On this basis, with application of mitigation, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 would be less-than-significant.
1108

4.12 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
1109
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-1

4.12 UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Abstract
This Section of the EIR addresses the Project’s potential impacts to utilities and service systems.

Specifically, the utilities and service systems analysis examines whether the Project would:
• 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;
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; • 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;
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

This EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations including, but not limited to, construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service 1110
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-2
systems distribution and conveyance lines described in this Section would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in this EIR.

Mitigation proposed in this EIR under other environmental topics would also address potential impacts associated with construction and operation of utilities and service systems. Other impacts associated with, or resulting from, construction of Project infrastructure improvements would be less-than-significant.

4.12.1 INTRODUCTION
For each of the utilities and service systems discussed, existing conditions are described, any improvements required to accommodate the Project are identified, and any resulting or associated impacts and required mitigation are discussed. The analysis is based on physical and operational attributes presented at EIR Section 3.0, Project Description; information presented in The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan and related environmental analyses; information provided by or available through the City of Ontario and County of San Bernardino; information presented in 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); and provisions of the 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment).

TOP 2050 Policy Plan Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing requires that necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrent with new development.

The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment at Section 9.1 General Plan Consistency requires and substantiates consistency with TOP Policy Plan LU-4.3.

4.12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.12.2.1 Water Supply and Water Service
On a City-wide basis, the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) provides water service to residents, businesses, and other users in the City of Ontario. OMUC would provide domestic water service to the Project area as part of its masterplan for service for Pressure Zones 1010, 925.
1111
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-3
Water distribution system improvements for the City and context of the Project within the Pressure Zones 1010, 925 is presented at Figure 4.12-1. The City water master plan improvements have been designed to meet water service demands of the City under TOP 2050 Buildout Conditions (Buildout Conditions), including water service demands of the Project. Please refer also to related discussions presented in this Section under the discussion of potential water supply impacts. Water supply to the City of Ontario is derived from a combination of local and imported water, obtained primarily from four sources:
• Ontario wells and treatment in the Chino Groundwater Basin (Basin). The Basin is the primary source of water for the City, which currently receives approximately 70 to 80 percent of its water supply from this source; • Chino Desalter Authority (CDA) wells and treatment in the Chino Groundwater Basin;
• Treated State Water Project from the Water Facilities Authority (WFA); and • Recycled water from the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).

The City of Ontario 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) substantiates water supply adequacy to support the City under Buildout Conditions, including development proposed by the Project. The 2020 UWMP can be accessed at:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf Context of the Project within the City Master Planned Recycled Water System is presented at Figure 4.12-2. Recycled water supplied to the Project would be provided by OMUC. OMUC recycled water supplies are produced by IEUA from IEUA’s four wastewater reclamation plants.
1112
Figure 4.12-1
Project Location Within
Pressure Zones 1010, 925
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOTTO SCALE
1113
Figure 4.12-2
Project Location Within
Master Planned Recycled Water System
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
1114
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-6

4.12.2.2 Wastewater Collection and Wastewater Treatment Context of the Project within the City Master Planned Sewer System is presented at Figure 4.12-3. Developed areas of the City served by the municipal sewer system convey wastewater via regional trunk sewers to regional treatment plants operated by IEUA.

Wastewater collection system improvements for the City and context of the Project within the system are reflected in the City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System. The City sewer master plan improvements have been designed to meet wastewater conveyance demands of the City under City Buildout Conditions, including wastewater conveyance demands of the Project.

Wastewater generated within the City is treated at IEUA’s Regional Water Recycling Plants No. 1 and 5. Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 44 million gallons per day (mgd). Current average influent wastewater flows at Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 are approximately 28 mgd.1 Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5 has a capacity of 16.3 mgd, with daily average influent flows of 9 mgd.2 IEUA treats wastewater at both plants to meet discharge requirements and Title 22 water quality standards for reuse as recycled water.
1 Inland Empire Utilities Agency. “Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1.” Inland Empire Utilities Agency | Water Smart - Thinking in Terms of Tomorrow. www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-1/. Accessed 01 Nov. 2022. 2 ---. “Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5.” Inland Empire Utilities Agency | Water Smart - Thinking in Terms of Tomorrow. www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/. Accessed 01 Nov. 2022. 1115
Figure 4.12-3
Project Location Within
Master Planned Sewer System
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
Project Site
1116
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-8
IEUA also operates the Non-Reclaimable Wastewater (NRW) System. Description of the NRW System is presented below.

The NRW System conveys high strength wastewater and exports it to treatment facilities in Los Angeles and Orange counties for eventual discharge to the Pacific Ocean. Wastewater discharged to the NRW System consists mainly of industrial and groundwater treatment brines.

Discharging to the NRW System instead of the Agency’s treatment plants keeps salt out of the recycled water, ensuring that the Agency meets the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and total nitrogen limits listed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. This enables us to fully utilize recycled water, ensuring a reliable water supply for the region.

The NRW System consists of three trunk lines: NRWS and Etiwanda Wastewater Line (EWL) on the Agency’s north service area convey the wastewater to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County’s sewer system; and the Inland Empire Brine Line (also known as the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor – SARI) in the Agency’s south service area conveys the wastewater from the Santa Ana Watershed to the Orange County Sanitation District’s sewer system.

The highest and best use of the Brine Line is the removal of salts from the Watershed to keep them from degrading water quality within the Watershed, thereby allowing better use of groundwater resources and expanding the ability to reclaim water. The long-term goal of achieving salt balance within the region depends on the ability to remove salts from the watershed via the Brine Line. Further use of desalters depends on an economical means of salt disposal and ultimately will depend on an economically viable regional IE Brine Line.3
3 ---. “Non-Reclaimable Wastewater System.” Inland Empire Utilities Agency | Water Smart - Thinking in Terms of Tomorrow. www.ieua.org/water-sources/pretreatment-source-control/non-reclaimable-wastesystem/. Accessed 01 Nov. 2022. 1117
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-9

4.12.2.3 Storm Water Management
Context of the Project within the City Master Plan of Drainage (MPoD) is presented at Figure 4.12-4. The City stormwater management system master plan improvements have been designed to serve stormwater management demands of the City under Buildout Conditions. The Project would be required to construct on-site stormwater management systems to ensure that capacities of receiving MPoD storm drains are not exceeded. Please refer also to EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Mitigation Measures 4.8.1 through 4.8.3.

4.12.2.4 Solid Waste Management
As discussed in TOP 2050 SEIR, household and business refuse, green waste, and recycling from Ontario are sent to the West Valley Materials Recovery Facility [MRF] in Fontana for processing, recycling, or landfilling. The MRF is operated by West Valley Recycling and Transfer, and is under the administration of the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health (TOP 2050 SEIR, p. 5.19-51). Permitted throughput of the MRF is 7,500 tons/day.4
An estimated 98 percent of the solid waste collected in the City is taken to either Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. El Sobrante Landfill in Corona is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill in Moreno Valley is owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resource (TOP 2050 SEIR, p. 5.19-51). Receiving landfill information is presented at Table 4.12-1.
4 CalRecycle. “SWIS Facility Detail.” Home, 2019, www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/36-AA0341/Detail/. Accessed 2 Nov. 2022. 1118
Figure 4.12-4
Project Location Within
Master Planned Drainage System
Project Site
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
1119
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-11
Table 4.12-1
Receiving Landfills Information
Badlands Sanitary Landfill El Sobrante Landfill
Total waste received in 2019 (tons) 885,708 3,387,857
Total waste received from Ontario in 2019 (tons) 47,574 218,454 Percentage of total waste from Ontario 5.4% 6.4%
Maximum permitted throughput (tons/day) 4,800 16,054
Average daily disposal rate in 2020 (tons/day) 2,813 10,995 Excess daily capacity (tons/day) 1,987 5,059
Remaining capacity (cubic yards) 15,748,799 143,977,170 Estimated closing date 2022* 2051
Totals 9,655 12,168
Sources: CalRecycle 2022, TOP 2050 SEIR.

Notes: *Although the estimated closure date for this landfill on the CalRecycle website is 2022, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) just issued new Waste Disposal Requirements for this landfill which increases its maximum disposal tonnage to 5,000 tons/day, expands the landfill capacity, and extends the closure date to 2073.

4.12.2.5 Dry Utilities (electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, fiber optic) Electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and fiber optic services are generally available to the Project site and surrounding areas. Utility purveyors currently providing services the Project area include:
• Southern California Edison (SCE) – Electric power;
• SoCalGas – Natural gas;
• Telecommunications – various private providers; and
• Fiber optic system – City of Ontario.

4.12.3 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Consistent with the standards of significance outlined in the CEQA Guidelines, public services impacts resulting from implementation of the Project could be considered potentially significant if they caused or resulted in any of the following:
• 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;
1120
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-12
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; • 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; • Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; and
• Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

4.12.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.12.4.1 Introduction
The following discussions focus on areas where it has been determined that the Project may result in potentially significant utilities and service systems impacts, pursuant to comments received through the NOP process, and based on the analysis presented within this Section and included within the EIR Initial Study. All CEQA checklist considerations addressing utilities and service systems were determined to have potentially significant impacts warranting further analysis, and are discussed below.

Please also refer to Initial Study Checklist Item XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

4.12.4.2 Impact Statements
Potential Impact UTIL-1: 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.
1121
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-13
Impact Analysis:

OVERVIEW
It is noted here that potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of City Master Plan infrastructure systems have been previously considered and addressed in Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ontario Infrastructure Master Plans (City of Ontario) July 2012 (Infrastructure Master Plans MND). The Infrastructure Master Plans MND concluded that construction and operation of Master Plan infrastructure improvements would not result in significant impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses in TOP 2010 EIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that buildout of the City under TOP would not result in impacts not previously addressed in TOP 2010 EIR. Similarly, Master Plan infrastructure improvements constructed in support of the Project would not result in significant impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses presented within the Infrastructure Master Plans MND; and by extension would not result in significant infrastructure systems impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses presented within TOP 2050 SEIR.

Additionally, consistent with SB 610 requirements, a WSA was prepared and approved for the site’s current (2021 Specific Plan) entitlements. The City of Ontario, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has determined that based on the types and scopes of land uses reflected in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, and water demands of each of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment land uses, water demands of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment uses would be reduced when compared to water demands evaluated in the currently approved WSA. OMUC has determined that “[s]ince 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). No further WSA analysis is required. Please refer also to the discussion presented subsequently in this Section at Potential Impact UTIL-2. 1122
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-14

WATER SERVICE PLAN, SEWER SERVICE PLAN, DRY UTILITIES PLAN The Project infrastructure plans and improvements are summarized and illustrated in the following discussions. Detailed description of the Project infrastructure plans and improvements are presented at 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, Section 4, Infrastructure and Services. The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is presented in its entirety at EIR Appendix B.

The Project would construct utilities distribution/conveyance systems necessary to serve the Project. Concept water service plans, sewer service plans, and dry utilities plans (electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, fiber optic) are summarized below and are described in detail in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment.

Water Service
Potable Water Plan
The Project Potable Water Plan Concept is presented at Figure 4.12-5. Potable water services to the Project would be provided by the City of Ontario (Ontario Municipal Utilities Company, OMUC). Per the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, “Rich‐Haven’s Water Master Plan shall conform to the City of Ontario’s Water Master Plan and will include both domestic (potable) and recycled water infrastructure. Water service will be provided by the City of Ontario as identified within the Water Master Plan” (2022 Specific Plan Amendment, p. 4-14). The Project would be required to implement or contribute financially to the construction of area-serving potable water system improvements.

Impacts associated with construction of potable water system improvements would be no greater than or different than impacts of Project construction generally as addressed elsewhere in this EIR. Completion of serving potable water system improvements is required prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. 1123
Figure 4.12-5
Potable Water Concept
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
1124
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-16
Additionally, the Chino Basin Water Master Water Quality Map identifies the Project area within an optimum water quality zone and requires that the owner/developer dedicate a total of two wells within the Project area to the City of Ontario for production of potable water. The owner/developer of has identified a suitable potential well location site within the greenbelt in the area east of Mill Creek Avenue. This area shall be reserved for future location of well facilities as may be required by the City of Ontario. A second well location site within the Specific Plan area shall be located within Planning Areas 1 or 8 as approved by the City.

Recycled Water Plan
The Project Recycled Water Plan Concept is presented at Figure 4.12-6. Recycled water supplied to the Project would be provided by OMUC. OMUC recycled water supplies are produced by IEUA from IEUA’s four wastewater reclamation plants. The Project would be required to implement or contribute financially to the construction of areaserving recycled water system improvements. Impacts associated with construction of recycled water system improvements would be no greater than or different than impacts of Project construction generally as addressed elsewhere in this EIR.

Completion of serving recycled water system improvements is required prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.

Sanitary Sewer Plan
The Project Sanitary Sewer Plan Concept is presented at Figure 4.12-7. Sanitary sewer service to the Project site and surrounding area is provided by OMUC. OMUC conveys wastewater to IEUA for transmission to area-serving treatment facilities. The Project would be required to implement or contribute financially to the construction of areaserving sanitary sewer system improvements. Impacts associated with construction of sanitary sewer system improvements would be no greater than or different than impacts of Project construction generally as addressed elsewhere in this EIR.

Completion of serving recycled water system improvements is required prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy.
1125
Figure 4.12-6
Recycled Water Concept
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
1126
Figure 4.12-7
Sanitary Sewer Plan Concept
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, 2022

NOT TO SCALE
1127
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-19
The Project would contribute flows to the adjacent master plan sewer system. A sewer study of the Project area would be submitted as part of the City’s Development Review process in conjunction with development proposals within the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Area.

Dry Utilities/Fiber Optics Plan
Electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, and fiber optic services are generally available to the Project site and surrounding areas of Ontario Ranch. The analysis presented here evaluates the likely maximum impacts attributable to implementation and operation of the Project Dry Utilities/Fiber Optics Plan. Utility purveyor currently available to service the Project area include:
• Southern California Edison (SCE) – Electric power;
• SoCalGas – Natural gas;
• Telecommunications – various private providers; and
• Fiber optic system – City of Ontario.

The Project does not propose dry utilities generation, storage, or supply facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause potentially significant environmental effects.

Dry utility lines (e.g., natural gas lines, electric lines) would be installed within joint trenches within existing and proposed easements and rights-of-ways. Dry utilities would be installed underground in accordance with applicable purveyor standards and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The locations and configurations of utilities connections, transformers, switches, pull boxes, and manholes would be determined in conjunction with final Project designs and engineering.

Fiber optic lines would be installed on- and off-site in accordance with the City of Ontario’s Master Plan standards. Backbone fiber optics components (conduits, hand holes, tracer wire, and fiber) will be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed in a joint trench within adjacent streets. Within the Specific Plan 1128
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-20
Area, in-tract fiber and conduit will be 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).

Wastewater Treatment
It is anticipated that wastewater generated by the Project would be conveyed to IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 5 (IEUA Plant No. 5). Water Reclamation Plant No. 5 has a capacity of 16.3 mgd, with daily average influent flows of 9 mgd.5 IEUA treats wastewater meet discharge requirements and Title 22 water quality standards for reuse as recycled water.

Estimated maximum Project wastewater demands have been evaluated by conservatively assuming that Project water demands and wastewater treatment demands would be equal. The Water Supply Assessment prepared and approved for the site’s current (2021 Specific Plan) entitlements indicated that the maximum total water demand of the 2021 Specific Plan project (domestic water demand + recycled water demand) would total approximately 2,771 Acre Feet per Year (AFY) or 2.472 million gallons per day (mgpd).6 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 (2021) WSA (see EIR Appendix M, WSA).

Assuming that all water consumed by the Project would be discharged as wastewater, the total wastewater treatment demand of the Project is estimated at 2.472 mgpd. As indicated above, available treatment capacity at IEUA Plant No. 5 is approximately 7+ mgd (16.7 mgd capacity – 9 mgd average demand). The Project maximum 2.472 mgd wastewater treatment demand could be accommodated within IEUA Plant No. 5 available wastewater treatment capacity. Further, the Project proposes conventional 5 ---. “Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 5.” Inland Empire Utilities Agency | Water Smart - Thinking in Terms of Tomorrow. www.ieua.org/facilities/rp-5/. Accessed 02 Nov. 2022. 6 Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 (PSAP19-006) (Webb Associates) March 18, 2021, p.2-8, Table 2-6 Summary Project Water Demand.
1129
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-21
residential, commercial, light industrial and community facilities uses, and would not generate wastewater that would require treatment processes or protocols not currently provided by IEUA.

Each individual development project within the Specific Plan area would be required to pay applicable sewer connection and service fees, which act to fund City improvement plans, operations, and maintenance.

Storm Water Management
The analysis presented at EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology/Water Quality evaluates the likely maximum hydrology/water quality impacts attributable to implementation and operation of the Project.

The Project would implement stormwater management improvements consistent with the City MPoD. On-site stormwater management systems would be developed concurrent with planning of individual development proposals within the Project site.

Per Mitigation Measures 4.8.1 through 4.8.3, the Project would be required to construct on-site stormwater management systems to ensure that capacities of receiving MPoD storm drains are not exceeded. All proposed on-site stormwater management systems would be subject to review and approval by the City. Please refer also to EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, Stormwater Management Plan.

IMPACTS SUMMARY
Utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines serving the Project would be constructed pursuant to approved City Infrastructure Master Plans, and would be located within existing improved streets or otherwise disturbed properties, thereby limiting or avoiding potential impacts. Construction and operation of all Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines would conform with all City and purveyor standards and requirements, further limiting potential environmental effects.
1130
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-22
This EIR evaluates likely maximum impacts associated with all Project actions and operations, including but not limited to construction and operation of utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines. Construction and operation of the Project utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines described in this Section would not result in conditions or environmental impacts not already considered and addressed elsewhere in this EIR.

Utilities distribution/conveyance systems lines proposed by the Project would conform to alignments presented in the City Master Plan Utilities/Service Systems Concepts. The Project utilities distribution/conveyance systems lines would provide capacities consistent with OMUC/City requirements. It is noted here that potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of City Master Plan infrastructure systems have been previously considered and addressed in Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Ontario Infrastructure Master Plans (City of Ontario) July 2012 (Infrastructure Master Plans MND). The Infrastructure Master Plans MND concluded that construction and operation of Master Plan infrastructure improvements would not result in significant impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses in TOP 2010 EIR. TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that buildout of the City under TOP would not result in impacts not previously addressed in TOP 2010 EIR. Similarly, Master Plan infrastructure improvements constructed in support of the Project would not result in significant impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses presented within the Infrastructure Master Plans MND; and by extension would not result in significant infrastructure systems impacts not already considered and addressed in correlating analyses presented within TOP 2050 SEIR.

Each individual development project within the Specific Plan area would be required to pay applicable utilities/service system connection and service fees, which act to offset the Project incremental demands on utilities and service systems. That is, connection and service fees paid by the Project developers would fund on-going utilities and service systems improvement plans, operations, and maintenance. Utilities and service systems improvements would be implemented so as to provide adequate service/capacity for each increment of development. The City would verify 1131
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-23
service/capacity adequacies prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy for the affected increment of development.

Ultimately, the City in consultation with affected utilities purveyors and service providers would determine when and in what manner utilities and service systems facilities would be constructed and/or upgraded to meet increasing demands of areawide development, including the incremental demands of the Project.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects is considered lessthan-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact UTIL-2: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Impact Analysis: Water service to the Project would be provided by OMUC. OMUC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) was prepared in response to Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, and includes detailed information about City water demand, supply and reliability for the next 25 years. The 2020 UWMP substantiates that sufficient water supplies are available to meet City water demands under normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for the period 2020 – 2045 (2020 UWMP, Section 7.2.3 Water Service Reliability – Supply and Demand Comparison).

Consistent with SB 610 requirements, a WSA was prepared and approved for the site’s current (2021 Specific Plan) entitlements. The City of Ontario, Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) has determined that based on the types and scopes of land uses reflected in the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment, and water demands of each of the 1132
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-24
2022 Specific Plan Amendment land uses, water demands of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment uses would be reduced when compared to water demands evaluated in the currently approved WSA. 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 (please refer to EIR Appendix M). No further WSA analysis is required.

Based on the preceding analysis, sufficient supplies to meet the anticipated demand for the Project exist. No new or expanded entitlements would be needed to serve the Project. Impacts in this regard are considered less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact UTIL-3: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Impact Analysis: As discussed previously in this Section, wastewater treatment services for the Project would be provided by IEUA. Sufficient residual treatment capacity exists at IEUA Regional Water Reclamation Plant No. 5 (IEUA Plant No. 5) to serve the Project’s projected wastewater treatment demand in addition to IEUA current wastewater treatment demands. The Project proposes conventional warehouse and business park uses, and would not generate wastewater that would require treatment processes or protocols not currently provided by IEUA.

Each individual development proposal within the IEUA service area (including development proposals within the Project site) is required to pay applicable sewer connection and service fees, which act to fund wastewater treatment system 1133
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-25
improvement plans, operations, and maintenance – thereby offsetting incremental wastewater treatment demands of new development.

Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to 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 is less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact UTIL-4: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Impact Analysis: The City of Ontario Integrated Waste Department provides refuse collection services to the residents and businesses in the City of Ontario. The predominance of collected City refuse is transported for disposal at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and/or El Sobrante Landfill. Receiving landfill statistical information is provided at previous Table 4.12-1. Solid waste would be generated by Project construction/demolition activities as well as Project operations. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050. TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that buildout of the City would not result in potentially significant solid waste management impacts (TOP 2050 SEIR, p. 1-66 et. al).

Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the following, acting to minimize Project solid waste management demands, and ensure compliance with State or local solid waste management standards.

City of Ontario Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Ordinance (OMC) Sec. 6-3.602 Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), all building and demolition permit applicants are required to prepare and submit a Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) and a Construction & 1134
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-26
Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) Summary Report. OMC Sec. 6-3.602 and CALGreen require all construction and qualifying renovation and demolition projects to divert at least 65% of all generated waste materials. The Modified Project would be subject to (OMC) Sec. 6- 3.602 and CALGreen construction waste diversion mandates. The City oversees compliance with OMC Sec. 6-3.602 and CALGreen construction waste diversion mandates.

AB 939 - California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 Solid waste management is guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. AB 939 requires that localities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and develop a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE), providing for a minimum 50 percent reduction in waste sent to landfills. Diversion rates are calculated and tracked by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board). Alternatively, the Board can determine that a jurisdiction’s “good faith efforts” to implement comprehensive diversion programs have satisfied the requirement even if diversion levels are below 50 percent.

To reduce waste disposal, AB 939 requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills. Residential, commercial and governmental waste recycling programs in support of the SRRE have been implemented by the City.

The City is currently meeting or exceeding all AB 939 solid waste diversion targets. The Project would be required to comply with AB 939 as implemented by the City.

AB 341 - Commercial Recycling
Assembly Bill 341 mandates recycling for businesses producing four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, and multifamily dwellings of five units or more. Under the law, business must separate recyclables from trash and then either subscribe to City of Ontario recycling services, self-haul their recyclables, or contract with a permitted private recycler. The Project would be subject to Assembly Bill 341 mandates. 1135
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-27
AB 1826 - Commercial Organics Recycling
Under Assembly Bill 1826, businesses are required to arrange for organic recycling services. The Project would be subject to Assembly Bill 1826 mandates. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees both the mandatory commercial recycling program and the mandatory commercial organics recycling program. The City of Ontario supports both bills through public outreach, monitoring of recycling efforts, providing notification to non-compliant businesses, and periodic State reporting.

The Project would be required to comply with the above solid waste management statutes and regulations. The City and CalRecycle would oversee and monitor compliance with applicable solid waste management statutes and regulations.

SB 1383 - Organic Waste Management Requirements
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. The City is currently developing programs and strategies to address the requirements of SB 1383, the Project would be required to ultimately abide by those requirements.

Impacts to solid waste services and facilities from new development are addressed through the payment of development impact fees as outlined in the City of Ontario Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Fee Schedules. With the payment of required development impact fees and compliance with existing solid waste regulations, the Project would not result in any new or substantially increased solid waste impacts not previously identified in TOP 2050 SEIR.

Based on the preceding, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair 1136
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-28
the attainment of solid waste reduction goals would be less-than-significant.

Additionally, the Project would comply with applicable solid waste management and reduction statutes and regulations. On this basis, the Project would result in less-thansignificant solid waste management impacts.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.

Potential Impact UTIL-5: Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Impact Analysis: Solid waste management statutes and regulations applicable to the Project are summarized below.

City of Ontario Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) Pursuant to Ontario Municipal Ordinance (OMC) Sec. 6-3.602 Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), all building and demolition permit applicants are required to prepare and submit a Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) and a Construction & Demolition Recycling Plan (CDRP) Summary Report. OMC Sec. 6-3.602 and CALGreen require all construction and qualifying renovation and demolition projects to divert at least 65% of all generated waste materials. The Project would be subject to (OMC) Sec. 6-3.602 and CALGreen construction waste diversion mandates. The City oversees compliance with OMC Sec. 6-3.602 and CALGreen construction waste diversion mandates.

AB 939 - California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 Solid waste management is guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), which emphasizes resource conservation through reduction, recycling, and reuse of solid waste. AB 939 requires that localities conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS) and develop a Source Reduction Recycling Element (SRRE), providing for a minimum 50 percent reduction in waste sent to landfills. Diversion rates are calculated and tracked by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board). Alternatively, the Board can determine that a jurisdiction’s “good faith efforts” 1137
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-29
to implement comprehensive diversion programs have satisfied the requirement even if diversion levels are below 50 percent.

To reduce waste disposal, AB 939 requires every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills. Residential, commercial and governmental waste recycling programs in support of the SRRE have been implemented by the City.

As noted above, the City is currently meeting or exceeding all AB 939 solid waste diversion targets. The Project would be required to comply with AB 939 as implemented by the City.

AB 341 - Commercial Recycling
Assembly Bill 341 mandates recycling for businesses producing four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, and multifamily dwellings of five units or more. Under the law, business must separate recyclables from trash and then either subscribe to City of Ontario recycling services, self-haul their recyclables, or contract with a permitted private recycler. The Project would be subject to Assembly Bill 341 mandates.

AB 1826 - Commercial Organics Recycling
Under Assembly Bill 1826, businesses are required to arrange for organic recycling services. The Project would be subject to Assembly Bill 1826 mandates.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) oversees both the mandatory commercial recycling program and the mandatory commercial organics recycling program. The City of Ontario supports both bills through public outreach, monitoring of recycling efforts, providing notification to non-compliant businesses, and periodic State reporting.

The Project would be required to comply with the above solid waste management statutes and regulations. The City and CalRecycle would oversee and monitor compliance with applicable solid waste management statutes and regulations. 1138
© 2022 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Utilities & Service Systems Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 4.12-30
Based on the preceding, the potential for the Project to conflict with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste is less-than-significant.

Level of Significance: Less-Than-Significant.
1139

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
1140
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-1

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This Section of the EIR addresses other environmental considerations and topics mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These topics include Cumulative Impacts, Alternatives to the Project, Growth Inducement, Significant Environmental Effects of the Project, and Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes.

5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines) require that an EIR identify any significant cumulative impacts associated with a project [Guidelines, Section 15130 (a)]. When potential cumulative impacts are not deemed significant, the document should explain the basis for that conclusion. Cumulative impacts are “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355]. A legally adequate cumulative impact analysis comprises an analysis of a project viewed over time and in the context of other related past, present, and foreseeable probable future projects, whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the Project considered here.

CEQA notes that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness [Guidelines, Section 15130 (b)]. Only those projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the Project under consideration require evaluation. CEQA does not require as much detail in the analysis of cumulative environmental impacts as must be provided for the Project alone. 1141
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-2
The Guidelines identify two basic methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the list-of-projects methodology, and the summary-of-projections methodology. Because each environmental resource is affected by its surroundings in different manners, either of the two methodologies, or a combination of both, may be applied to the analysis of cumulative impacts to each resource. For example, because the approval process and construction phase of development typically takes at least one to two years, the list-of-projects method is likely to provide a more accurate projection of growth in the near term. This method may overstate potential cumulative impacts because the considered list-of-projects may include proposals that will never be developed. Similarly, because development proposals are rarely publicly known until within five (5) years of the expected development, the summary-of-projections method provides a more accurate projection of growth over the long term. This method may not accurately predict growth in any given year but aggregates various growth trends over the long term.

Consistent with direction provided in the CEQA Guidelines, related projects considered in these cumulative analyses are “only those projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the Project under consideration require evaluation.” For each topical discussion, the cumulative impact area is identified. Related Projects considered in this analysis are listed at Table 5.1-1. Locations of Related Projects are presented at Figure 5.1-1. The City has determined that the listed Related Projects comprise the range and scope of potential development that could be implemented or operational within the context of the Project considered here.

Table 5.1-1
Related Projects
Map
Designation Project Name Land Use Scope
City of Ontario
O1 Ontario Ranch Business Park Business Park 227.951 TSF High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse
913.053 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 179.135 TSF
Warehouse 320.551 TSF
O2 Subarea 29 & Amendment Single Family Detached 716 DU 1142
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-3
Table 5.1-1
Related Projects
Map
Designation Project Name Land Use Scope
(75% complete) Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O3 Ontario Ranch Commerce
Center
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1,447.123 TSF
Business Park 457.904 TSF
O4 South Ontario Logistics
Center
Business Park 1,075.235 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 2,819.282 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 563.857 TSF
Warehousing 954.218 TSF
O5 Parkside Specific Plan Single Family Detached 804 DU Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 2,046 DU
Park 58.860 AC
O6 Merrill Commerce Center High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 7014.000 TSF Business Park 1441.000 TSF
O7 Parente Home Ranch SP Single Family Detached 270 DU
Condo/Townhouse 1,872 DU
General Office 462.281 TSF
Shopping Center 194.278 TSF
O8 Countryside Single Family Detached 819 DU
Armstrong Ranch Single Family Detached 994 DU
O9 The Avenue
(50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 2,020 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 586 DU
Shopping Center 250.000 TSF
O10 Grand Park
(80% Complete)
Single Family Detached 484 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 843 DU
O11 West Haven Single Family Detached 149 DU
Multifamily Housing 654 DU
Elementary School 650 STU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O12 Haven Gateway General Light Industrial 42.160 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse 168.640 TSF
O13 PDEV10-008 - Dry Food
Storage
Mini-Warehouse 17.000 TSF
O14 Esperanza
(50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 914 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 496 DU
O15 Edenglen
(50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 310 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Condo) 274 DU
Shopping Center 217.520 TSF
Business Park 550.000 TSF
O17 Tuscana Village Single Family Detached 176 DU
Shopping Center 26.000 TSF
City of Chino
1143
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-4
Table 5.1-1
Related Projects
Map
Designation Project Name Land Use Scope
C1 Falloncrest at the Preserve Shopping Center 15 TSF
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 698 DU
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 440 DU
Public Parks 21.60 AC
General Office 77.597 TSF
Shopping Center 77.597 TSF
C2 The Preserve Town Center
(Blocks 6 and 7)
Multifamily Housing 549 DU
Office 16.300 TSF
Shopping Center 36.800 TSF
Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 12.900 TSF
Supermarket 45.000 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 6.500 TSF
Fast Casual Restaurant 13.750 TSF
Quality Restaurant 13.750 TSF
C3 Pines Community Single Family Detached 552 DU
Public Park 3.0 AC
Self Storage & RV Storage 120.000 TSF
Sports Park 41.8 AC
C4 Ag. Buffer, Bungalow, Lic.

Product, Liberty Deluxe, Lyon
2 & 3
Single Family Detached 474 DU
C5 Farmer Boys Fast-food w/ Drive-Thru 3.218 TSF
Shopping Center 2.300 TSF
C6 Euclid & Bickmore
Warehouse
Warehousing 205.820 TSF
General Light Industrial 51.030 TSF
Business Park 110.620 TSF
C7 Kimball Business Park Gas Station w/ Market 16 VFP
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 2.500 TSF
C8 Chaffey College Expansion Junior/Community College 93.50 AC College Park Commercial Shopping Center 7.50 AC
C9 The Campus at College Park Church 27.000 TSF
General Office 16.969 TSF
Shopping Center 17.785 TSF
High-Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant 15.876 TSF
C10 Altitude Business Centre Warehousing 715.000 TSF
Light Industrial 255.000 TSF
Business Park 233.000 TSF
Self-Storage 110.000 TSF
C11 Majestic Gateway Specialty Retail 25.000 TSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive-Thru 13.000 TSF
1144
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-5
Table 5.1-1
Related Projects
Map
Designation Project Name Land Use Scope
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 8.600 TSF
C12 The Preserve Civic Center Elementary School 1,200 STU Library 10.00 AC
Community Center 10.00 AC
Park 8.00 AC
C13 Fairfield Inn & Suites
(PL 17-0060 & PL 17-0061)
Hotel 111 RM
C14 Watson Industrial Park
(90% complete)
High-Cube Warehouse 388.990 TSF
C15 Majestic Chino Heritage High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1982.700 TSF High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 100.000 TSF
C16 Church Church 47.979 TSF
Daycare 190 STU
C17 Appesetche Residential Single Family Detached 60 DU Condo/Townhouse 160 DU
C18 Archibald’s
(PL 17-0037)
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 3.147 TSF
C19 Rancho Miramonte Single Family Detached 691 DU
Condo/Townhouse 132 DU
Neighborhood Retail 21.780 TSF
Church 400 SEAT
C20 Eagle’s Nest
(storage for 33 aircraft)
Aviation Storage 8.3 AC
C21 Lewis Block 3 Single Family Detached 114 DU
C22 Lewis Block 11 Single Family Detached 220 DU
Multifamily (Low-Rise) Residential 85 DU
Recreational Community Center 16.000 TSF
C23 Chino Flight High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 138.804 TSF High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse
786.558 TSF
City of Eastvale
E1 Magnolia Ranch Single Family Detached 39 DU
Multifamily Housing 90 DU
E2 TR29997 Single Family Detached 122 DU
E3 Sumner Place Multifamily Housing 216 DU
Shopping Center 2.500 TSF
Fast-Food Without Drive-Thru 2.500 TSF
E4 Eastvale Commerce Center
(75% complete)
Shopping Center 162.500 TSF
E5 PP23219 (PM35865)
(50% complete)
General Light Industrial 738.430 TSF
1145
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-6
Table 5.1-1
Related Projects
Map
Designation Project Name Land Use Scope
E6 Eastvale Shopping Center Free-Standing Discount Superstore 192.000 TSF Specialty Retail 9.200 TSF
Fast-Food Without Drive-Thru 7.200 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 2.000 TSF
Fast-Food with Drive-Thru 3.500 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store and
car wash
16 VFP
E8 SP00358 - The Ranch at
Eastvale (75% complete)
Shopping Center 267.200 TSF
General Light Industrial 801.500 TSF
Business Park 280.275 TSF
E9 15-1508 - Industrial
Warehouse
Warehousing 155.000 TSF
E10 Leal Master Plan Lifestyle Center (Commercial) 1,300.000 TSF General Commercial 225.000 TSF
Office 920.000 TSF
Hotel 450 RM
High Density Residential 500-660 DU
City of Chino Hills
CH1 Country Club Villas Condo/Townhouse 46 DU
CH2 Heritage Professional Center Hospital 55.000 TSF
Medical Office Building 86.952 TSF
Hotel 120 RM
Shopping Center 38.848 TSF
Restaurant 7.200 TSF
Source: Rich Haven Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) December 16, 2022.

Notes: AC - Acres; DU - Dwelling Units; TSF - Thousand Square Feet; VFP - Vehicle Fueling Position; RM - Rooms; STU - Students
1146
Figure 5.1-1
Related Projects
Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc.

NOTTO SCALE
1147
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-8

5.1.1 Discussion of Cumulative Impacts
Section 15139(a) of the Guidelines notes that “an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined at Guidelines Section 15065(c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.” Potential cumulative impacts for each of the EIR Sections are presented here.

For certain other areas of consideration, Project impacts are substantiated to be less-thansignificant or less-than-significant as mitigated (please refer to the Initial Study, EIR Appendix A). These topics include:

AESTHETICS. Potential to:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area.

AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Potential to:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
1148
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-9
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
• Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

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

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

GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Potential to:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. • Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 1149
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-10
• Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Potential to:
• Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for the people residing or working in the project area.
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Potential to:
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
1150
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-11
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Potential to:
• Physically divide an established community.

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

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

PUBLIC SERVICES. Potential to:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts for any of the public services:
• Fire Protection
• Police Protection
• Schools
• Parks
• Other public facilities
1151
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-12
RECREATION. Potential to:
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
• Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

WILDFIRE. Potential to:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. • Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
• Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

5.1.1.1 Land Use and Planning - Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative land use and planning issues includes areas that are currently under City jurisdiction, and subject to provisions of TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General Plan), City of Ontario Zoning Ordinance, and/or other City Special Planning Documents (e.g., Specific Plans). The analysis 1152
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-13
presented here also considers the Project in the context of the land use/planning guidance included in the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal 2020).

TOP 2050 Policy Plan Considerations
The 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project land uses are consistent with the site’s TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan. The Project does not propose or require amendment of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan. Further, as substantiated at EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, land uses and development concepts proposed by the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Zoning Considerations
The existing Zoning designation of the Project site is “Specific Plan” as established by the current (2021) Rich-Haven Specific Plan. The Specific Plan zoning designation is maintained under the Project, though land use designations and configuration of Specific Plan land uses would be amended per the proposed 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment. The 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment (2022 Specific Plan Amendment) is presented in its entirety at EIR Appendix B. If adopted by the City, the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would comprise the zoning for the subject site, and would regulate all development within the site. Where the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment is silent, regulations and requirements of the City Development Code would prevail.

The proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment would establish land use plans, development standards, and design guidelines directing the ultimate buildout of the Project site. Land uses and development concepts reflected within the proposed 2022 Specific Plan Amendment can be feasibly implemented consistent with applicable provisions of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Element and City Development Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City would review the final development plans for individual developments within the Project site to ensure consistency with the 2022 1153
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-14
Specific Plan Amendment land use plans, development standards, design guidelines; and where applicable, City Development Code requirements.

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

Mitigation would be incorporated if necessary.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative land use and planning impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less-than-significant.

5.1.1.2 Transportation - Cumulative Impacts
The Project Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment cumulative impact area coincides with relevant Transportation Analysis Model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs).

Cumulative VMT Impacts
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).

The Technical Advisory notes that “. . . metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator.

A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term goals and relevant plans has no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact” (Technical Advisory, p. 6). As substantiated herein, the Project-level VMT impacts are less-than-significant per the City VMT Guidelines efficiency-based threshold. Per the Technical Advisory guidance, the Project cumulative VMT impacts would also be lessthan-significant. 1154
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-15
Other Transportation Topics
To ensure appropriate design and implementation of all Project circulation improvements, the final design of the Project site plan, to include locations and design of proposed driveways, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. In addition, representatives of the City’s Police and Fire Departments will review the Project’s plans regarding emergency access. Efficient and safe operations of the Project would be provided by on-site and localized circulation and intersection improvements to be developed as the Project individual site and building designs are finalized. The City would ensure that all on-site and localized circulation and intersection improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with applicable provisions of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment and pursuant to City site plan and Building Permit review processes and requirements.

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

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

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

The Project would generate passenger car trips and truck trips typical of the proposed uses. As part of established site and Building Permit review processes, the City would 1155
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-16
require implementation of on-site truck and passenger car travel paths, signing, and traffic controls to ensure that conflicts between trucks and passenger cars are minimized or avoided. Trucks accessing the Project site would use designated truck routes, thereby avoiding or minimizing off-site passenger car/truck traffic conflicts. Land uses proximate to the Project site are planned for, or are developed with, urban uses similar to those proposed by the Project. These uses would generate urban traffic types similar to traffic generated by the Project and would not generate traffic that would be incompatible with the Project traffic types.

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

Based on the preceding, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to increased circulation system hazards, incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access are not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less-than-significant.

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

Construction-Source Air Quality Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, even with application of mitigation, Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional 1156
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-17
thresholds and would therefore be significant and unavoidable. Per SCAQMD criteria, significant Project-level impacts are also cumulatively considerable. The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (VOC and NOx are both ozone precursors; NOx is a precursor to PM10/PM2.5). Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in the criteria pollutant ozone for which the Project region is non-attainment. This is a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact.

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

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

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

AQMP Consistency Impacts
Project construction-source and operational-source regional threshold emissions exceedances noted above are inconsistent with AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 1. On 1157
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-18
this basis, the Project would conflict with the AQMP. This is a cumulatively significant air quality impact.

CO Hotspot Impacts
The potential for the Project to cause or result in potential CO hotspot impacts would be less-than-significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, less-than-significant impacts at the Project level are not cumulatively considerable. The potential for Project CO emissions to result in or cause cumulatively significant CO hotspot impacts is therefore considered less-thansignificant.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential CO hotspot impacts consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

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

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential health risk impacts consistent with SCAQMD programs and strategies, thereby minimizing potential cumulative impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

5.1.1.4 GHG Emissions/Global Climate Change - Cumulative Impacts CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)). The Project Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis is by nature a cumulative analysis. Because GHG emissions and climate change are global 1158
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-19
issues, any approved project regardless of its location has the potential to contribute to a cumulative global accumulation of GHG emissions. The geographic context of the cumulative contributions to GHGs and climate change is worldwide. Practically however, lead agencies and responsible agencies are only able to regulate GHG emissions within their respective jurisdictions. Accordingly, for the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impact area for GHG/Global Climate Change considerations is the City of Ontario and the encompassing SCAQMD jurisdictional area.

As discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas 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.

As also discussed in the EIR, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050, and GHG emissions modeling reflected in TOP 2050 – 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). The 2022 CCAP Update provides guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of proposed development projects within the City. The 2022 CCAP Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The 2022 CCAP Update, requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions encompass and comprise the range and scope of “applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.” As substantiated in the EIR, with application of mitigation, the Project is determined to be consistent with the 2022 CCAP Update and by extension is also consistent with and supports other noted plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is therefore considered less-thansignificant. 1159
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-20
Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize potential GHG emissions impacts consistent applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, thereby minimizing potential cumulative GHG emissions impacts. Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

5.1.1.5 Energy - Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of cumulative energy impacts is limited to the energy provider service area(s). The analysis at EIR Section 4.5, Energy, substantiates that the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. These plans and policies address development-level and cumulative impacts to energy resources. Project consistency with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstrates that Project energy impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and the Project cumulative energy impacts would be lessthan-significant.

As with the Project, other related projects within the energy provider service areas would be required to demonstrate compliance with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding energy is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant.

5.1.1.6 Noise/Vibration - Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact area for noise/vibration considerations is generally defined as surrounding properties that could receive Project-generated noise/vibration (either construction or operational), and would also include roadway corridors affected by Project-related traffic and associated vehicular noise/vibration. Potential noise/vibration impacts of the Project are discussed at EIR Section 4.6, Noise. 1160
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-21
Construction-Source Noise/Vibration
Project construction-source noise and vibration levels received at area land uses would be less-than-significant and on this basis are not cumulatively considerable.

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

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

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

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

Operational Noise - Mobile Sources
Cumulative effects of mobile-source noise are demonstrated by comparing noise levels under Existing Conditions (2022) without the Project, to noise levels with the completed Project under Horizon Year Conditions (2050). Cumulative mobile-source noise increases within the Study Area are summarized at Table 5.1-2. The modeled noise levels are based on cumulative traffic volumes presented in the Project Traffic Analysis. The Project Traffic Analysis cumulative traffic volumes include all traffic generated by the Related Projects listed at Table 5.1-1 as well as traffic that would result from regional ambient growth. from The Project Traffic Analysis is presented at EIR Appendix C. Applicable 1161
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-22
noise thresholds for each roadway segment, reflecting ambient conditions and presence/absence of sensitive receptors is also identified.

Table 5.1-2
Cumulative Mobile-Source Noise Increases
Roadway Segment
CNEL at Affected Property Line Receiving
Land Use
Noise
Sensitivity
Threshold
Existing 2050
w/o Project
2050
w/ Project
Max.

Cumulative
Increase
Max.

Project
Increment
Archibald
Avenue
n/o Ontario Ranch
Road 79.3 81.7 81.8 2.5 0.1 Sensitive 1.5
Haven Avenue n/o Riverside
Drive 78.6 81.2 81.6 3.0 0.4 Sensitive 1.5
Haven Avenue s/o Riverside
Drive 76.2 80.6 81.1 4.9 0.5 Sensitive 1.5
Haven Avenue n/o Ontario
Ranch Road 77.4 79.9 80.7 3.3 0.8 Sensitive 1.5
Mill Creek
Avenue s/o Chino Avenue 69.7 73.8 74.4 4.7 0.6 Sensitive 1.5 Milliken
Avenue
n/o Riverside
Drive 78.9 83.2 83.6 4.7 0.4 NonSensitive 3.0
Milliken
Avenue
s/o Riverside
Drive 78.6 82.1 82.5 3.9 0.4 NonSensitive 3.0
Hamner Avenue s/o Chino Avenue 78.6 82.2 82.6 4.0 0.4 NonSensitive 3.0 Hamner
Avenue
s/o Ontario Ranch
Road 80.1 80.9 81.1 2.0 0.2 NonSensitive 3.0
Riverside Drive w/o Haven
Avenue 77.2 80.4 80.4 3.2 0.0 Sensitive 1.5
Riverside Drive w/o Milliken
Avenue 74.9 80.8 80.9 6.0 0.1 Sensitive 1.5
Chino Avenue e/o Archibald
Avenue 71.1 74.1 74.3 3.2 0.2 Sensitive 1.5
Ontario Ranch
Road
w/o Archibald
Avenue 79.1 80.5 81.0 1.9 0.5 Sensitive 1.5
Ontario Ranch
Road
e/o Archibald
Avenue 79.9 80.7 81.7 1.8 1.0 Sensitive 1.5
Ontario Ranch
Road
w/o Haven
Avenue 80.4 84.9 85.4 5.0 0.5 Sensitive 1.5
Ontario Ranch
Road e/o Haven Avenue 81.5 84.0 84.6 3.1 0.6 Sensitive 1.5 Ontario Ranch
Road
w/o Hamner
Avenue 81.3 84.3 85.3 4.0 1.0 NonSensitive 3.0
Ontario Ranch
Road
e/o Hamner
Avenue 82.2 84.8 85.5 3.3 0.7 NonSensitive 3.0
Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

For ease of reference, vehicular-source noise thresholds established in the Project Noise Impact Analysis (EIR Appendix G) and presented at EIR Section 4.6, Noise are restated below at Table 5.1-3.
1162
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-23
Table 5.1-3
Vehicular-Source Noise Thresholds
Receiving
Land Use Baseline Condition(s) Significance Threshold Criteria Daytime Nighttime
NoiseSensitive
If ambient is < 60 dBA CNEL ≥ 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 - 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is > 65 dBA CNEL ≥ 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase Non NoiseSensitive if ambient is > 75 dBA CNEL ≥ 3 dBA CNEL Project increase Source: Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022.

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

3.0 dBA CNEL or more, if received at non-sensitive land uses, would exceed applicable thresholds and would be considered cumulatively significant.

Employing the above criteria, Study Area roadway segments affected by cumulatively significant vehicular-source noise impacts are indicated by bold italicized text. As indicated at Table 5.1-1, along all Study Area roadway segments projected to experience cumulatively significant vehicular-source noise impacts, the Project contributions would be less than the 1.5 dBA threshold at sensitive land uses, and less than the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold at non-sensitive land uses. On this basis, Project contributions to cumulative vehicular-source noise would not be cumulatively considerable and Project impacts would not be cumulatively significant.

5.1.1.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials - Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact area when considering potential hazards and hazardous materials issues includes the area to be developed within the Project site, as well as offsite locations that might be affected by or contribute to hazards or hazardous conditions resulting from the Project and its operations. The cumulative hazards and hazardous 1163
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-24
materials impact analysis evaluates the effects of Project construction and operations, and reflects long-term buildout conditions within the cumulative impact area.

As discussed at EIR Section 4.7, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, the Project does not propose uses or activities that would require substantial handling or use of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, or hazardous waste that could result in potential adverse effects.

The EIR mitigation measures require remediation of any pre-existing hazardous conditions to levels that would be less-than-significant. The mitigation measures also ensure that subsequent development and operation of Project land uses would not create or result in potentially significant hazardous conditions. As mitigated, Project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less-than-significant.

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply with hazards/hazardous material regulatory requirements. Mitigation would be incorporated, if necessary.

Based on compliance with established policies and regulations, and implementation of the EIR mitigation measures, the Project’s potential contribution to hazards/hazardous materials cumulative impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are less-than-significant.

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

Development of the Project site would incrementally increase impervious surfaces within the cumulative impact area, with related potential increases in the rate and quantity of local storm water discharges. As discussed at EIR Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project’s potential hydrology/water quality impacts would be less-than-significant as 1164
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-25
mitigated. In this regard, the Project would implement storm water management components, and structural and non-structural Best Management Practices, which collectively act to ensure that post-development storm water discharge rates are adequately conveyed within available system capacities.

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

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

Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to comply stormwater management and water quality regulatory requirements. Mitigation would be incorporated, if necessary.

Based on the preceding, contribution to cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-thansignificant. 1165
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-26

5.1.1.9 Geology and Soils - Cumulative Impacts
The Project site and all Southern California lie within a seismically active area, generally subject to earthquake hazards, and in this sense, Southern California is considered the cumulative impact area for geology and soils considerations. As discussed at EIR Section

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

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

Based on the preceding, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding geology and soils is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant.

5.1.1.10 Biological Resources - Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact areas for biological resources are generally defined by available habitat, species’ range(s), physical constraints, and other limiting factors as discussed within the Project Biological Report, EIR Appendix K. Biological resources occurring, or potentially occurring within the Project site, and associated impacts and mitigation are summarized below.

Special-Status Plant Species
There are no historic site records for any special status plant species onsite. Based on a review of CNDDB, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and field surveys, a few special-status species were identified for additional analysis, although none are expected to occur onsite. No special-status plants were observed on the Project site during the 2022 site surveys. 1166
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-27
Special-Status Wildlife Species
The Project could result in potentially significant impacts to the burrowing owl. The EIR incorporates mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to the burrowing owl to levels that would be less-than-significant.

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

Jurisdictional Areas, Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, or Other Sensitive Natural Community
The site does not contain any lakes, rivers, creeks, streambeds, wetlands, vernal pools, or temporary rain pools. No other wetlands, riparian habitat or other sensitive communities exist within the Project site. Nor does the Project propose uses or activities that would substantially or adversely affect any other off-site wetlands or riparian areas. The potential for the Project to have a substantial adverse effect on any jurisdictional areas, riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands, or other sensitive natural community is considered less-than-significant.

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

Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources; Habitat Conservation Plans The Project site is not subject to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1167
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-28
regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No significant impacts in this regard would occur.

Based on the preceding discussion, the Project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts regarding biological resources is not considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project are determined to be less-than-significant.

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

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

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

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

5.1.1.12 Utilities and Service Systems - Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact area when considering potential cumulative utilities and service systems impacts comprises affected purveyor service areas including service sources/supplies, and service conveyance/distribution/treatment facilities. 1168
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-29
As discussed at EIR Section 4.12, Utilities & Service Systems, the Project would implement all necessary on-site infrastructure improvements and would also construct area-serving off-site master plan infrastructure improvements. Utilities and service systems distribution and conveyance lines implemented by the Project would be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to purveyor requirements and consistent with applicable infrastructure master plans. Infrastructure improvements would be located within existing improved streets or otherwise disturbed properties, thereby limiting or avoiding potential environmental impacts.

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

The EIR discussion of potential utilities and services impacts also substantiates the following:
• Water supplies would be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Details in these regards are presented in the Project Water Supply Assessment (WSA), EIR Appendix M.
• There exists sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Landfills serving the Project have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs; and
• The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
1169
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-30
Other related projects within the cumulative impact area would be required to minimize utilities and services impacts consistent with City, State, and service purveyor requirements, thereby minimizing potential cumulative utilities and services impacts.

Mitigation would be implemented, if applicable.

Based on the preceding, Project contributions to cumulative impacts regarding utilities and service systems would not be considerable, and the cumulative effects of the Project would be less-than-significant.

5.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provides that an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain the basic Project Objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the proposal. As further presented in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, but rather, the discussion of alternatives and their relative merits and impacts should be provided in a manner that fosters informed decision-making and public participation. To this end, the CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives selected for examination in an EIR should be governed by “rule of reason,” and requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit an informed decision.

Consistent with provisions of the CEQA Guidelines, the following analysis presents a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would potentially lessen its environmental effects while allowing for attainment of the basic Project Objectives.

Supporting reasoning behind the selection of alternatives is presented together with a summary description of each alternative. Merits of the selected alternatives compared with the Project are described and evaluated.

The alternatives analysis concludes with identification of the environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the CEQA Guidelines require that one of the remaining considered Alternatives be identified as the environmentally superior selection.
1170
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-31

5.2.1 Alternatives Overview
Descriptions of, and the rationale underlying, the alternatives considered in this EIR are presented below. As provided for under CEQA, the ultimate rationale underlying the development and selection of alternatives to the Project is the reduction or avoidance of otherwise resulting significant environmental impacts, while allowing for attainment of the basic Project Objectives. Alternatives considered in detail include:
• No Project Alternative: No Build;
• No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses; and • Reduced Intensity Alternative.

As provided for at CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c), alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible are also identified. These include:
• Alternative Sites;
• “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant Air Quality Impacts; and • “No Threshold Exceedance” Alternative for Significant GHG Impacts.

The above-listed Alternatives are described in greater detail at Section 5.2.2, Description of Alternatives and 5.2.3, Alternatives Considered and Rejected. To provide context for the subsequent consideration of Alternatives, significant Project impacts are summarized below, and the Project Objectives are restated.

5.2.1.1 Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Significant Air Quality Impacts
EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, details the Project’s potential air quality impacts. As discussed in that Section, even after compliance with applicable regulations and requirements, and application of mitigation measures, the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable air quality impacts:
1171
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-32
• Even with application of mitigation, Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and would therefore be significant and unavoidable. Per SCAQMD criteria, significant Project-level impacts are also cumulatively considerable. The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (VOC and NOx are both ozone precursors; NOx is a precursor to PM10/PM2.5). Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in the criteria pollutant ozone for which the Project region is non-attainment. This is a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact.
• Even with application of mitigation, Project operational-source VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds.

The Basin encompassing the Project site is designated as non-attainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 (VOC and NOx are both ozone precursors; NOx is a precursor to PM10/PM2.5). Project operational-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is nonattainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.
• 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.

Significant GHG Emissions Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas 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 1172
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-33
individually or cumulatively) to global climate change impacts through GHG emissions is therefore considered significant and unavoidable.

5.2.1.2 Project Objectives
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.

Complementary Project Objectives include the following:

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 creating a visually favorable and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
1173
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-34
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. • 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. 1174
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-35
• 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.
• 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.
1175
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-36
• Locate higher-density residential uses that provide population to support adjacent regional commercial centers.
• Provide sufficient on-site recreational amenities within higher density developments.
• Include community-oriented uses such as public meeting rooms, plazas and courtyards, and similar uses.
• Establish visual and physical links among the individual multi-family developments to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Design building elevations to promote visual interest. • Provide linkages between community service facilities, multi-family corridors, and residential neighborhoods.

Regional Commercial/Mixed-Use District Objectives
• Accommodate a diversity of large-scale retail, community and neighborhood shopping, office, medical research, entertainment, hotel/motel, dining, housing, cultural, public, and similar uses that will serve the Project area and neighboring Planning Areas.
• Function with a high level of activity and/or employment. • Accommodate development of multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings that incorporate housing and retail/office, and live/work facilities. • Accommodate single-use buildings and mixed-use structures containing a variety of uses from residential over retail or office-to-office over retail. • Encourage traditional, mixed-use design of commercial buildings, by requiring a lower maximum floor area ration (FAR) for single-use buildings, and a higher maximum FAR for mixed-use buildings.
• Develop plaza areas and other amenities to provide places of social interaction. • Include one or more public “squares” to serve as gathering places. • Incorporate modulated building volumes, mass, height, and articulated facades to create individual spaces.
• Site a portion of the buildings on peripheral streets to provide connectivity to adjacent uses.
1176
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-37
• 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.
1177
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-38
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.

Community Facilities Objectives
• Incorporate existing major utilities into the overall fabric of the community. 1178
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-39
• Provide opportunities for incorporation of community facilities (e.g., schools, fire station) as identified by affected agencies.

Please refer also to EIR Section 3.5, Project Objectives.

5.2.2 Description of Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project considered in this analysis include:
• No Project Alternative: No Build;
• No Project Alternative: Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses; • Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Descriptions of the selected Alternatives are provided below.

5.2.2.1 No Project Alternatives
Overview
The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include in its evaluation of Alternatives a No Project Alternative. Within this analysis, two No Project scenarios are considered – “No Build” and “Development per Existing Specific Plan Land Uses.” No Project Alternative: No Build
The No Project Alternative: No Build scenario assumes the site remains in its current undeveloped condition. If this scenario were maintained, its comparative environmental impacts would replicate the existing conditions discussions for each of the environmental topics evaluated in this EIR; and comparative impacts of the Project would be as presented under each of the EIR environmental topics. A No Build condition would achieve none of the basic Project Objectives.

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 5.2-1 compares 1179
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-40
the composition and scope of uses under the Project with development that could result under the Existing Specific Plan Land Uses scenario.

5.2.2.2 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 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.

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. Development under the Project and the Reduced Intensity Alternative is compared at Table 5.2-2.

Table 5.2-1
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 1180
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-41
Table 5.2-2
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.

5.2.3 Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.2.3.1 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 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.
1181
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-42
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.

5.2.3.2 “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 percent1 (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 1 Maximum daily operational-source VOC emissions at Project buildout [mitigated] = 730.53 lbs./day. VOC threshold = 55 lbs./day. Assuming roughly linear reduction necessary to meet threshold condition = 55/730.53 = 0.075 of maximum daily VOC emissions = 92.4 percent reduction in VOC emissions = 92.4 percent reduction in Project scope.
1182
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-43
resulting from the Project were rejected from consideration, and are not further evaluated in this discussion.

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

Construction-Source Emissions
In order to reduce Project construction-source air quality emissions to levels that would preclude exceedance of all SCAQMD thresholds would require use of construction equipment or construction technologies that are not currently available or that would be available in the near-term. In this regard, use of alternative fuel construction equipment, 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.2 This may achieve the most restrictive construction-source emissions threshold [NOx], but in so doing would only prolong the duration of air quality emissions, the duration of construction-source equipment noise, and the duration of general disturbances associated with construction activities. The Lead Agency has determined that the benefits of the Project’s current construction schedule outweigh the potential benefit in a temporary decrease in air quality emissions that may be achieved through a protracted Project construction schedule. Moreover, accepted air quality modeling parameters do not provide for such an assumed extended construction period. For these reasons, there are no feasible means or alternatives to avoid this impact or reduce the impact to levels that would be less-thansignificant. 2 Maximum daily construction-source NOx emissions [mitigated] = 165.30 lbs./day. NOx threshold = 55 lbs./day. Assuming roughly linear reduction necessary to meet threshold condition = 55/165.30 = 0.33 of maximum daily NOx emissions = 67 percent reduction in VOC emissions = 67 percent extension of Project construction schedule.
1183
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-44

5.2.3.3 “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 vehicularsource GHG emissions, much less reductions that would achieve no net increase condition or achieve the SCAQMD screening-level 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold. In effect, all Project traffic would need to be eliminated or be “zero GHG emissions sources” in order to achieve the SCAQMD threshold. There are no feasible means to or alternatives to eliminate all Project traffic, or to ensure that Project traffic would comprise zero GHG emissions sources. In terms of its practical application, this would constitute a “no build” condition.

The Project would however implement all feasible measures to reduce GHG emissions as outlined under the City of Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan Update (2022 CCAP Update). Under the 2022 CCAP Update, mixed use developments that garner at least 100 Screening Table points would be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction targets in the City’s 2022 CCAP Update. As substantiated at EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would attain more than 100 Screening Table points. The Project is therefore determined to be consistent with the 2022 CCAP Update. 1184
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-45

5.2.4 Comparative Impacts of Alternatives
For each environmental topic addressed in the EIR, the following analyses present an assessment of comparative impacts of Alternatives to the Project. At the conclusion of these discussions, Table 5.2-4 summarizes and compares relative impacts of the Project and the considered Alternatives.

5.2.4.1 Land Use and Planning - Comparative Impacts
In order to implement the Project approval of certain discretionary actions, consultation, and permitting would be required. The Project would comply with associated requirements incorporated therein. Potential land use and planning impacts of the Project would be less-than-significant. See also: EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing land use/planning conditions would be maintained (see:

EIR Section 4.1, Land Use and Planning, 4.1.2, Setting). This Alternative would realize no new development and would require no land use or planning discretionary actions or permits. In this respect, land uses and planning impacts would be decreased when compared to the Project. However, this Alternative would not support the City’s longrange vision for the subject site, under which the site would be developed with Specific Plan Residential, Office/Commercial, Light Industrial, and Community Facilities Land Uses. Comparative Land Use and Planning impacts under this Alternative would be reduced when compared to the Project. Under both the Project and this Alternative, Land Use and Planning impacts would be less-than-significant.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 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 1185
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-46
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.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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.

5.2.4.2 Transportation - Comparative Impacts
VMT impacts resulting from the Project would be individually and cumulatively lessthan-significant. All other Project transportation impacts would also be less-than-thansignificant. See also: EIR Section 4.2, Transportation.

No Project Alternative: No Build
VMT Impacts
This Alternative would maintain existing VMT conditions. This Alternative would result in decreased total VMT when compared to the Project. Because the intensity and scope of uses is diminished under this Alternative, the Service Population would also be decreased. On this basis, this Alternative may not substantially alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from the Project. Under the Project and this Alternative, VMT impacts would be less-than-significant.

Other Transportation Topics
No new traffic would be generated, and no new or additional impacts related to other transportation topics would result under this Alternative. As with the Project, airport land use compatibility, traffic hazards, and emergency access impacts would be lessthan-significant. 1186
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-47
No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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-than-significant. 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 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.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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 1187
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-48
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.

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 on-site 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.

5.2.4.3 Air Quality - Comparative Impacts
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, Project-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the Project region is non-attainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.

Even with application of mitigation, Project operational-source VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD 1188
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-49
criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, Project-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project construction-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is non-attainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.

Project construction-source and operational-source emissions threshold exceedances noted above would impede air quality attainment strategies and goals outlined in the AQMP. On this basis, the Project is considered 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 Project air quality impacts would be less-than-significant, or less-thansignificant as mitigated. See also: EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative existing air quality conditions would be maintained (see: EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, 4.3.3, Setting). This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional air pollutant emissions. This Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts when compared to the Project. No air quality impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 1189
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-50
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.

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-than-significant, or lessthan-significant as mitigated.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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. Table 5.2-3 compares operationalsource air pollutant emissions under the Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative.

Table 5.2-3
Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative
Operational-Source Emissions Comparison
(Pounds per Day, Maximum Total Summer/Winter Emissions) Pollutant SCAQMD
Threshold
Project Reduced Intensity Alternative
Emissions Threshold
Exceeded? Emissions Threshold Exceeded?
VOC 55 929.39 YES 697.04 YES
NOx 55 609.87 YES 457.40 YES
CO 550 4,032.65 YES 3,024.49 YES
1190
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-51
Table 5.2-3
Project and Reduced Intensity Alternative
Operational-Source Emissions Comparison
(Pounds per Day, Maximum Total Summer/Winter Emissions) Pollutant SCAQMD
Threshold
Project Reduced Intensity Alternative
Emissions Threshold
Exceeded? Emissions Threshold Exceeded?
SOx 150 9.49 No 7.12 No
PM10 150 300.66 YES 225.50 YES
PM2.5 55 70.71 YES 53.03 No
Sources: Project operational-source emissions estimates from: Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Air Quality Impact Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022. No Project Alternative operational-source emissions estimates–Applied Planning, Inc.

As indicated at Table 5.2-3, 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.

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-than-significant, or lessthan-significant as mitigated.

All other air quality impacts under this Alternative would be diminished when compared to the project and would be less-than-significant, or less-than-significant as mitigated. 1191
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-52

5.2.4.4 Greenhouse Gas/Global Climate Change - Comparative Impacts Even with application of mitigation, Project GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD screening level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. On this basis, Project GHG emissions would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact.

The Project would implement GHG emissions mitigation per the 2022 CCAP Update.

Compliance with the 2022 CCAP Update ensures that the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan or strategy for controlling or reducing GHG emissions. Project impacts in this regard would be less-than-significant.

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

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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. 1192
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-53
Reduced Intensity Alternative
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.

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.

5.2.4.5 Energy - Comparative Impacts
Project construction and operations would consume energy. Energy would be provided to the Project by existing sources. The Project would not require new sources of energy or construction of new energy producing facilities. The Project would comply with applicable energy conservation and energy efficiency regulations and policies and would achieve energy conservation and energy efficiencies surpassing regulatory requirements.

Project energy consumption would be typical for the uses and scope of development proposed. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption. On this basis, the Project would not result in or cause potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Neither would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Potential energy impacts of the Project would therefore be less-thansignificant. See also: EIR Section 4.5, Energy. 1193
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-54
No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing energy conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would not result in increased energy demands.

This Alternative would result in reduced energy impacts when compared to the Project.

As with the Project, energy impacts would be less-than-significant.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 lessthan-significant.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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 energyefficient 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.

5.2.4.6 Noise/Vibration - Comparative Impacts
Project construction-source noise/vibration levels received at area land uses would be less-than-significant. Measures recommended in the EIR would further reduce these already less-than-significant impacts.

Project operational-source noise/vibration levels received at area land uses would be lessthan-significant. Measures recommended in the EIR would further reduce these already less-than-significant impacts.
1194
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-55
Certain of the Project residential uses could be exposed to potentially significant vehicular-source noise levels. Mitigation included in the EIR would reduce this impact to levels that would be less-than-significant.

The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive aircraft or airport-source noise levels.

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

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 area-source noise/vibration impacts would be comparable and would be less-than-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. 1195
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-56
Reduced Intensity Alternative
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 areasource 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 less-than-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.

5.2.4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials - Comparative Impacts The Project would not implement uses or programs that would exacerbate any existing adverse hazards/hazardous materials conditions. Under 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. See also: EIR Section

4.7, Hazards/Hazardous Materials.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing hazards/hazardous materials conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would generate no additional hazards/hazardous materials impacts. Existing adverse hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the subject site and surrounding areas would persist. This Alternative may therefore result in increased hazards/hazardous conditions impacts 1196
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-57
when compared to the Project. That is, under the Project, adverse hazards/hazardous conditions affecting the site would be comprehensively remediated as part of the Project development—such remediation would not occur under this Alternative. No hazards/hazardous materials impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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-thansignificant.

5.2.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality - Comparative Impacts The Project would implement all necessary on-site storm drain infrastructure improvements. The Project would implement mitigation measures to ensure that capacities of receiving MPoD storm drains would not be exceeded. The Project would implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and operational Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) reducing potential water quality 1197
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-58
impacts to levels that would be less-than-significant. On this basis, Project hydrology and water quality impacts would be less-than-significant as mitigated. See also: EIR Section

4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.

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

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 less-than-significant as mitigated. 1198
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-59
Reduced Intensity Alternative
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 conditions. Hydrology and water quality impacts of the Reduced Intensity Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

5.2.4.9 Geology and Soils - Comparative Impacts
The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would result in adverse geology/soils conditions, or exacerbate any existing adverse geology/soils conditions. Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), the City of Ontario Building Code, measures and recommendations identified in the Project Geotechnical Studies, and Project mitigation would reduce potential geology and soils impacts of the Project to levels that would be less-than-significant. See also: EIR Section 4.9, Geology and Soils.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing geology and soils conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional geology and soils impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced geology and soils impacts when compared to the Project. As with the Project, geology and soils impacts would be less-than-significant.
1199
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-60
No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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.

5.2.4.10 Biological Resources - Comparative Impacts
As discussed at EIR Section 4.10, Biological Resources, the subject site in total is considered to be of limited biologic value in that it exhibits extensive disturbance due to current and former dairy farming, agricultural uses and existing urban development. These uses have substantially degraded the site in terms of its function as potential habitat. The Project site does not contain protected habitat, and does not function as valuable or unique habitat for any vegetation wildlife. It is further noted that development of the Project site is anticipated under the TOP 2050, and the Project site would not be preserved for biologic purposes in any case. Mitigation is included in the Project that reduces potential impacts to biological resources to levels that would be less-than-significant.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing biological resources conditions would be maintained.

This Alternative would realize no new development and would have no incremental effects on biological resources. This Alternative would result in reduced biological 1200
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-61
resources impacts when compared to the Project. Biological resources impacts under this Alternative would be less-than-significant.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 less-than-significant as mitigated.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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.

5.2.4.11 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources - Comparative Impacts The Project incorporates mitigation that reduces potential impacts to cultural resources/tribal cultural resources to levels that would be less-than-significant. Tribal consultation is in process as required under AB 52, Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act. See also Section 4.11, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing cultural resources/tribal cultural resources conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts when compared to the Project. No cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative. 1201
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-62
No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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-thansignificant. Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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-thansignificant. Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources impacts of this Alternative and the Project would be comparable and would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

5.2.4.12 Utilities & Service Systems - Comparative Impacts The Project would implement all necessary on-site and off-site utilities and service infrastructure system improvements. Project utilities and service systems impacts would be less-than-significant. See also: EIR Section 4.12, Utilities & Service Systems.

No Project Alternative: No Build
Under this Alternative, existing utilities and service systems conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no new development and would result in no new or additional utilities and service systems impacts. This Alternative would result in reduced utilities and service systems impacts when compared to the Project. No utilities and service systems impact mitigation would be implemented under this Alternative.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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. 1202
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-63
Reduced Intensity Alternative
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.

5.2.4.13 Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives
Comparative Attainment of Project Objectives is summarized for each of the Alternatives considered here. For ease of reference, the Project Objectives are reiterated below.

Project Objectives
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.

Complementary Project Objectives include the following:

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.
1203
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-64
Specific Plan Uses
Livable Neighborhood Development
• Incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Design guiding principles during the design phase to provide for opportunities to achieve the Project’s vision statement, including:
o Connections. To provide a series of sidewalks and trails connecting community parks, civic uses, employment areas, mixed-use and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips. o Traditional Street Network. To design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, as well as creating a visually favorable and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
o Main Street Environment. To design commercial/retail areas to a human scale with storefronts oriented to the street providing a “Main Street” atmosphere for strolling and shopping, all within walking distance from most homes. o Public Spaces. To create plazas, parks, and community gathering places placed within centralized areas providing synergy between adjacent land uses. o Identifiable Neighborhoods. To design neighborhoods around a discernable center, which may include a small park, square, school, or mixed-use center, within a five-minute walking distance.
o Mix of Housing. To provide neighborhoods with a range of household types:
a variety of single-family detached homes, attached units for young families, and live/work units for small at-home businesses.
• Design a mixed-use environment to ensure compatible uses that are cohesive and integrate a diversity of residential neighborhoods, with a range of commercial uses, and supporting open spaces.
• 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.
1204
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-65
• Implement elements that will ensure walkability throughout the Project Area to discourage automobile dependency and encourage walking, biking, and other forms of transportation. This is achieved through the incorporation of subarea greenways and pedestrian connections and through sensitive site design of mixeduse development. • Implement technological advances within residential communities, including internet access, to allow residents to shop and work from home and to decrease reliance on automobiles.
• Provide opportunity for at least one major public plaza/square as a centerpiece of community activities, including events and celebrations, outdoor performances, community meetings, picnics, farmers markets, and similar functions. • Establish a clearly defined “edge” for the City’s TOP area, where appropriate, that avoids the use of walls and creation of a “walled” enclave. • Incorporate electrical transmission corridors and similar elements to form “edges” for residential neighborhoods and centers and/or accommodate public greenways/trails/corridors.

Residential District Objectives
• Create a livable community with neighborhoods designed at a human scale and oriented for pedestrian access to mixed-use, educational, and recreational uses. • Provide for a range and diversity of housing products (detached single-family, detached and attached condominiums, and townhomes) that respond to a variety of homeownership needs and desires.
• Design residential projects to complement the character of adjacent neighborhoods.
• Encourage interaction among residents through the provision of an organized, simple, and “neo-traditional” system of streets, pathways, and entries to allow residents to walk or bike to parks, recreation, and public facilities (including schools).
• Promote outdoor activity and casual social contact among residents and neighbors by designing neighborhoods around a central park where they can gather. 1205
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-66
• 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.
• 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. 1206
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-67
• Accommodate development of multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings that incorporate housing and retail/office, and live/work facilities. • Accommodate single-use buildings and mixed-use structures containing a variety of uses from residential over retail or office-to-office over retail. • Encourage traditional, mixed-use design of commercial buildings, by requiring a lower maximum floor area ration (FAR) for single-use buildings, and a higher maximum FAR for mixed-use buildings.
• Develop plaza areas and other amenities to provide places of social interaction. • Include one or more public “squares” to serve as gathering places. • Incorporate modulated building volumes, mass, height, and articulated facades to create individual spaces.
• Site a portion of the buildings on peripheral streets to provide connectivity to adjacent uses.
• Orient buildings towards the local streets whenever possible to create an urban edge and sense of arrival and place.
• Include sidewalks of sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian activity and outdoor restaurants, newsstands, and other uses.
• Create visual interest through the opening of streets and sidewalks/plazas towards building elevations.
• Incorporate landscaping to enhance the environment.
• 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. 1207
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-68
Industrial District Objectives
• Incorporate transitions and/or buffers between commercial/mixed-use and industrial areas and adjacent residential areas.
• Contribute to the regional jobs to housing balance by providing employment opportunities while minimizing development impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
• Create a high-quality industrial park development that attracts an array of businesses and provides employment opportunities within proximity to area residents.
• Provide safe and efficient access/circulation routes for the distribution/transportation of goods.

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

Recreation/Trails Objectives
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of public and private parks.
• Provide a series of pedestrian trails connecting community parks, civic uses, mixed-use, and transit stops designed to be pedestrian friendly to avoid unnecessary automobile trips.
• Incorporate off-street multi-use trails within the Southern California Edison easements.
1208
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-69
• Incorporate a system of on- and off-street bicycle pathways with access from the residences to mixed-use areas.
• Use landscaping and streetscape materials that are low maintenance in recreation and trail areas.
• Provide a system of on-street bikeways integrated throughout the Project to provide access to schools, parks, and commercial uses.
• Provide new recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a series of parks ranging in size.

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

No Project Alternative: No Build
This Alternative would realize none of the stated Project Objectives.

No Project Alternative: Existing Specific Plan Land Uses 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 1209
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-70
would therefore conflict with, rather than support, implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan.

Reduced Intensity Alternative
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 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 1210
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-71
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 products types and the total quantity of available housing within the City. To these ends, this Alternative would conflict with 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.
3 5.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 5.2-4 summarizes, by topic, comparative impacts of the Project and the considered Alternatives.
3 SB 330, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use would prohibit a county or city, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018.
1211
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-72
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative Land Use and Planning
Impacts would be less-than-significant. Existing land use/planning conditions would be maintained. No discretionary actions, permits,
or consultations would be required. Impacts in
these regards would be reduced when compared
to the Project impacts.

The scope of requested discretionary actions
would be increased in that a Policy Plan Land
Use Amendment would be required. Impacts
would likely be greater than the Project.

Impacts would be similar to the Project impacts.

Transportation
VMT impacts would be less-thansignificant.

Other transportation impacts would be lessthan-significant.

This Alternative would maintain existing VMT
conditions. This Alternative would result in
decreased total VMT when compared to the
Project impacts. Because the intensity and scope
of uses is diminished under this Alternative, the
Service Population would also be decreased. On
this basis, this Alternative may not substantially
alter the VMT/SP ratio otherwise resulting from
the Project.

Other transportation impacts would be lessthan-significant.

Total VMT and VMT/SP impacts would likely be
comparable to those of the Project.

Other transportation impacts would be similar
to those resulting from the Project.

Total VMT would be diminished. VMT/SP
impacts would likely be comparable to those of
the Project.

Other transportation impacts would be similar
to those resulting from the Project.

Air Quality
Project construction-source NOx and CO
emissions would exceed applicable
SCAQMD regional thresholds and per
AQMD criteria would be significant. Per
SCAQMD criteria, development-level
impacts that are significant are also
cumulatively considerable. Project
construction-source NOx emissions
threshold exceedances would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the
region is non-attainment. These are
cumulatively significant and unavoidable
air quality impacts.

Project operational-source VOC, NOx, CO,
CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would
Existing air quality conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would realize no
new development and would generate no
additional air pollutant emissions. This
Alternative would result in reduced air quality
impacts when compared to the Project impacts.

Construction-source NOx and CO emissions
under this Alternative would exceed applicable
SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD
criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD
criteria, project-level impacts that are significant
are also cumulatively considerable.

Construction-source NOx emissions threshold
exceedances under this Alternative would result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the region is
non-attainment. This is a cumulatively
significant and unavoidable air quality impact.

Operational-source emissions under this
Alternative would be comparable to the Project
impacts. Operational-source exceedances of
Construction-source NOx and CO emissions
under this Alternative would exceed applicable
SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD
criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD
criteria, project-level impacts that are significant
are also cumulatively considerable.

Construction-source NOx emissions threshold
exceedances under this Alternative would result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the region is
non-attainment. This is a cumulatively
significant and unavoidable air quality impact.

Under this Alternative, operational-source VOC,
NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions contributions to
Basin non-attainment conditions would decrease
1212
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-73
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative exceed applicable SCAQMD regional
thresholds and per AQMD criteria would be
significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, Projectlevel impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project
operational-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and
PM2.5 emissions threshold exceedances
would result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and
PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is
non-attainment. These are cumulatively
significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts.

Construction-source and operational-source
emissions threshold exceedances under the
Project would impede air quality attainment
strategies and goals outlined in the AQMP.

On this basis, the Project 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.

Other air quality impacts would be less
than-significant.

VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions
contributions to Basin non-attainment
conditions would be comparable to the Project
impacts.

AQMP inconsistency impacts occurring under
the Project would also result under this
Alternative.

Other air quality impacts would be similar to
those resulting from the Project.
in severity and magnitude, but would remain
cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

Operational-source PM2.5 emissions would be
reduced below significance thresholds.

AQMP inconsistency impacts occurring under
the Project would also result under this
Alternative.

Other air quality impacts would be similar to
those resulting from the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project’s potential to contribute
considerably (either individually or
cumulatively) to global climate change
impacts through GHG emissions is
considered significant and unavoidable.

The Project would implement GHG
emissions mitigation per the 2022 CCAP
Update. Compliance with the 2022 CCAP
Update ensures that this Alternative would
Existing GHG emissions conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would realize no
new development and would generate no
additional GHG emissions. This Alternative
would result in reduced GHG emissions
impacts when compared to the Project impacts.

GHG emissions impacts under this Alternative
would be comparable to the Project impacts.

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
Total GHG emissions would be reduced when
compared to the Project. However, the potential
to contribute considerably (either individually
or cumulatively) to global climate change
impacts through GHG emissions would be
significant and unavoidable.

This Alternative would implement GHG
emissions mitigation per the 2022 CCAP Update.

Compliance with the 2022 CCAP Update
1213
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-74
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative 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.
of this Alternative in this regard would be lessthan-significant.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 lessthan-significant.

Energy
Energy impacts would be less-thansignificant. Existing energy conditions would be maintained. This Alternative would realize no
new development and would not result in
increased energy demands. This Alternative
would result in reduced energy impacts when
compared to the Project impacts.

Energy impacts would be similar to the Project
impacts.

Based on the reduction in development
intensity, total energy demands and energy
consumption impacts would likely be reduced
when compared to the Project impacts.

Noise/Vibration
Construction-source noise/vibration impacts
would be less-than-significant.

Operational-source noise/vibration impacts
would be less-than-significant.

Vehicular-source impacts that could affect
certain of the Project residential uses would
be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Existing noise/vibration conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would realize no
new development and would generate no
additional noise/vibration. This Alternative
would result in reduced noise/vibration impacts
when compared to the Project impacts. No
noise/vibration impact mitigation would be
implemented under this Alternative.

Construction-source noise/vibration impacts
would be similar to the Project impacts.

Operational-source noise/vibration impacts
would be similar to the Project impacts.

Vehicular-source noise/vibration impacts would
be similar to the Project impacts.

Construction-source noise/vibration impacts
resulting from construction of off-site master
plan infrastructure improvements would be
similar to the Project impacts.

Operational-source noise/vibration impacts
would be similar to the Project impacts.

Vehicular-source noise/vibration impacts would
be similar to the Project impacts.

Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hazards/hazardous materials impacts
would be less-than-significant as mitigated.

Existing hazards/hazardous materials
conditions would be maintained. This
Alternative would realize no new development
and would generate no additional
hazards/hazardous materials impacts. Potential
existing adverse hazards/hazardous conditions
affecting the subject site would persist.

Hazards/hazardous materials impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.

Hazards/hazardous materials impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.

Hydrology/Water Quality
Hydrology/water quality impacts would be
less-than-significant as mitigated.

Existing hydrology/water quality conditions
would be maintained This Alternative would
realize no new development and would
Hydrology/water quality impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.

Hydrology/water quality impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.
1214
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-75
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative generate no additional hydrology and water
quality impacts.

Geology and Soils
Geology and soils impacts would be lessthan-significant as mitigated.

Existing geology and soils conditions would be
maintained. This Alternative would realize no
new development and would result in no new
or additional geology and soils impacts. This
Alternative would result in reduced geology
and soils impacts when compared to the Project
impacts.

Geology and soils impacts would be similar to
the Project impacts.

Geology and soils impacts would be similar to
the Project impacts.

Biological Resources
Biological resources impacts would be lessthan-significant as mitigated.

Existing biological resources conditions would
be maintained. This Alternative would realize
no new development and would have no
incremental effects on biological resources. This
Alternative would result in reduced biological
resources impacts when compared to the
Project impacts.

Biological resources impacts would be similar to
the Project impacts.

Biological resources impacts would be similar to
the Project impacts.

Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources
impacts would be less-than-significant as
mitigated.

Existing cultural resources/tribal cultural
resources conditions would be maintained. This
Alternative would realize no new development
and would result in no new or additional
cultural resources/tribal cultural resources
impacts. This Alternative would result in
reduced cultural resources/tribal cultural
resources impacts when compared to the Project
impacts.

Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources
impacts would be similar to the Project impacts.

Cultural resources/tribal cultural resources
impacts would be similar to the Project impacts.

Utilities & Service Systems
Impacts associated with Project
infrastructure improvements would be
less-than-significant. Note: Mitigation for
potential impacts to area storm drain
systems are addressed above under the
topic: Hydrology and Water Quality.

Existing utilities and service systems conditions
would be maintained. This Alternative would
realize no new development and would result in
no new or additional utilities and service
systems impacts. This Alternative would result
in reduced utilities and service systems impacts
when compared to the Project impacts.

Utilities and service systems impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.

Utilities and service systems impacts would be
similar to the Project impacts.
1215
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-76
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative Relative Attainment of Project Objectives
All Project Objectives would be attained. Existing site conditions would be maintained.

None of the Project land uses or development
concepts would be implemented. None of the
Project Objectives would be realized.

This Alternative would not support
implementation of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land
Use Plan, and would require amendment of the
Land Use Plan. This Alternative would not
support development of the Ontario Ranch area
of the City as envisioned under TOP 2050. Other
project objectives would likely be achieved,
Due to the reduction in scope under this
Alternative, the Reduced Intensity Alternative
would impede or substantially restrict
attainment of the following Project Objectives:
• Implement a Specific Plan development
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 and
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 and
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
1216
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-77
Table 5.2-4
Summary of Potential Impacts, Alternatives Compared to Project, By Topic EIR Topic: Project Impacts No Project Alternative: No Build No Project Alternative:

Existing Specific Plan Land Uses Reduced Intensity Alternative 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, commercialoffice, 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
products types and the total quantity of
available housing within the City. To these
ends, this Alternative would conflict with
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
2019.4
4 SB 330, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use would prohibit a county or city, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018. 1217
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-78

5.2.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
No Project Alternative: No Build Eliminated from Consideration As indicated at Table 5.2-4, the No Project Alternative: No Build 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
As indicated at Table 5.2-4, 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
As also indicated at Table 5.2-4, 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:

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:
1218
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-79
• 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.

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 1219
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-80
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.

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.

5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

5.3.1 Overview
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 (e) Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Project requires that an EIR:
“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a recycled water plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is 1220
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-81
necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”
Potential growth-inducing aspects and elements of the Project are discussed below and would include:
• Housing opportunities and population growth;
• Commercial-office, light industrial development and employment growth; and • Economic stimulus/other.

5.3.2 Housing Opportunities and Population Growth
The Project would construct new housing and could therefore facilitate City population growth. The Project Land Uses, development concepts, and housing are consistent with TOP 2050. Population growth resulting from the Project would therefore not exceed TOP 2050 Policy Plan population forecasts for the subject site and the City. Project population and any associated growth are therefore reflected in TOP Policy Plan and impacts of such growth are considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR. Project population and associated growth would not result in impacts not already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

5.3.3 Commercial-Office, Light Industrial Development and Employment Growth The Project would construct new commercial-office and light industrial uses and could therefore facilitate City employment growth. In general terms, employment growth furthers growth via wages, salaries, and general fiscal benefits; increased demands for housing; and increased demands for consumer goods and services. The Project Land Uses and development concepts are consistent with TOP 2050. Project employment growth would therefore not exceed TOP 2050 Policy Plan employment forecasts for the subject site and the City. Project employment and any associated growth are therefore reflected in TOP Policy Plan and impacts of such growth are considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR. Project employment growth would not result in impacts not already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.
1221
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-82
Economic Stimulus/Other
Construction and operation of the Project would act generally as economic stimulus for the City and region. As noted above, Project job creation would provide local and regional fiscal benefits and would contribute generally to increased demands for housing, goods, and services. Salaries and wages paid to employees, taxes, and other revenue streams generated by the Project would provide incentive for creation of second tier businesses with accompanying economic stimulus, which in turn would create third tier businesses, with accompanying economic stimulus, etc.

Economic stimulus and related growth resulting from the Project would create additional demands for City services. As noted previously, growth resulting from the Project is comprehensively reflected in TOP Policy Plan, and environmental impacts of this growth, including demands on City services are considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

Growth due to Project economic stimulus factors would not result in impacts not already considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR.

Moreover, the Project Economic/Fiscal Impact Analysis substantiates that the Project would be self-supporting in terms of its fiscal impacts on City services, and would not result in undue or unaddressed demands for services. Further, the Project would be required to comply with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. Policy LU-4.3 requires that necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrent with new development. New development that may be facilitated by availability of infrastructure constructed by the Project would therefore not result in adverse impacts to infrastructure systems themselves or to customers served by those infrastructure systems.

The Project would not otherwise encourage or facilitate known or probable activities that could significantly and adversely 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.
1222
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-83
Summary
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.

5.4 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
An EIR must identify any significant environmental effects that would result from the Project. (Pub. Resources Code, §21100, subd. (b)(2)(B).) Significant environmental effects of the Project are summarized below.

5.4.1 Significant Air Quality Impacts
EIR Section 4.3, Air Quality, details the Project’s potential air quality impacts. As discussed in that Section, even after compliance with applicable regulations and requirements, and application of mitigation measures, the Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable air quality impacts:
• Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, development-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the region is non-attainment. These is a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact.
1223
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-84
• Project construction-source NOx and CO emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, development-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project construction-source NOx emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone) for which the region is non-attainment. These is a cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impact.
• Project operational-source VOC, NOx, CO, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds and per AQMD criteria would be significant. Per SCAQMD criteria, Project-level impacts that are significant are also cumulatively considerable. Project operational-source VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the Project region is non-attainment. These are cumulatively significant and unavoidable air quality impacts.
• Construction-source and operational-source emissions threshold exceedances under the Project would impede air quality attainment strategies and goals outlined in the AQMP. On this basis, the Project 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.

5.4.2 Significant GHG Emissions Impacts
EIR Section 4.4, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, details the Project’s potential GHG emissions impacts. As discussed in that Section, even after compliance with applicable regulations and requirements, and application of mitigation measures, Project GHG emissions would exceed the SCAQMD 3,000 MTCO2e/year screening threshold. On this basis, the Project’s potential to contribute considerably (either individually or cumulatively) to global climate change impacts through GHG emissions is considered significant and unavoidable.
1224
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-85

5.5 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
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;
• 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).
1225
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Other CEQA Considerations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 5-86
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. 1226

6.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1227
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-1

6.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACMs Asbestos Containing Materials
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
AST above-ground storage tank
AVO Average Vehicle Occupancy
BAT best available technology
BCT best conventional pollutant control technology
BMP Best Management Practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALINE4 California Line Source Dispersion Model
Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAT Climate Action Team
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CCR California Code of Regulations
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
1228
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-2
CDC California Department of Conservation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 Methane
CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRA Community Redevelopment Agency
CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board
CTP Comprehensive Transportation Plan
CUP Conditional Use Permit
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DHS California Department of Health Services
DIF Development Impact Fees
DOT U. S. Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
1229
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-3
Fed/OSHA Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
FIRM Flood Insurance Rating Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program
fpm feet per minute
GCC Global Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMP Growth Management Plan
gpd gallons per day
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HDV Heavy-Duty Vehicle
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HSC Health and Safety Code
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act
HUD U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
IEUA Inland Empire Utilities Agency
IS Initial Study
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kV kilovolt
kVA kilovolt-ampere
LBP Lead-Based Paint
Ldn day/night average sound level
LDV Light-Duty Vehicle
LEA Local Enforcement Agency
Leq equivalent sound level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
1230
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-4
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
M Richter Magnitude
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MOE Measure of Effectiveness
MPE maximum probable earthquake
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MPODC Master Plan and Overall Design Concept
MRF Material Recovery Facility
msl mean sea level
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MTA Metropolitan Transit Authority
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NDFE Non-Disposal Facility Element
NIH National Institutes of Health
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NTS Natural Treatment System
O3 Ozone
OAP Ozone Attainment Plan
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OES Office of Emergency Services
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PA Preliminary Assessment
Pb Lead
1231
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-5
PCE passenger car equivalency
PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Diameter ppm parts per million
PV Photovoltaic
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMP Resources Management Plan
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RWMP Regional Water Management Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act
SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCUP Special Conditional Use Permit
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLM Sound Level Meter
SOx Oxides of sulfur
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TDS total dissolved solids
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TPD tons per day
UBC Uniform Building Code
UFC Uniform Fire Code
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
1232
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 6-6
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
V/C Volume to Capacity
VdB vibration decibel
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
1233

7.0 REFERENCES
1234
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment References
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 7-1

7.0 REFERENCES

PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
City of Ontario
Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner
Project Applicant
BrookCal Ontario LLC/Richland Developers, Inc.
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 425
Irvine, CA 92612

EIR PREPARERS
Applied Planning, Inc.

Ross S. Geller, Principal
Charly Ray, Senior Project Manager
Amy Flores, Assistant Project Manager
Jennifer Gilbert, Staff Editor
1235
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment References
Draft EIR-SCH No. 2022100425 Page 7-2

DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Biological Report for the Rich Haven 2022 Specific Plan Amendment Project Site (Harmsworth Associates) July 2022
Consolidated Geotechnical Report to Support the Environmental Impact Report for the RichHaven Specific Plan, City of Ontario, California (LGC Geotechnical, Inc.) September 20, 2022
Cultural Resources Assessment, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Areas of Change Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (BCR Consulting, Inc.) August 18, 2022 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1601 E. Riverside Drive, Ontario, California 91761 (Hillman Consulting) July 28, 2016
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Amended Draft for Review, February 16, 2023 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, Energy Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Greenhouse Gas Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, Hydrology Report (X Engineering & Consulting, Inc.) September 2022
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment, Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) November 8, 2022
Rich-Haven Specific Plan 2022 Amendment, Noise and Vibration Analysis, City of Ontario (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 27, 2022
Rich Haven Specific Plan, Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) December 16, 2022 Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Urban Crossroads, Inc.) October 3, 2022
Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, Rich-Haven Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 (Albert A. Webb Associates) March 18, 2021 1236
Screencheck
Final 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
May 8, 2023
1237
Screencheck

FINAL 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
May 8, 2023
1238
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page i
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Content and Format .......................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Draft EIR Commenters ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Lead Agency and Point of Contact ................................................................. 1-2

1.5 Project Summary ............................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 Revisions and Errata Corrections .............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Revisions ............................................................................................................ 2-1

3.0 Comments and Responses .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program ............................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting ........................................................... 4-2 Attachment A: HRA Modeling
1239
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Table of Contents Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page ii
List of Tables
Table Page
3-1 Draft EIR Commenters ................................................................................................. 3-2

4.2-1 Mitigation Monitoring Program ................................................................................. 4-3 1240

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1241
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
This document, combined with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), constitutes the Final EIR for the Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Project (Project). The DEIR describes existing environmental conditions relevant to the proposal, evaluates the Project’s potential environmental effects, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period: February 24 through April 10, 2023.

1.2 CONTENT AND FORMAT
Subsequent to this introductory Section 1.0, Section 2.0 of this Final EIR presents revisions and errata corrections to the DEIR text. Responses to comments received on the DEIR are presented in Final EIR Section 3.0. The EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program is presented in Final EIR Section 4.0.

1.3 DRAFT EIR COMMENTERS

1.3.1 Overview
The complete list of Draft EIR commenters, along with copies of comment letters and responses to comments, is presented in Section 3.0 of this Final EIR. The following list identifies the comment letters received in regard to the Draft EIR:
• Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse • San Bernardino County, Department of Public Works
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Eric Belisle
• Vivian Or
• Kendra Reif
1242
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-2

1.3.2 Presentation of Comments and Responses
All comment letters received in regard to the Draft EIR are included, along with corresponding responses, in their entirety in Final EIR Section 3.0, Comments and Responses.

1.4 LEAD AGENCY AND POINT OF CONTACT
The Lead Agency for the Project and EIR is the City of Ontario. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to:

City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact Person: Lorena Mejia, Senior Planner

1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following information is summarized from the Project Description in the Draft EIR.

For additional detail in regard to Project characteristics and Project-related improvements, along with analyses of the Project’s potential environmental impacts, please refer to Draft EIR Sections 3.0 and 4.0, respectively.

1.5.1 Project Location
The Project is located in the City of Ontario, within San Bernardino County. The Project site is located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Riverside Drive.

1.5.2 Project Overview
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. 1243
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-3

1.5.3 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 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 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. 1244
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-4
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. • 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.
1245
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-5
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.
• 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.
1246
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-6
• Establish visual and physical links among the individual multi-family developments to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Design building elevations to promote visual interest. • Provide linkages between community service facilities, multi-family corridors, and residential neighborhoods.

Regional Commercial/Mixed-Use District Objectives
• Accommodate a diversity of large-scale retail, community and neighborhood shopping, office, medical research, entertainment, hotel/motel, dining, housing, cultural, public, and similar uses that will serve the Project area and neighboring Planning Areas.
• Function with a high level of activity and/or employment. • Accommodate development of multi-family housing, mixed-use buildings that incorporate housing and retail/office, and live/work facilities. • Accommodate single-use buildings and mixed-use structures containing a variety of uses from residential over retail or office-to-office over retail. • Encourage traditional, mixed-use design of commercial buildings, by requiring a lower maximum floor area ration (FAR) for single-use buildings, and a higher maximum FAR for mixed-use buildings.
• Develop plaza areas and other amenities to provide places of social interaction. • Include one or more public “squares” to serve as gathering places. • Incorporate modulated building volumes, mass, height, and articulated facades to create individual spaces.
• Site a portion of the buildings on peripheral streets to provide connectivity to adjacent uses.
• Orient buildings towards the local streets whenever possible to create an urban edge and sense of arrival and place.
• Include sidewalks of sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian activity and outdoor restaurants, newsstands, and other uses.
• Create visual interest through the opening of streets and sidewalks/plazas towards building elevations.
• Incorporate landscaping to enhance the environment.
1247
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-7
• Visually integrate parking structures to continue the intended design character of the district.
• Incorporate multi-family housing to create a cohesive and continuous corridor. • Ensure an appropriate mix of uses (residential and commercial) that are compatible.
• Encourage pedestrian access and ease of use within the mixed-use area by designing pedestrian and bike paths.
• Create a “Main Street” environment with buildings designed to a human scale where pedestrian activity is not overwhelmed by automobile traffic. • Utilize urban design to create a “Gateway” or portal to the Ontario Ranch.

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

Circulation Objectives
• Provide a circulation system designed to promote pedestrian activity through a network of off-street pedestrian walkways linking each neighborhood to parks, mixed-use commercial, and residential uses.
• Design a hierarchy of streets connected in a grid network with a variety of routes for pedestrians and vehicles, creating a visually attractive, enhanced, and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. • Design streets to incorporate landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street to enhance safety and enjoyment of residents and visitors.
1248
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-8
• 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.

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.

1.5.4 Discretionary Actions

1.5.4.1 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:
1249
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Introduction
Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 1-9
• EIR Certification;
• Approval of the 2022 Specific Plan Amendment;
• Approval of Tentative Parcel/Tract Maps;
• Approval of Development Agreements; and
• Approval of Development Plans.

1.5.4.2 Other Agency Consultation and Permits
Anticipated consultation(s) and permits from agencies necessary to realize the Project would likely include, but are not limited to, 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.
1250

2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS
1251
Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-1

2.0 REVISIONS AND ERRATA CORRECTIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Based on the comments received on the Draft EIR (which are provided in full in Section

3.0 of this Final EIR), this Section presents revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. For text corrections, additional text is identified by bold underlined text, while deletions are indicated by strikeout font. All text revisions affecting mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan presented in Section 4.0 of this Final EIR. Text changes are presented under the chapter or topical section of the Draft EIR where they are located. The revisions and corrections provided here expand and clarify analyses previously provided, and do not constitute substantive new information.

Conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected by these revisions.

2.2 REVISIONS

2.2.1 Revisions to Draft EIR Section 4.11, Cultural Resources Pursuant to discussions between the City and responding Native American Tribal Representatives, Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.9 are universally revised and replaced by new Mitigation Measures 4.11.1, 4.11.2, and 4.11.3, as follows. Results and conclusions of the EIR are not affected.

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 pre1252 © 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-2
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 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.

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 training session shall include a handout and focus on how to identify 1253
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-3
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 ground-disturbing 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 evaluate all archaeological resources unearthed by Project construction activities. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Tribe shall coordinate with the developer regarding treatment and curation of these resources. 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 1254
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-4
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 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 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 1255
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-5
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 protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered.

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

A. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.1
B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any 1 Tribal monitoring shall cease once all ground disturbance activities have been completed with respect to the property or portion thereof. Example: Once excavation, grading, trenching, etc. have occurred tribal monitoring shall cease. 1256
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-6
ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.2
C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

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

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

E. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s 2 The extent of necessary personnel and hourly wage shall be subject to commercially reasonable standards. If there is a dispute as to scope of the necessary labor needs or wage rates, the City may arbitrate any such disputes in accordance with commercially reasonable standards. 1257
© 2023 Applied Planning, Inc.

Rich-Haven Specific Plan, 2022 Amendment Revisions and Errata Corrections Final EIR - SCH No. 2022100425 Page 2-7
sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

4.11.2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects:

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