Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, July 18, 2023 (part 11 of 13)

CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004
1491
1492
1493
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 5 of 65 ends

Background: In July 2007, the City of Ontario approved the 202.0-gross-acre West Haven Specific Plan (File No. PSP03-006) located south of Riverside Drive, west of Haven Avenue, east of Turner Avenue, and north of an unimproved portion of Chino Avenue. The originally approved West Haven Specific Plan allowed for the development of up to 753 residential units in PAs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 (170.12 acres); a neighborhood commercial center in PA 2 (11.74 acres); a neighborhood park in PA 6 (5 acres); and a school in PA 7 (12.45 acres). The remaining Specific Plan area included master planned roadways, neighborhood edge buffers, SCE and Southern California Gas (SCG easements), SCE fee-owned property, and roadway rightof-way to be abandoned (Old Schaefer Road). The West Haven Specific Plan establishes the land use plan, the circulation plan, infrastructure and public services plan, open space and recreation plan, grading plan, development standards, and design guidelines for the West Haven Specific Plan area.

The West Haven Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2004071095) was prepared for the West Haven Specific Plan and was certified by the City Council in January 2007. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to loss of Farmland (project and cumulative), construction-related and operational air quality impacts (project and cumulative), and operational cumulative traffic impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City for these impacts. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to less than significant impacts to the extent feasible, and those mitigation measures will continue to apply to development in the West Haven Specific Plan area, including the proposed Project.

In August 2022, TOP 2050, including the Policy Plan (General Plan) was adopted, and updated the TOP approved in 2010. The Project site is shown as “Area of Change” in TOP 2050, which changed the land use designations for the Project site from Low Density Residential and Open Space-Recreation to Low Medium Density Residential [5.1-11.0 dwelling units per/acre (du/ac)], Medium Density Residential (11.1-

25.0 du/ac), and Open Space-Recreation. The associated The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) (TOP Final SEIR) was also certified in August 2022, and is incorporated by reference in this Addendum. The TOP Final SEIR analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the TOP, focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the Policy Plan Land Use Plan and impacts resultant of population and employment growth in the City. TOP 2050 and TOP Final SEIR anticipate development of 789 residential units within PAs 1 and 3 of the West Haven Specific Plan area. The proposed Project includes the development of 654 units in PAs 1 and 3, which is 135 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for these PAs. At buildout of the proposed West Haven Specific Plan, as amended, there would be a maximum of 1,142 residential units, which is 142 fewer units than 1,284 units for the Specific Plan area anticipated in TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in the TOP Final SEIR include: air quality (consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP], construction and operational emissions, and cumulative contribution to health risk due to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants [TACs]); cultural (historic) resources; noise (project and cumulative construction noise, project and cumulative vibration impacts, and exposure of sensitive receptors to airport noise); and transportation (vehicle miles traveled [VMT] impacts).

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM:

Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines outlines when an Addendum to an EIR is required, and states:
“The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states:

A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 1494
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 6 of 65 ends

previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
Thus, if the proposed Project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may adopt an addendum to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR is needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below, and are based on the analysis presented in this document:

1. Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Substantial changes are not proposed with the Project and the proposed Project will not require revisions to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of 753 dwelling units, commercial uses, a neighborhood park, and a school within the Specific Plan Area. As previously described, the proposed Project involves a Specific Plan Amendment to increase the residential unit count in PA 1 of the West Haven Specific Plan by 278 dwelling units (from 173 dwelling units to 451 dwelling units) and PA 3 by 111 dwelling units (from 92 dwelling units to 203 dwelling units). This would increase the total number of allowed residential units in the Specific Plan area from 753 dwelling units to 1,142 dwelling units (an increase of 389 units). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also include the elimination of the 5-acre park previously identified as PA 6, and would involve other amendments to the text, tables and graphics included in the West Haven Specific Plan updating statistical information, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines.

On August 16, 2022, the City of Ontario adopted TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed Project would allow for a maximum of 1,142 residential units to be developed within the West Haven Specific Plan area (up to 789 units in PAs 1 and 3), which is less than the 1,284 residential unit development capacity established by the Policy Plan for the West Haven Specific Plan area (654 units in PAs 1 and 3). The proposed density for PA 1 (15.81 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) is consistent with the Policy Plan density for Medium Density Residential uses (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac), and the proposed density for PA 3 (10.01 du/ac) is consistent with the Policy Plan density for Low Medium Density Residential uses (5.1-11 du/ac). Additionally, the City’s water, recycled water, and 1495
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 7 of 65 ends

sewer infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional units with the proposed Project. There are no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts due to the proposed Project. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required.

2. Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As shown on the aerial photograph provided in Figure 3, the Project site (PAs 1 and 3) is currently vacant and disturbed by previous agricultural uses, and the areas surrounding the Project site are developed or have been previously disturbed by previous dairy farm/agricultural activities. Grading activities and other site disturbance would be conducted in accordance with the mitigation requirements outlined in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, including measures required for the protection of biological, cultural, and paleontological resources.

No proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required.

3. Required Finding. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, has been provided that would indicate: the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or, mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR did not directly address greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts or transportation impacts resulting from vehicle miles traveled since the requirements for these analyses pursuant to CEQA became effective after the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared. However, the impact of buildout of TOP on the environment due to GHG emissions and VMT, as well as other traffic-related impacts (air pollutant emissions and off-site traffic noise) were analyzed in TOP Final SEIR. According to TOP Final SEIR, GHG and off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant, and operational air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted by the City of Ontario in 2011. As determined by the analysis presented in this Addendum, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to the ONT that were not addressed in TOP Final SEIR. There are no significant impacts associated with the ONT.

Lastly, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines was modified as part of the CEQA Guidelines updates that were approved in December 2018. New checklist topics related to Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources and Wildfire were added and some checklist questions for other environmental topics were revised; however, these are not new topical issues and were evaluated in the Final EIR. The Initial Study presented in this Addendum uses the updated checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. As identified through the analysis presented in this Addendum, there would be no new significant impacts resulting from the proposed Project related to the changes in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the previously certified the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, the analysis above, the attached Initial Study, and the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and the TOP Final SEIR, as appropriate. No changes or additions to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for 1496
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 8 of 65 ends

any additional mitigation measures.

The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the proposed Project and verification that the proposed Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present.

Surrounding Land Uses (Surrounding PAs 1 and 3):

Existing Land Use TOP 2050 Policy Plan/
General Plan Designation
Zoning Designation
North Single-family Residential and
Recreation
Open Space-Recreation and
Low Density Residential
(2.1 – 5 du/ac)
SP – Creekside Specific
Plan/Single Family Residential
West Single-family Residential and
SCE Corridor
Low Density Residential
(2.1 – 5 du/ac), and
Open Space-NonRecreational
LDR-5 Low Density Residential
and
UC Utilities Corridor
South Single-family Residential Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac)
SP – West Haven
Specific Plan/3,825 SF Lots
East Vacant
Low Density Residential
(2.1 – 5 du/ac); Low Medium
Density Residential (5.1 –

11.0 du/ac); and Medium
Density Residential (11.1 to

25.0 du/ac)
SP – Rich-Haven Specific
Plan/0 – 5 du/ac; 5.1-12 du/ac;

12.1-25 du/ac
du/ac – dwelling units per acre
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None.
1497
1498
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 10 of 65 ends

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

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

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 1499
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 11 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
1500
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 12 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.

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

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1501
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 13 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
1502
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 14 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?

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

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
1503
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 15 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i) result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
1504
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 16 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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

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

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

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
1505
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 17 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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

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

Page 18 of 65 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
1507
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 19 of 65 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES
The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, certified in January 2007, was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. As required, the EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan. The Final EIR focused on impacts from the proposed land uses associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Land Use Plan, and impacts from the resultant population and employment growth from the Specific Plan.

Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.

Here, an Initial Study has been prepared to determine if the proposed Project is within the scope of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR such that additional environmental review is not required. As discussed below, the City has concluded that no additional environmental review in a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is required, such that this Initial Study can serve as an Addendum to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. Substantial changes are not proposed to the West Haven Specific Plan Project and will not require revisions to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development capacity of 753 units. As previously addressed, the currently proposed Project would increase the allowed number of dwelling units in PA 1 of the West Haven Specific Plan by 278 dwelling units (from 173 dwelling units to 451 dwelling units) and PA 3 of the West Haven Specific Plan by 111 dwelling units (from 92 dwelling units to 203 dwelling units). This would increase the total number of allowed residential units in the Specific Plan area from 753 dwelling units to 1,142 dwelling units (an increase of 389 units).

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would eliminate the 5-acre neighborhood park in previous PA 6, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan. Applicable mitigation measures from the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR are incorporated by reference in each impact area discussion and are listed at the conclusion of this Addendum under the “Earlier Analysis” section.

On August 16, 2022, the City of Ontario adopted TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed Project would allow for a maximum of 1,142 residential units to be developed within the West Haven Specific Plan area (up to 789 units in PAs 1 and 3), which is less than the 1,284 residential unit development capacity established by the Policy Plan Land Use Plan for the West Haven Specific Plan area (654 units in PAs 1 and 3). The proposed density for PA 1 (15.81 du/ac) is consistent with the Policy Plan density for Medium Density Residential uses (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac), and the proposed density for PA 3 (10.01 du/ac) is consistent with the Policy Plan density for Low Medium Density Residential uses (5.1-11 du/ac). Additionally, the City’s water, recycled water, and sewer infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional units with the proposed Project. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the West Haven Final EIR are required. The proposed Project would not result in any additional impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR or the TOP Final SEIR.

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that no impact on a scenic vista would result from implementation of the proposed development. The Policy Plan does not identify scenic vistas within the City; however, the TOP Final SEIR identifies the Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor as the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Additionally, the Policy Plan (Policy CD-1.5) of TOP requires all major north-south streets be designed and 1508
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 20 of 65 ends

redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. North-south streets should be clear of visual clutter, including billboards, and be enhanced appropriately by framing corridors with trees. The Project site is not visible from the Euclid Corridor or Mission Boulevard Corridor; however, Haven Avenue, which is a Principal Arterial extending in a north-south direction, forms the eastern boundary of the Project site. Pursuant to the West Haven Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Haven Avenue would have a tree lined streetscape with landscape parkway adjacent to the proposed residential uses.

Therefore, no adverse impacts related to scenic vistas would result from the proposed Project.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that impacts to visual character of the Specific Plan area would not be degraded with the introduction of a well-planned and landscaped new residential community, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Project site is currently vacant and disturbed by previous agricultural operations. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The previously approved and proposed residential units in PAs 1 and 3 would be designed and constructed consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Standards included in the West Haven Specific Plan Amendment, applicable provisions of the Ontario Development Code, and the applicable policies of the Community Design Element of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. As with the previously approved residential development, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, no adverse impacts related to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality would result from the proposed Project.

Page 21 of 65 ends

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that new sources of light and glare associated with proposed development would be typical of urban development and potential impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable regulations addressing light and glare. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. Development of the Project would not introduce new sources of light and glare beyond that anticipated in the previous environmental analysis. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, on-site lighting would be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures would be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project site and minimize light spillage.

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of development allowed by the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses. This is consistent with the TOP 2010 EIR determination that Citywide agricultural impacts were significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that TOP 2050 EIR determined that the implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the direct conversion of Farmland than what was identified in TOP 2010 EIR.

According to the 2018 California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder (the latest information available), the majority of the Project site is classified as Unique Farmland and a small portion in the central western portion of the Project site is classified Other Land (CDC, 2018). The Project site is currently vacant and disturbed by former agricultural and dairy farm uses that have been removed. Therefore, the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses anticipated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR has already been initiated. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment addressing the amount and type of residential uses within PAs 1 and 3. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is completely within the impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

Page 22 of 65 ends

the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental document is necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to Project activities.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that there would be no impacts related to conflict with existing Williamson Act contracts because there were no areas within the Specific Plan area under a Williamson Act contract. As identified in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, there are currently no areas under a Williamson Act contract within the Project site. Further, the Project site is zoned “West Haven Specific Plan.” The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment addressing the amount and type of residential uses within PAs 1 and 3. There would be no change to the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and no changes to the impact conclusions presented in the Final EIR related to zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts.

Therefore, the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use has already been initiated. The proposed Project would not change the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The areas surrounding the Project site have been developed, or planned for urban development as identified in previously approved Specific Plans and/or the Policy Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of off-site Farmland to non-agricultural uses. There is no forest land at or near the Project site so no conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur.

In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, MM A-1 from the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR requires that all residential units in the West Haven Specific Plan be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, approved by the City Attorney, regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses. This requirement remains 1511
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 23 of 65 ends

applicable to proposed development in PA 1 and 3 and is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan would not impair implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would result in less than significant impacts. Since certification of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has updated the AQMP. The TOP Final SEIR, which anticipates development pursuant to the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment, concludes that additional population growth forecast with buildout of TOP would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP assumptions because the overall VMT per service population would be reduced. However, buildout of the proposed land use plan associated with TOP 2050 could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that buildout of TOP 2050 would be inconsistent with the AQMP. As such, the TOP Final SEIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact due to conflict with the AQMP.

It should be noted that the draft 2022 AQMP has been prepared by SCAQMD to address the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) strengthened ozone standard. The draft 2022 AQMP was released in August 2022 and public comment closed on October 18, 2022. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the draft 2022 AQMP at its December 2, 2022, meeting, following certification of the TOP Final SEIR. The draft 2022 AQMP requires CARB’s adoption before submittal for EPA’s final approval, which is expected to occur sometime in 2023.

Notwithstanding, the Project’s consistency finding with respect to the 2022 AQMP once it is final, is anticipated to be the same as the consistency finding with respect to the 2016 AQMP. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The proposed Project includes the development of 654 units in PAs 1 and 3, which is 135 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for these PAs. Although the proposed Project would decrease the number of units to be developed compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR, the proposed Project would contribute to the significant air quality impacts associated with buildout of the TOP 2050 and the significant and unavoidable impact due to conflict with the AQMP. The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts beyond that previously analyzed in the TOP Final SEIR. However, this would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

Page 24 of 65 ends

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that construction of development allowed by the West Haven Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts associated with emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). NOx is a precursor to ozone (O3) for which the region (South Coast Air Basin [SCAB]) is in non-attainment. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

With respect to Project-generated construction emissions, the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated within the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. However, as shown on the aerial photograph provided on Figure 3, previously approved land uses in the West Haven Specific Plan area have been constructed or are currently under construction. Therefore, the construction impact area for PAs 1 and 3 would be less than anticipated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, which anticipated the entire Specific Plan area would be under construction at the same time. The types of construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g.; grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and asphalt) would be the same as those evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR; therefore, the types of construction equipment would be similar. Federal and State requirements for cleaner diesel engines would further reduce construction emissions compared to estimates in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed Project, including NOx emissions, would not exceed what was anticipated for a peak construction day as analyzed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Additionally, MM AQ-1 though MM AQ-2, which identify requirements to reduce construction emissions, would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project. These mitigation measures are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe construction-related air quality impacts beyond that previously analyzed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this previously identified significant and unavoidable impact.

TOP 2010 EIR identified significant and unavoidable operational impacts associated with volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, and particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). Despite the additional policies in TOP 2050, because VOC emissions would be substantially greater that TOP 2010, TOP 2050 is considered to result in an increase in magnitude of impacts for VOC compared to TOP 2010. Therefore, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that any project that contributes emissions to the SCAB would have a significant and air quality impact related to criteria pollutant emissions, including pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact. The sources of operational air pollutant emissions from residential uses includes energy consumption (natural gas and electricity), area sources (such as use of consumer products), and mobile source emissions. As identified in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, mobile emissions are the primary factor associated with operational emissions. Based on the West Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (February 2023) (Urban Crossroads, 2023c), buildout of the PAs 1 and 3 with 654 single family attached units pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate 4,710 daily trips. However, the total number of units and associated vehicular trip generation for PAs 1 and 3 would be less than anticipated in TOP 2050 and evaluated in TOP Final SEIR for the PAs 1 and 3 of the Specific Plan area (789 dwelling units are anticipated in the TOP, compared to 654 dwelling units with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment). Additionally, because the proposed Project would involve the development of fewer units compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR the associated area source and energy source emissions would also be reduced. Notwithstanding, as required by TOP Final SEIR 1513
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 25 of 65 ends

mitigation measure MM AQ 1, an Air Quality Assessment was prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project to evaluate the operational emissions that would result from the net increase in residential units in PAs 1 and 3 with the proposed Project compared to the approved West Haven Specific Plan (an increase of 389 units and approximately 2,800 daily trips), and is included in Attachment B of this Addendum (Urban Crossroads, 2023a). The estimated net increase in operation-source emissions resulting from the proposed Project is summarized in Table 2 of the Air Quality Assessment. As shown in Table 2 of the Air Quality Analysis Assessment included in Attachment B, the net increase in operational emissions resulting from the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (Urban Crossroads, 2023a).The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe operational air quality impacts beyond that previously analyzed in TOP Final SEIR. However, because the Project would contribute to the operational emissions generated by buildout of TOP 2050, this would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

The proposed Project, which includes the development of residential uses consistent with the approved West Haven Specific Plan, would not result in toxic air contaminants (TACs) during operation. The TOP Final SEIR, which evaluated regional emissions from mobile sources resulting from implementation of TOP 2050, concluded that the implementation of 2050 would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot, and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant. As identified above, the proposed Project would generate fewer vehicular trips than anticipated for PAs 1 and 3 and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized CO concentrations, consistent with the conclusion of the TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

The Project would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of pollutant concentrations resulting from implementation of development in the West Haven Specific Plan area.

Page 26 of 65 ends

uses allowed to be development in PAs 1 and 3 (residential). As with the previously approved residential development, the Project would not create objectionable odors resulting in a less than significant impact.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan would have the potential to impact migratory and wintering birds, as well as numerous raptor, waterfowl, wading birds, and shore bird species that use the area and Project site’s open water, wet fields, and windrows, including migrating birds considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Furthermore, the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluding that nesting birds may occur within the trees of the Project site, and impacts to these birds during construction would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). With implementation of mitigation, impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Specifically, MM B-1 and MM B-2 require payment of fees for habitat land for waterfowl and raptor species, and MM B-3 and MM B-4 require pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and raptors.

The Project site is currently vacant, was previously disturbed by agricultural uses that have been removed, and is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Based on the Burrowing Owl Breeding Season Survey Report and Biological Update for West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Project (Planning Areas 1 and 3); City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California (Biological Assessment) (VCS, 2023), included in Attachment C.1 of this Addendum, the Project site supports the following vegetation communities/land cover types:
disturbed/developed, nursery row crops, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, and ruderal vegetation. A few trees in the southern portion of the Project site could potentially provide habitat for raptors. There are no sensitive plant species located within PAs 1 and 3, and the Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bird of Conservation Concern was the only sensitive bird species documented. Based on the results of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) focused surveys conducted, no burrowing owls or evidence of burrowing activity (e.g., active burrows, whitewash, pellets, etc.) were detected during the surveys.

As a result, the Project site is not considered to be occupied by burrowing owl; however, the Project site includes burrows suitable for burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl foraging habitat.

Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with MM B-4, which requires a pre-construction survey be conducted 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls in compliance with CDFW protocol. (VCS, 2023).

The fee payment required by MM B-2, and pre-construction surveys required by MM B-3 and MM B-4 would continue to be required and would reduce impacts to sensitive species to a less than significant level, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan EIR. These MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The West Haven Specific Plan EIR concluded that the federally listed Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) did not occupy the Specific Plan area due to the lack of suitable habitat. In October 2022, EnviroPlus Consulting, Inc. (EPC) conducted a habitat suitability evaluation for the DSFLF, which concluded that because suitable Delhi series soils were not found, the Project site does not meet the baseline criterion to be considered for focused surveys as per the USFWS protocol (1996), and does not appear suitable for DSFLF occupation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact the DSFLF. (EPC, 2022) 1515
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 27 of 65 ends

Based on the updated Biological Resources Assessment included in Attachment C.1 of this Addendum, the Project site, which is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, still does not support riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, and no impact to such resources would occur with implementation of the proposed Project (VCS, 2023).

Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the MBTA and CDFW requirements (refer to MM B-4, which is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document). Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any species, with migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Page 28 of 65 ends

to the Project site and no impact relative to this issue would occur. The City of Ontario does not have any municipal ordinances for the protection of trees on private property; however, Municipal Code Sections 10-1.25 and 10-2.05 prohibit the damaging or destruction of trees on City property, except under conditions specified in the Municipal Code. There are no existing trees planted in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Project site and the proposed Project would not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would impact potential historical resources. The Specific Plan Final EIR analysis identified two potentially historic structures within the northeast portion of Specific Plan area; however, these historic resources are not located within the current Project site area and the proposed Project would not impact the structures. The Specific Plan Final EIR analysis also identified the Juan Batista D’Anza Trail crossing the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, including the Project site. However, the Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area has been extensively disturbed and no vestiges of the trail are intact and no impact to the trail would result. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, and is currently vacant. City records do not reflect the presence of a historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 at the Project site, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No impacts to historical resources would result from implementation of the Project.

Page 29 of 65 ends

included mitigation measures outlining actions to take in the event unknown resources were discovered during grading (MM CR-1 and MM CR-2). The Project site is vacant, was previously disturbed by agricultural uses that have been removed and is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. As identified in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, in the unlikely event archaeological resources are encountered during construction, the requirements outlined in MM CR-1 and MM CR-2, which are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document, would be followed and impacts would remain less than significant.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that development in the Specific Plan area would have less than significant impacts related to energy consumption (natural gas and electric consumption). The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The proposed Project would not change the type of land uses anticipated for PAs 1 and 3 (residential) and would not change the anticipated construction and operational characteristics of the proposed development.

Therefore, the associated energy demand for these activities would be similar to development pursuant to the approved West Haven Specific Plan.

Construction-related energy demand includes energy and fuel used by construction equipment, construction worker vehicles, and construction vendor / hauling vehicles, coupled with construction energy efficiency / conservation measures. The construction equipment, use of electricity, and fuel for the proposed Project would be typical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and construction equipment would conform to applicable CARB emissions standards, which promote equipment fuel efficiencies. It should also be noted that fuel efficiencies are improving for on- and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. Electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, precluding the 1518
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 30 of 65 ends

use of less-efficient generators. Thus, construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

With respect to operations, as with the approved residential development, the additional residential units that would be allowed by the proposed Project would use electricity for uses including heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; lighting; and appliances. Title 24 energy standards have become more stringent since 2007. These regulations are regularly updated. The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 Title 24 regulations are applicable to building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2023. Further, the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which contains mandatory and voluntary requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings, became effective in August 2009, following certification of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The proposed residential buildings would be constructed to achieve the building energy standards set forth in the Title 24 requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, there would be additional reductions in energy consumption pursuant to the new and updated codes compared to those anticipated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Further, the types of trips and vehicle mix generated by the proposed Project would be consistent with other residential development of similar scale and configuration, including other development in the West Haven Specific Plan area. The proposed Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation and the impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: The potential for development within the West Haven Specific Plan area to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency was not specifically addressed in the West Haven Final EIR. However, federal and state agencies regulated energy use and consumption through various means and programs when the 2007 EIR was prepared and continue to do so. On the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. In additional to Title 24 energy standards and the CALGreen Code addressed above, relevant state energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below. • Integrated Energy Policy Report. Senate Bill (SB) 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 California’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. The 2022 IEPR was adopted in February 2023, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. As with the uses allowed by the previously approved West Haven Specific Plan, the additional residential uses proposed in PAs 1 and 3 would be required to adhere to applicable Title 24 energy standards and CALGreen, which would reduce energy consumption, as described previously. The proposed Project would not involve any uses or activities that would conflict with or otherwise hinder or obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2022 IEPR. • State of California Energy Plan. The CEC is responsible for preparing the State of California Energy Plan (State Energy Plan), which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a 1519
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 31 of 65 ends

healthy economy. The State Energy Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the State Energy Plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators encouraging urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. The proposed Project takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems, and promotes land use compatibilities through the development of residential uses on a site designated for such uses in the TOP and the West Haven Specific Plan. Further, Haven Avenue extends along the eastern boundary of the Project site and would provide a multi-purpose trail to promote nonvehicular travel, and a Class I bicycle path is proposed along the western boundary of the Project site within a planned paseo. The previously approved West Haven Specific Plan and the proposed Project would support urban design and planning processes identified under the State Energy Plan, and would not otherwise interfere with or obstruct implementation of the State Energy Plan.

The Project would also comply with the requirements of the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), which is addressed under the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of this document.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and this impact would be less than significant.

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

Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is located outside the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone) and there would be no impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Therefore, no impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault would result, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 32 of 65 ends

remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 33 of 65 ends

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would locate structures on soils that are considered potentially unstable. Notably, subsurface cow manure deposits with the potential to generate methane gas may be found in the Specific Plan area due to past dairy farm operations, and soils are characterized as having “Low to Very Low” expansion potential. However, with implementation of mitigation measures impacts related to unstable and/or expansive soils were determined to be less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and the underlying geologic conditions at the Project site remain the same. Further, implementation of TOP strategies, adherence to requirements outlined in the City’s building codes, the UBC, and Ontario Municipal Code, and implementation of MM G-1, MM G-3, and MM G-5 (which require measures to address methane gas, removal of surficial slumps, and incorporation of geotechnical recommendations, respectively), would ensure that impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

The applicable MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

No impact would result.

Page 34 of 65 ends

Final EIR. MM CR-2 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

The State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, after certification of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, and as a result, increased attention has been paid to the impact of GHG emissions. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) in 2010, adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines in a new Section 15064.4 entitled “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, which require evaluation of GHG emissions. Therefore, GHG emissions were not specifically identified as such in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analyses. However, as described in the following paragraphs, courts have ruled that there is no requirement to address GHG emissions in an Addendum to an EIR that was completed prior to the adopted CEQA amendments. “Information on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change” does not constitute “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the IS / MND was adopted.” (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, 531–532 (rejecting claim that such information triggered the need for a supplemental EIR, and explaining that such information was known “long before the City approved the 1994 EIR” at issue)). Further, the impact of buildout of TOP on the environment due to GHG emissions was analyzed in the TOP Final SEIR. As previously discussed, the proposed buildout of the West Haven Specific Plan was previously analyzed in TOP Final SEIR, which was certified by the City.

Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: Limiting GHG emissions to combat climate change has been a governmental goal since the late 1970s. As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v.

EPA (2007) 549 U.S. 497: “In the late 1970s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to “assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications”. In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of “establish[ing] a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications” (15 United States Code [USC] 2902). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC 2904[d]).

In 1988, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific information regarding climate change to policymakers. In 1992, 154 nations, including the United States, entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective emissions by 5% below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008–2012.

As noted by the court in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of 1523
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 35 of 65 ends

San Diego (supra, 196 Cal. App. 4th 515), by 1990, the potential impacts of GHG emissions were already the subject of litigation, with the “Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argu[ing that an] “increase in fossil fuel combustion … will … lead to a global increase in temperatures, causing a rise in sea level and a decrease in snow cover that would damage the shoreline, forests, and agriculture of California.” (Id. at 531, quoting City of Los Angeles v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [D.C. Cir. 1990] 286 U.S. App.D.C. 78.)
Thus, by the 1990s, California’s local governmental agencies were well aware of the importance of monitoring and limiting GHG emissions when approving projects. Since GHG impacts were known at the time that the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR was conducted, information regarding the proposed Project’s potential to impact climate change does not constitute “new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time . . . the IS / MND was adopted.” Accordingly, the inclusion of GHG impacts as a requirement of CEQA analysis does not trigger the need for any further environmental review. (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (supra, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 531–532)). Notwithstanding this conclusion, the discussion below provides an analysis of the proposed Project related to GHG emissions.

TOP 2050 includes an update to the City’s 2014 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP Update).

The CCAP is a plan to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The 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 S03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. The CCAP Update is intended to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 plan requirements for CEQA streamlining for development projects consistent with TOP 2050. The CCAP Update includes per capita targets for Ontario for year 2030 and year 2050 to be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and EO S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. The CCAP Update underwent CEQA review (TOP Final SEIR) and was adopted after public hearings. Thus, the City’s CCAP is a qualified CAP that projects can tier off of for CEQA review. According to TOP Final SEIR, with implementation of the Ontario CCAP implementation of TOP 2050 would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

GHG emissions associated with development projects would be less than significant if the project is consistent with the CCAP. The Project would comply with the City’s CCAP. Therefore, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Further, the proposed Project includes the development of 654 units in PAs 1 and 3, which is 135 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for these PAs.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project was previously analyzed by the TOP Final SEIR.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this impact need not be analyzed further, because (1) the proposed Project would result in an impact that was previously analyzed in the certified TOP Final SEIR; (2) the proposed Project would not result in any greenhouse gas impacts that were not addressed in the certified TOP Final SEIR; and (3) the proposed Project is consistent with TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP Final SEIR. No changes or additions to Certified TOP Final SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 1524
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 36 of 65 ends

environment?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that there would be an incremental increase in the use of household and commercial chemicals by the new residents, commercial center, park, and school. However, the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials, if required, would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations (refer to MM HA-4) and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, any asbestos containing materials or lead-based paint present, and hazardous materials used or encountered during construction would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations (refer to MM HA-1, MM HA-2, MM HA-3, and MM HA-4).

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. There would be no change in types of land uses proposed (residential), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Additionally, the site is currently vacant and structures associated with previous agricultural uses have been removed. With the exception of the potential for exposure to asbestos containing materials and lead based paint (which is not applicable to the Project given that the Project site is currently vacant and there are no structures to be removed), potential impacts associated with construction and operation of residential uses within PAs 1 and 3 would be the same as those identified in the Final EIR, and MM HA-2, MM HA-3, and MM HA-4 presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document would apply. Development of the proposed additional residential units in PAs 1 and 3 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous, and would not expose the public or the environment to a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

The Project site is approximately 0.08 mile southeast of Grace Yokley School, and approximately

0.25 mile west of Colony High School. However, there are no new uses proposed and as with the previously approved residential uses, development of the proposed additional residential units in PAs 1 and 3 would not involve hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials.

This impact would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 37 of 65 ends

documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that Specific Plan area was not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List), and none of the sites identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted during preparation of the Final EIR represent an environmental concern for proposed uses. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Based on review of the current California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) current Cortese List, the Project site is not listed on the hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC, 2023).

Therefore, no impact would occur.

The proposed Project was also evaluated for hazards to aircraft in flight utilizing by Policy Map 2- 4: Airspace Obstruction Zones of the ONT ALUCP, which identifies height restrictions of proposed structures or buildings. The northern portion of the West Haven Specific Plan area is subject to height restrictions (greater than 200 feet). The Project would be subject to the development regulations of the West Haven Specific Plan which do not allow structures greater than 200 feet; thus, the Project would comply and would not result in a safety hazard. Additionally, as further discussed in the Noise section of this Addendum, the Project site is not within a noise impact zone for ONT. Therefore, development within the West Haven Specific Plan area, including the Project site, would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working at the Project site. No impact would result.

Page 38 of 65 ends

includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. As with the approved uses within the Specific Plan area, including residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, the proposed Project, which does not change the type of allowed uses in PAs 1 and 3 (residential), would comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. No impact would result, consistent with the conclusion in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan could violate quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during construction and operation; however, with implementation of mitigation measures and adherence to statewide NPDES General Industrial Activities Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the Ontario Municipal Code (Section 6, Title 6), potential impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant.

Consistent with the conclusion of the Final EIR, with adherence to MM H/WQ-1 and MM H/WQ-3, which outline requirements to protect water quality during construction and require compliance with regulatory requirements, water quality impacts during construction would be less than significant.

MM H/WQ-1 and MM H/WQ-3 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

As required by MM H/WQ-2, a WQMP would be prepared for projects implementing the West Haven Specific Plan, including development within PAs 1 and 3. The proposed Project would not change the types of land uses to be developed (residential) and the types of urban pollutants that would be generated would be the same; therefore, the post-development best management practices (BMPs) would also be the same. Storm Water Quality Credits would be used, meaning that the BMP used for water treatment would be handled by the existing Natural Treatment System (Mill Creek Wetlands). The gross pollutants from PAs 1 and 3 would be treated by the existing 1527
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 39 of 65 ends

Turner Storm Drain CDS Unit, an off-line CDS unit, located just north of Merrill Avenue. Additionally, as required by MM H/WQ-4, landscaping would retain and percolate both applied irrigation water and stormwater (LD King, 2022a). As required by MM H/WQ-5, in order to reduce pollutants in post construction run-off the individual Project owners and operators (e.g., homeowner associations) would be required to ensure that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part of maintenance of Project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed of by those conducting facility maintenance in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. MM H/WQ-1 through MM H/WQ-5 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, with adherence to the identified mitigation measures potential water quality impacts during operation would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be served by domestic water provided by the City, and direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, and the proposed Project would not change the types of land uses to be developed within PAs 1 and 3 (residential). There may be a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface with the increase in units and development of attached units which could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge; however, the Project site is not located in a designated groundwater recharge area (CBWCD, 2023). The potential for the proposed Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less than significant. Notwithstanding, as discussed above, MM H/WQ-4 is applicable to the proposed Project and requires that landscaping retain and percolate both applied irrigation water and stormwater.

Page 40 of 65 ends

polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR identifies that no streams or streambeds are present within the Specific Plan area. The EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan could alter the drainage patterns of the site and in a manner that could create substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation on or off-site. However, with implementation of the on-site storm drain system, and required West Haven Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures, which include requirements to adhere to applicable regulations, as discussed above, impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and would not involve any construction activities or new land use types beyond that anticipated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. PAs 1 and 3 are tributary to the Master Plan Turner Storm Drain. Pursuant to MM H/WQ-1, the Master Plan Turner Storm Drain has been fully designed from the outlet into the County Line Channel to the southern boundary of PA 1, and partially constructed from the outlet into the County Line Channel to the southern boundary of PA 3. Due to a potential increase in impervious surface, the proposed density increases within PAs 1 and 3 may increase the amount of storm flow tributary to the Turner Storm Drain. Consistent with MM H/WQ-2, onsite detention basins would be constructed to prevent uncontrolled runoff and to accommodate the increase in storm flows. As with the approved residential development in PAs 1 and 3, there would be a less than significant impact related to potential flooding and storm drain capacity. MM H/WQ-2 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

As discussed under Threshold “a” above, the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations to minimize water quality impacts during construction and potential development, including from erosion, and impacts related to erosion and polluted runoff would be less than significant.

As discussed under Threshold “d” below, the West Haven Specific Plan area is not within a flood hazard area; therefore, the proposed Project would not redirect flood flows.

Figure 5.10-3, Dam Inundation Zones, of TOP Final SEIR indicates that the Specific Plan area is within the eastern portion of San Antonio Creek dam failure inundation area; however, TOP Final SEIR concludes that because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and because the City is prepared in the event of such failure, impacts are considered less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR and would also have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the risk of pollutant release from inundation of the Project site from seiche, tsunami or dam failure. Based on review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 1529
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 41 of 65 ends

National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area; the Project site is located within FEMA Zone X, a minimal flood hazard area (FEMA, 2016). Therefore, the Project would also have a less than significant impact related to the risk of pollutant release from flood inundation, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment addressing the amount and type of residential uses within PAs 1 and 3. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The proposed Project would not involve any change in the type of construction activities or type of uses to be developed in PAs 1 and 3, and as discussed under Threshold “a” above, would be required to comply with applicable regulations addressing the protection of water quality. Therefore, the Project would comply with the Basin Plan, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

On September 16, 2014, subsequent to certification of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, Governor Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The 2014 SGMA requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high-” and “medium”-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino Groundwater Basins as “very low” priority. Therefore, the Chino Groundwater Basins is not subject to the requirements of the SGMA (DWR, 2023). Accordingly, development within the West Haven Specific Plan area, including the Project site, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and no impact would occur.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would represent a continuation of the existing and planned development pattern and would not physically divide an established community. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan 1530
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 42 of 65 ends

Final EIR, and is surrounded by existing residential development, or areas planned for future development pursuant to approved specific plans or the TOP 2050 Policy Plan. Consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, the proposed Project would not divide an established community and no impact would result.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3, would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The proposed Project would not require a change in the TOP land use designation (Low Medium Density Residential (5.1-11.0 du/ac), Medium Density Residential (11.1-25.0 du/ac), and Open Space-Recreation), and would not change the type of land uses allowed in the Specific Plan area. Further, the proposed Project would be designed to be consistent with the Development Standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the West Haven Specific Plan, as amended. The proposed increase in residential units within PAs 1 and 3, which is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR, would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and this impact would be less than significant.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to mineral resources because the Specific Plan area is not located in a mineral rich area, does not involve any mining practices, and does not include any known locally important mineral resources. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, does not contain any mineral resources, and is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource recovery site in TOP, West Haven Specific Plan or other land use plan. Therefore, no impacts would result, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 43 of 65 ends

documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan would result in project-level noise impacts during construction; however, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of identified mitigation measures.

The Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes.

With respect to construction noise, the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Grading and building construction would be conducted as part of the proposed Project. The types of construction activities and construction equipment that would be used for construction in PAs 1 and 3 would be the same as that evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, and the noise-sensitive receptors are the same as those evaluated. Construction activities would be subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, which require that a construction noise control plan be prepared (MM N-2), construction activities comply with the City of Ontario noise ordinance that restricts the days and hours of construction activities (MM N-3), that noise-producing construction equipment be fitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers (MM N-4), and construction best management practices related to noise be implemented (MM N-5). Therefore, construction-related noise impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. MM N-2 through MM N-5 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

With respect to noise resulting from onsite operations, the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis also concluded that noise impacts from onsite operations would be less than significant and would primarily be associated with operation of the elementary school, park and neighborhood commercial center. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of residential units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new housing typologies for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The noise sources associated with proposed onsite residential uses would be the same as that anticipated and evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Onsite operational Nosie impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

The TOP Final SEIR evaluated traffic-related noise impacts that would result from buildout of TOP 2050, which includes development in the West Haven Specific Plan area. The TOP Final SEIR concluded that buildout of the uses anticipated by TOP would result in less than significant trafficrelated noise impacts. As previously identified, the proposed Project would result in 135 fewer residential units compared to that evaluated for PAs 1 and 3 in the TOP Final SEIR (654 units compared to 789 units). Additionally, the circulation system for the West Haven Specific Plan and anticipated in the TOP Final SEIR traffic-related noise analysis would not change with the proposed Project. With a reduction in units compared and associated trip generation compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR, the proposed Project would reduce traffic-related noise impacts, which were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a significant noise impact or substantial increase in traffic-related noise impacts compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR.
1532
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 44 of 65 ends

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Grading and building construction would be conducted as part of the proposed Project. The types of construction activities and construction equipment that would be used for construction in PAs 1 and 3 would be the same as that evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR; therefore, potential sources of vibration during construction would also be the same.

Construction activities would be subject to the mitigation measures MM N-2 through MM N-5 outlined in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR discussed above, which would also serve to reduce potential vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. MM N-2 through MM N-5 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The Project site (PAs 1 and 3) is within the Specific Plan area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Based on review of Policy Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones, of the ONT ALUCP, the Project site, which is approximately

2.4 miles south of ONT, is not located within a noise impact zone for the ONT; therefore, the Project would not expose people residing at the Project site to excessive noise levels from airport operations and this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 45 of 65 ends

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that growth associated with implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan is consistent with the growth forecasts for the City included in the General Plan and associated EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that although the increase in population, housing, and employment under TOP 2050 would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City, TOP 2050 would improve the job-housing balance. Furthermore, TOP 2050 accommodates future growth by providing for infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth of the City and is consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. Consequently, while buildout of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan would substantially increase both population and employment in the City, TOP Final SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the maximum number of allowed units in PAs 1 and 3 by 389 units; however, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for a maximum of 1,142 residential units to be developed within the West Haven Specific Plan area (up to 789 units in PAs 1 and 3), which is less than the 1,284 residential unit development capacity established by TOP Policy Plan for the West Haven Specific Plan area (654 units in PAs 1 and 3). Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed the number of units or associated increase in population anticipated in TOP for the Specific Plan area, and would continue to assist the City in improving its jobs-housing balance. Additionally, the Project would not involve the development of any roadways or infrastructure beyond that already planned to accommodate the previously approved Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusions of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the 1534
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 46 of 65 ends

implementation of the Specific Plan would add residential uses to the area and would increase demands upon fire protection; however, with implementation of mitigation measures, adherence to applicable regulations, and increased revenue generated by the Project to offset costs for fire protection services, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. MM PS-7, which requires approval of a plan to finance a new fire station in the Ontario Ranch (formerly referred to as the “New Model Colony”) has been completed.

The Ontario Fire Department provides fire and Emergency Medical Services to the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, from Fire Station No. 6 located northwest of the Project site, at 2931 E. Philadelphia Street and Fire Station No. 9 located southwest of the Project site, at 2661 East Grand Park. The proposed Project would increase the number of residential units to be constructed at the Project site (an increase of 389 units) and would have an associated increase in the population within the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Project would increase the demand for fire protection services. However, the payment of required Development Impact Fees (which would contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment), and adherence to applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), as adopted by the Ontario Municipal Code (Section 4-4.01) would ensure that impacts from the proposed Project remain less than significant. MM PS-4 and MM PS-5 require adherence to regulations for access, building materials, fire flow, etc., and MM PS-6 requires the Ontario Fire Department to ensure that sufficient staffing and equipment is provided. MM PS-3 through MM PS-6 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities that would cause a physical environmental impact. Impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Police services would be provided by the Ontario Police Department. Since police services are based upon per capita service levels, the proposed Project, which would increase the residential population at the Project site, would require an incremental increase in police services to maintain required service levels. The City’s development review process and building permit plan check processes include review by the City’s Police Department (as required by MM PS-8 and MM PS-9) to ensure incorporation of defensible space concepts and site access in site design and construction. MM PS-8 and MM PS-9 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Property taxes and City fees, including payment of required Development Impact Fees, support the general fund to help offset the cost of additional personnel. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities that would cause a physical environmental impact. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 47 of 65 ends

will continue to apply to Project activities.
iii) Schools?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that with adherence to regulations requiring payment of school fees (MM PS-1), and coordination with the Mountain View School District (MVSD) (Kindergarten through 8th grade) and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD) (grades 9 through 12) to allow for effective school planning (MM PS-2), impacts to school services would be less than significant. The proposed Project would increase the number of dwelling units at the Project site; however, the payment of required school fees would reduce this impact to a less than significant level (refer to MM PS-1). Additionally, coordination with the school districts regarding buildout of the proposed uses (refer to MM PS-2) would further reduce potential impacts. MM PS-1 and MM PS-2 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities that would cause a physical environmental impact. Impacts related to school services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 48 of 65 ends

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that potential impacts related to increase use of existing parks would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s parkland requirements, which can be met through the provision of parkland, the payment of in-lieu fees, or a combination thereof. The West Haven Specific Plan includes a network of paseos, recreational facilities, and bicycle trails. The increase in population generated by the Project would increase the demand for park facilities. As with the previously approved residential uses, the park requirements for the increased residential units and associated population would be met through a combination of payment of in-lieu park fees in accordance with Ontario Development Code Chapter 6.080.30, and construction of onsite recreational facilities. Additionally, the Project site is in proximity to existing and planned large City and regional recreational areas, which would be built out over time. With adherence to the City’s requirements for the provision of parkland, no additional new or expanded park facilities would be required beyond the onsite recreational facilities, and there would not be an accelerated physical deterioration of local or regional parks, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, and would include Open Space-Recreation uses within PAs 1 and 3 as identified on the West Haven Land Use Plan included in Attachment A of this Addendum. No physical environmental impacts associated with construction of park and recreational facilities would occur beyond that already addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and this Addendum.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.

As discussed under Threshold “b” below, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the requirement for analyzing congestion impacts for CEQA purposes has been eliminated. Notwithstanding, off-site mitigation measures included in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR requiring the completion of intersection improvements or fair share payments to address operational deficiencies (refer to MM T-7 through MM T-17) remain applicable unless determined to no longer be necessary based on the West Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed Project (Urban Crossroads, 2023c). The requirements for off-site traffic improvements would be included as conditions of approval for the Project.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing circulation system resulting in a less than significant impact. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would 1537
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 49 of 65 ends

add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The proposed Project does not involve any changes to the Specific Plan related to the circulation system, and mitigation measures from the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR requiring onsite or site-adjacent transportation improvements would be implemented: MM T-1, MM T-2, and MM T-3 (address the provision of right-of-way, easements, and improvements along the west side of Haven Avenue); MM T-4 (addresses improvements along the south side of Riverside Avenue); and MM T-18 (pay fair-share amount or construction transit/bus system improvements in the vicinity of the Project site). These mitigation measures are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. MM T-5 and MM T-6 address roadways improvements along Turner Avenue and Chino Avenue, which have already been completed or are not applicable to the Project as these roadways are not adjacent to the Project site.

There are existing bus stops located along Haven Avenue near Aspen Street south of the Project site. These bus stops are within walking distance to the Project site and would facilitate use of transit. Additionally, the proposed Project would include the construction of required pedestrian facilities and bikeways, which would connect to existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, and existing transit facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental document is necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to Project activities.
b. Conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Discussion of Effects: SB 743, approved in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code Section 21099, changes the way transportation impacts are determined according to CEQA. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommended the use of VMT as the replacement for automobile delay-based level of service for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA. On December 28, 2018, the State approved updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which entailed changes to the thresholds of significance for the evaluation of impacts to transportation. Updates to the CEQA Guidelines included the addition of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, of which Subdivision b establishes criteria for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts based on project type and using automobile VMT as the metric. Beginning July 1, 2020, the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 apply statewide. As identified in Section 15064.3(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT. Based on the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December of 2018), the City of Ontario has developed and adopted its own VMT methodologies and thresholds (Resolution No. 2020-071), which were adopted by City Council in June 2020.

Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum does not expand into new areas of analysis.

See CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064.3(b)(1) and 15007 (new guidelines apply prospectively); see also Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (adoption of new guidelines for GHG evaluation was not significant new information requiring further CEQA review because GHG emissions were known information and could have been addressed in the original EIR); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health Servs. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605 (new critical habitat regulation was not significant new information because impacts to the species had already been addressed in original EIR). Further, VMT associated with the proposed Project does not constitute new significant information requiring additional environmental analysis. The adoption of VMT as a metric for analyzing transportation impacts (and corresponding GHG impacts) pursuant to SB 743 is not new information, as VMT-related impacts were knowable and known when the West Haven Specific Plan EIR was prepared. Therefore, no further analysis of the 1538
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 50 of 65 ends

Project’s VMT for analyzing transportation impacts is required in this Addendum.

Notwithstanding, the West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (January 4, 2023) (VMT Analysis) (Urban Crossroads, 2023b) was prepared to compare the VMT generated by the proposed Project to the approved West Haven Specific Plan, using methodologies established by the City in Resolution No. 2020-071. The VMT Analysis is included in Attachment D of this Addendum.

As previously discussed, the Project would increase residential density by 389 dwelling units as compared to the approved West Haven Specific Plan, which would result in an increase in vehicular trips and an associated increase in total Origin/Destination (OD) VMT. However, as shown in Table 3 of the VMT Analysis, total OD VMT divided by the proposed Project’s service population (SP) results in a lower OD VMT/SP for the proposed Project as compared to the approved West Haven Specific Plan (29.01 compared to 32.39). Similarly, the Boundary VMT/SP in the both the City of Ontario boundary and 10-mile radii boundary of the Project location is lower with the proposed Project compared to the West Haven Specific Plan. Specifically, the City Boundary VMT/SP with the proposed Project would be 13.56 compared to 13.59 with the approved Specific Plan and the 10-Mile Boundary VMT/SP with the proposed Project would be 22.32 compared to 22.34 with the approved Specific Plan. These results indicate a more efficient land use plan when incorporated with the complementary land uses in the surrounding area. This is consistent with the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, which indicates that “[i]ncreasing residential densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.” This analysis indicates that the Project is more efficient from a VMT perspective as compared to the approved Specific Plan.

Access to PAs 1 and 3 would be provided from Riverside Drive and Haven Avenue as anticipated in the Specific Plan, and internal roadways, access driveways, and sight distance would comply with the City design requirements, and roadway standards outlined in the Specific Plan (refer to MM T-1 through MM T-4 presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document). This impact would be less than significant.

Page 51 of 65 ends

Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to emergency access, and MM PS-4 and MM PS-9 in the Public Services section of the Final EIR require Project review to ensure adherence with Ontario Fire Department and Police Department requirements, which include emergency access. Implementation of the Specific Plan would improve emergency access by completing road segments in the Specific Plan area, and development would adhere to City of Ontario standard conditions of approval, and permits related to emergency access. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. The proposed Project does not involve any changes to the West Haven Specific Plan related to the circulation system or emergency access. Access to the Project site would be provided from Riverside Drive and Haven Avenue as anticipated in the Specific Plan and would comply with applicable requirements for emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

18. Tribal Cultural Resources. The provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Project. AB 52 applies “…only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.” AB 52, which became effective on July 1, 2015, established a consultation process with California Native American tribes, and established Tribal Cultural Resources as a new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project impacts and mitigation under CEQA. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if they have requested such notice in writing. The project notification is required prior to the lead agency’s release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt an MND or ND, and is not required for Addendums. However, the analysis of impacts to cultural resources, including prehistoric archaeological sites, resulting from implementation of the West Haven Specific Plan is provided in the Cultural Resources section of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, as summarized previously in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impact to archaeological resources with implementation of mitigation measures.

Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code 65450 et seq.), and not the CEQA process. The City is completing required Native American consultation pursuant to SB 18. To date, none of the 22 tribes contacted by the City have requested consultation and no information has been provided indicating that tribal cultural resources are present within the Project site.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum, the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in the destruction of historical resources and considered the impact less than significant. The Project site is vacant and disturbed by previous agricultural uses that have been removed, and is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan 1540
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 52 of 65 ends

Final EIR. There are no historic resources as defined in CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 at, or in the vicinity of the Project site and no impacts to tribal cultural resources 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) would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan EIR identifies the required infrastructure systems necessary to serve the proposed development within the Specific Plan area, and the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR addressed the utility demands associated with proposed development and potential environmental impacts associated with installation of the required infrastructure. Utility and service system impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The required mitigation focuses on requirements for design and review of utility infrastructure requirements.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. There would be an associated increase in demand for water, electricity, natural gas, etc. and wastewater generation; however, the proposed Project does not involve any changes that would require new or expanded utility infrastructure beyond that already anticipated in the West Haven Specific Plan and evaluated in the associated Final EIR, and on-site utility infrastructure that would serve the Project. With respect to storm drain facilities, as discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Addendum, the increase in residential units would not substantially alter the post-development drainage characteristics of the Project site; therefore, the existing off-site storm drain system has sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from the 1541
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 53 of 65 ends

Project site and the onsite storm drain system would connect to the existing drainage system.

Further, MM WS-2 through MM WS-8 requires that utility infrastructure be constructed and funded to the satisfaction of the City, and requires coordination with utilities agencies. MM WS-2, MM WS3, and MM WS-5 through MM WS-8 were previously completed. MM WS-4 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Impacts related to the installation of utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Project would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental document is necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to Project activities.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would generate an additional demand for water; however, sufficient water supply exists to meet the City’s existing and planned future uses, resulting in a less than significant impact. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units). Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221, a Project-specific Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, West Haven Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario (WSA) (Webb, 2022), was prepared for the proposed Project, and is included in Attachment E of this Addendum. The WSA identifies that the City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is the water supplier for the proposed Project. The estimated potable water demand for the additional dwelling units proposed by the Project is 109-acre feet per year (AFY) and the recycled water demand is 4 AFY for a total demand of 113 AFY. Full buildout of the West Haven Specific Plan, as amended, would have a potable water demand of 477 AFY and recycled water demand of 190 AFY for a total of 667 AFY. The increased water demand resulting from the proposed Project was not accounted for by the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) adopted by the Ontario City Council in June 15, 2021. However, the total projected potable and recycled water supplies available to the OMUC during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years over a 20-year projection would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the additional units of the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. State mandated conservation efforts would reduce demand in the future. Furthermore, future development within PAs 1 and 3 were previously required to comply with MM WS-2, which required a letter from the water purveyor(s) demonstrating that sufficient water resources would be provided consistent with the demand for those resources.

Impacts to water supplies are considered less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 54 of 65 ends

The Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is served by the City of Ontario sewer system, which has wastewater treated by the IEUA at the Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1 (RP)-1 or RP-5. The Specific Plan area is serviced by RP-5, which is located in the City of Chino at 6063 Kimball Avenue, and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario. RP-5 has a current capacity of 16.3 mgd, which will increase to 22.5 mgd with its planned expansion project that is currently under construction. According to IEUA, during FY 2020/21, RP-5 treated 8.2 MGD and had an excess capacity of 7.8 MGD (IEUA, 2023). The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units). The additional wastewater generated by an increase of 389 dwelling units, which are anticipated in TOP Policy Plan, would not exceed the capacity of RP-5 and this impact would be less than significant.

Since the certification of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR, the El Sobrante Landfill has increased its maximum permitted capacity from 6,000 tons per day (tpd) to 16,054 tpd (as of 2022) and the Badlands Landfill also receives solid waste from the City. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units). The proposed Project includes the development of 654 units in PAs 1 and 3, which is 135 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for these PAs. At buildout of the proposed West Haven Specific Plan, as amended, there would be a maximum of 1,142 residential units, which is 142 fewer units than 1,284 units for the Specific Plan area anticipated in TOP Policy Plan and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed in the Specific Plan area (residential) or the sources of solid waste generation. The TOP Final SEIR concluded that build out of the TOP Policy Plan, which includes the proposed increase in units in PAs 1 and 3, would result in less than significant impacts related to landfill capacity. Further, considering the proposed Project's future residents’ participation in the source reduction and household hazardous waste programs offered by the City, and which are more stringent then when the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared, the solid waste stream generated by the additional residential uses may be reduced over time. MM SW-2 would also remain applicable to the Project to reduce solid waste generation during construction. MM SW-2 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and this impact would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 55 of 65 ends

e. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion of Effects: The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that construction and operation of proposed uses in the Specific Plan area would comply with regulations associated with solid waste and impacts would be less than significant. As with all development in the City and the Specific Plan area, the proposed additional uses within PAs 1 and 3 would also be required to comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste management, disposal, recycling, etc., and this impact would be less than significant.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion of Effects: As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of this Addendum, the West Haven Specific Plan area is not subject to wildfires. The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within City boundaries or in federal ownership; therefore, the Project site is not within an SRA. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the City of Ontario, including the Project site, is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) (CalFire, 2008). As such, no impacts related to wildfires would occur.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is vacant, disturbed by previous agricultural uses that have been disturbed, and is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. As discussed in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of this Addendum, impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation, consistent with the conclusion of the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 56 of 65 ends

the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Discussion of Effects: The potential cumulative impacts identified in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR include: loss of Farmland, air quality impacts, surface water quality (due to impaired receiving waters), and operational traffic impacts. Substantial changes are not proposed with the Project and the proposed Project would not require revisions to the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of up to 265 single family units within PAs 1 and 3. Further, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan anticipates up to 1,284 units within PAs 1 and 3, which was evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed (residential), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. As evaluated throughout this Addendum, the Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts than previously evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR.

Therefore, the Project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts would also be the same.

Page 57 of 65 ends

EARLIER ANALYSIS
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier analyzes used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review. a) The Ontario Plan 2050 Final SEIR
b) The Ontario Plan 2050
c) The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR
d) The West Haven Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program e) The West Haven Specific Plan
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036. Other references used to prepare this Addendum are listed below.
2) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.

Most of the checklist items were analyzed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development capacity of 265 single family units within PAs 1 and 3. Further, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan anticipates up to 1,284 units within PAs 1 and 3, which was evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in PA 1 and PA 3 (an increase of 389 units), would allow for the development of attached homes in PAs 1 and 3, would add new product types for the residential uses in PAs 1 and 3, and would involve other minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the West Haven Specific Plan associated with these changes. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed (residential), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR. Additionally, the City’s infrastructure systems would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Therefore, the proposed Project would not introduce any impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES (For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project):

As the proposed Project does not have any adverse environmental impacts beyond those identified in the previous environmental document, no mitigation beyond that previously imposed is required. The West Haven Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Project are listed below.

Agricultural Resources
MM A-1: In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, all residential units in the West Haven Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, approved by the City Attorney, regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses.

Air Quality
MM AQ-1: Prior to Project site construction activities, and prior to issuance of grading permits for each phase of the Project, a Dust Control Plan (DCP) shall be submitted to, and verified by, the City Building and Engineering Department(s). The DCP shall identify actions that Project applicant(s) and the Project contractor(s) shall utilize to reduce on- and off-site dust production consistent with SCAQMD guidelines.

Dust Control mitigation measures for the Project shall include:
1546
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 58 of 65 ends

• After final grades have been established, disturbed areas shall be vegetated and mulched immediately.
• Maintain all disturbed portions of the construction site, in a damp condition, including all material excavated, filled or graded. When required, such disturbed areas shall be sufficiently watered to maintain a damp condition, no less than twice daily, at midday and the end of the work day, and more frequently if necessary, to prevent excessive amounts of dust. • Identification of disturbed portions of the Project’s construction site expected to remain inactive for longer than a period of one month. These portions shall have non-toxic soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturers’ specifications or be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown. • Retain the Project site’s natural vegetation to the extent feasible on all areas that will not be disturbed for grading, except areas that must be cleared and revegetated as part of a fuel modification program.
• All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (winds greater than 15 mph until winds are less than 25 mph and averaged over 20 minutes), or during Stage 1 or Stage 2 air quality episodes.
• Specification of the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to winter rain period experienced in Southern California.
• On-site vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (the distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer), and shall drive through a wheel washer before entering paved right-of–way. • Pavement of all on-site roads shall occur as soon as feasible. In the interim they shall be watered periodically or chemically stabilized. Additionally, all adjacent public streets shall be cleared using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks (i.e., based on lead agency supply availability recommend street sweepers use reclaimed water). • An inspection and maintenance program shall be included in the DCP to ensure that any erosion, which does occur, either on- or off-site as a result of the Project, shall be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a time frame specified by City Building Department. • If feasible, install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit the construction site onto public paved roads or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. • If feasible, appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.

MM AQ-2: During grading and construction activities, the Project applicant(s) shall submit a signed report once every three months to the City Building and Engineering Department(s). To mitigate impacts to air quality, this report shall document the past three months’ performance, the planned performance for the next three months, and, certify Project applicant(s) and Project contractor(s) compliance with the following:
• Construction materials shall be received during off-peak travel periods, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A written explanation for any non-compliance shall be submitted by the offending party to the City Building and Engineering Department(s).
• Lane closures and detours shall be limited to off-peak travel periods and be coordinated with the City’s Traffic Division.
• Verification by the Project applicant(s) of the construction equipment that has been on the Project site during the preceding three months, that is currently on the site, and that is anticipated to be on the site during the next three months. The Project applicant(s) shall certify that all such equipment has been and shall be selected for use based on low-emission and high-energy efficiency factors, including that such equipment has received a tune-up (or equivalent work) to assure low NOx 1547
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 59 of 65 ends

emissions within six months preceding delivery to the Project site, and at least once a year thereafter.
• Documentation of the estimated number of all workers anticipated to be on the Project site, the estimated number of these that plan to carpool, and an approximate number of those that did carpool in the last three months.
• If feasible and practicable, the applicant shall use high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50%; use required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113; construct/ build with materials that do not require painting; and use pre-painted construction materials. • It is highly recommended that all diesel trucks be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on- and off-site;
• It is highly recommended that all vehicles and equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications;
• It is highly recommended to include a configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference; • It is highly recommended to provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow; • It is highly recommended to reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas;
• It is highly recommended to provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off-site;
• It is highly recommended to use clean construction equipment; emulsified diesel fuels; construction equipment that uses low sulfur diesel and is equipped with oxidation catalysts, particulate traps, or other retrofit technologies, etc.

Biological Resources
MM B-1: Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), Project applicant(s) shall pay their fair share towards the $22.7 million for the habitat land acquisition within the Chino/El Prado Basin Area that shall serve as the designated Waterfowl and Raptor Conservation Area (WRCA). The fee shall be paid in accordance with the September 10, 2002 modification to NMC GPA Policy 18.1.12 and Implementation Measure I-6, that state a 145-acre WRCA shall be provided through either a mitigation land bank, or by purchasing a property through development mitigation/impact fees. The habitat land acquisition shall be managed by Land Conservancy, a non-profit organization selected by the City and The Endangered Habitat’s League and the Sierra Club.

MM B-2: Prior to issuance of building permit(s), a habitat land acquisition fee of $4,320 per acre shall be paid by Project applicant(s); and placed into a trust account for use upon Project development and construction activities, for the restoration and rehabilitation of the WRCA agreed to be provided at the 145-acres within the El Prado/Chino Basin. The fee shall be paid in accordance with the September 10, 2002 modification to NMC GPA Policy 18.1.12 and Implementation Measure I-6, that states a 145-acre WRCA shall be provided through either a mitigation land bank, or by purchasing a property through development mitigation/impact fees.

MM B-3: Prior to clearing the Project site of vegetation during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a site survey and mark (to protect) all active nests. Additionally, to avoid nesting bird impacts, the Project site shall not be cleared between March 1 and September 15. Prior to clearing any vegetation from around active nests, or the clearing of any nests, a USFS Permit to Reduce Nesting Birds if Present, from the USFWS shall be secured.

MM B-4: Thirty days prior to any Project construction, an ornithologist shall survey for raptor nests according to CDFG requirements. If active nests are detected, the nests shall be flagged and all Project construction activities shall be kept 300 feet of nesting raptors and 500 feet of nesting migratory birds, until the young birds have safely fledged, as determined by the ornithologist. Active raptor nests shall 1548
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 60 of 65 ends

be avoided per CDFG requirements.

Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s), the Project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified cultural resource specialist, to the satisfaction of the City, to monitor the Project’s subsurface areas occupied by the large manure piles, dairy farms, and the tree and plant nursery during grubbing and land disturbance from construction activities that previously were not surveyed. The cultural resource specialist shall examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of any potential artifact and shall have the authority to temporarily halt work until any identified artifacts can be recovered, handled, and/or surveyed in the appropriate manner.

MM CR-2: Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) and prior to excavation to a depth of more than 15 feet below the modern ground surface, the Project applicant(s) shall retain an archaeological and paleontological resource specialist, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department, to conduct archaeological, and paleontological resource monitoring.

Geology and Soils
MM G-1: Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) the Project applicant(s) shall submit to the satisfaction of City Building and Engineering Department(s) a Project-specific grading plan. The Project- specific grading plan shall be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and current professional engineering standards, including those for seismic safety. Additionally, the grading plan shall specify grading is not to occur on the Project site’s natural open space areas.

MM G-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant(s) shall submit a SWPPP for the City’s Building and Engineering Department’s approval. In compliance with City standards and the State General Storm Water Permit for Construction Related Activities, the SWPPP shall identify (1) specific Project methods and (2) site locations for permanent drainage control that shall be incorporated into the Project design to adequately control erosion and sediment. Additionally, the SWPPP shall identify temporary erosion and sediment control methods and locations, such as sand bags, hay bales, and soil covers that shall be utilized at the Project site.

MM G-3: During construction activities surficial slumps shall be removed by Project contractor(s) and replaced as compacted fill in graded areas to the satisfaction of the City Building Department.

MM G-4: Prior to issuance of building permit(s) the City Planning Department shall approve a landscaping plan. Native plant species shall be used wherever feasible to reduce the potential for erosion, although slopes shall be landscaped with both native and non-native drought-tolerant, lowmaintenance plants (L.D. King, 2004).

MM G-5: Prior to the issuance of grading permit(s) and during Project development, the Project applicant(s) shall ensure Project contractor’s compliance with the following to the satisfaction of City Building and Engineering Department(s):
• Graded slopes will be designed at a 2:1 horizontal to vertical gradient. Soil compaction will be performed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical assessment (refer to Appendix E: Geology/Soils Supporting Documentation), unless otherwise recommended by the City Building and Engineering Department(s).
• Slope stabilization methods, such as construction of engineered replacement fills to buttress the weak planes and/or reduce the slope gradient to a flatter angle, shall be designed into the Project. 1549
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 61 of 65 ends

Hazardous Materials
MM HA-2: During site preparation and during construction activities Project contractor(s) shall:
• Dispose of all tires found on-site at a disposal/recycling facility that accepts automobile tires in accordance with local and state regulations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. • Remove on-site animal waste creating methane gas, if encountered, and dispose of at an accepting Class III Landfill in accordance with local and state regulations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department.

MM HA-3: During Project construction activities, Project applicant(s) and Project contractor(s) shall properly handle all hazards and hazardous substances to minimize their potential environmental impact to the Project site in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department.

MM HA-4: During Project construction, implementation, and use Project contractor(s), employees, caretakers, and residents, shall:
• Handle, store, transport, and dispose of all chemicals, including herbicides and pesticides, runoff, hazardous materials and waste used on, or at, the Project site, in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. • Properly dispose of all trash and debris found on, or at, the Project site, as appropriate, at a Class III landfill in accordance with local regulations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. • Comply with the requirements of the County of San Bernardino’s Household Hazardous Waste Program to the satisfaction of the City Building Department Hydrology and Water Quality
MM H/WQ-2: In order to provide long term mitigation measures (BMPs) for the Project, prior to Tract Map approval, the Project applicant(s) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department (or NPDES/Storm water Coordinator) its compliance with the requirements of the SBC MS4 Permit as follows:
a) The Project applicant(s) shall prepare and submit a WQMP to the City Engineering Department (or NPDES Coordinator) for review and approval. The WQMP shall recommend permanent postdevelopment improvements to existing drainage features to prevent uncontrolled runoff and to accommodate the increase in runoff associated with the development for the life of the Project. The San Bernardino County WQMP Guidance document requirements must be met. b) Compliance shall be demonstrated by obtaining an approval for the WQMP from the City.

MM H/WQ-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant(s) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Building, Engineering, and Public Works Departments compliance with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board for the Project as follows:
a) The Project applicant(s) shall prepare and submit a SWPPP to the satisfaction of City, Building and Engineering Departments for review and approval. The SWPPP shall recommend interim and permanent improvements to existing drainage features to prevent uncontrolled runoff during construction, and to accommodate any temporary increase in runoff associated with construction activities.

Compliance shall be demonstrated by obtaining a NPDES construction permit for all construction activities including clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least one 1550
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 62 of 65 ends

acre of total land area or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater. Copies of said NPDES permit(s) and related SWPPP shall be available for inspection at the City Engineering Department and at the construction site prior to land disturbing activity. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction, the Project applicant(s) shall complete the following on- and off-site drainage system improvements to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department:
• Storm drains
• Culverts
• Detention basins
• Channels
• Other improvements as may be required by the City
Noise
MM N-2: Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project applicant(s) shall develop a construction noise control plan for the City Planning Department’s approval, prior to commencement of construction activity.

MM N-3: Prior to the issuance of each grading and building permit, the Project applicant(s) shall submit an affidavit to the satisfaction of City Building and Engineering Department(s) documenting Project construction operations shall not occur between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or federal holidays. The hours of construction including noisy maintenance activities and all spoils and material transport are restricted to the periods and days permitted by the local noise or other applicable ordinance. Noise-producing Project activity shall comply with local noise control regulations affecting construction activity or obtain exemptions therefrom.

MM N-4: Prior to recordation of a subdivision map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever is first, the Project applicant(s) shall require as part of the site development plan and to the satisfaction of the City, that all noise-producing Project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines (including haul trucks) be professionally fitted with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features. These devices shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.

MM N-5: During construction activities, Project applicant(s) and/or Project contractor(s) shall, in accordance with the City Planning Department:
• Locate material stockpiles and equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas, as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors so as to minimize construction noise impacts to neighboring residences.
• Use electrically powered equipment instead of pneumatic or internal combustion powered equipment, where feasible.
• Not utilize a Project-related public address or music system audible at any adjacent receptor. • Use noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells only for safety warning purposes.
• Enforce construction site and access road speed limits, not to exceed 15 miles per hour. • Strictly adhere to, and enforce in coordination with the City, haul route speed limits. • Provide all Project workers exposed to noise levels above 80 dBA with personal protective equipment for hearing protection (i.e., earplugs and/or earmuffs); and, in areas where noise levels are routinely expected to exceed 80 dBA clearly post signs stating “Hearing Protection Required in this Area.”
1551
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 63 of 65 ends

Public Services
PS–1: Prior to issuance of Project building permits, the Project applicant(s) shall provide the City with evidence of the payment of school fees in the amount required by the Mountain View School District (MVSD) and Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD). These fees shall be based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit applications are filed.

PS-2: Prior to issuance of Project building permits, the Project applicant(s) shall notify the MVSD and CJUHSD of the expected buildout of the Project to allow the two Districts to plan in advance for new students.

PS–4: Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Ontario Fire Department. The plans and specifications for structures shall be reviewed by the City of Ontario Fire Department for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and stipulations on minimum fire flows and duration of flows for residential and commercial development types.

PS–5: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, grading plans and specifications providing for adequate public and private fire hydrants in accordance with the City of Ontario Fire Department criteria.

Additionally, the design and location of the street system and gates shall be to the satisfaction of the City Building and Engineering Department.

PS–6: Prior to Project implementation and use, additional fire personnel and equipment shall be assigned to the local fire station serving the Project.

PS-8: During the preliminary stages of the Project design, and prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario Police Department shall provide consultation to review safety features, evaluate adequacy, and suggest improvements to the Project design.

PS-9: Prior to Project construction and prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, Project applicant(s) shall provide Project site plans depicting access and emergency vehicle entry requirements for review and approved by the City of Ontario Police Department. Additionally, addresses shall be well marked to facilitate response by police officers.

Transportation
T-1: Prior to Project construction, in coordination with City staff, the Project applicant(s) shall submit for approval to the City Building and Engineering Department(s) site plan(s) and tentative map(s) presenting the adequate right-of-way and easements on the west side from centerline of Haven Avenue to its ultimate General Plan standard width. Incorporate in the design elements of the communities the flexibility to accommodate necessary amenities for transit/bus system access.

T-2: Prior to Project construction, in coordination with City staff, the Project applicant(s) shall submit for approval to the City Building and Engineering Department(s) site plan(s) and tentative maps(s) presenting proof of adequate parkways, curbs and gutters on the western half of Haven Avenue fronting the Project site and half of the cost of median improvements along Haven Avenue fronting the Project site.

T-3: Prior to Project construction, in coordination with City staff, the Project applicant(s) shall submit for approval to the City Building and Engineering Department(s) site plan(s) and tentative maps(s) to construct West Haven Proposed Interim Street Cross Sections consistent with New Model Colony and City standards.

T-4: Prior to Project construction, in coordination with City staff, the Project applicant(s) shall submit for approval to the City Building and Engineering Department(s) site plan(s) and tentative maps(s) for the improvement of the southern half of Riverside Drive along the Project site’s frontage. 1552
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 64 of 65 ends

T-18: The applicant shall pay their proportionate share (prior to building permit issuance) for or install prior to occupancy of any structure) the following transportation improvements needed to serve the project. The determination of whether the payment of proportionate share or installation of the improvements is required shall be made by the City Engineer at the time of Tentative Tract Map approval. Project applicant(s) shall contribute and provide the necessary support for the needed infrastructure and applicable Transit/Bus System Improvements within the immediate vicinity of the project site to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department. The applicable improvements identified by others and in the Project Traffic Analysis shall include:
• Provide needed right-of-way for bus pads and turnouts along roadway segments adjacent to the project site.
• Coordinate with City and transit providers to determine the most effective location for transit/bus stops with adequate accessibility for the handicapped
Utilities and Service Systems
WS-1: Prior to the approval of the first final subdivision map, the Project applicant(s) shall submit a detailed water study for the purpose of accurately quantifying the precise domestic and recycled water supply and storage requirements of the Project to the satisfaction of the City Building and Engineering Department.

WS-4: Prior to recordation of the Master Tentative Tract Map, the Project applicant(s) shall submit a detailed water study to the satisfaction of City Building and Engineering Department(s) for the purpose of accurately quantifying the precise wastewater services required for the Project.

Solid Waste
SW–2: Prior to approval of the first building permit for each development phase, the Project applicant(s) shall submit to the satisfaction of City Building, Public Works and Engineering Department(s) a plan for recycling waste materials from construction operations. 1553
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-004

Page 65 of 65 ends

REFERENCES
Cited As Reference
(CBWCD, 2023) Chino Basin Water Conservation District. 2023 (February 16). Percolation Basins. Web.

Accessed February 16, 2023. Available at:
https://www.cbwcd.org/129/Percolation-Basins
(CDC, 2018) California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder.

Web. Accessed February 16, 2023. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
(CalFire, 2008) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2008 (November 13).

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Web. Accessed February 16, 2023. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6783/fhszl_map62.pdf (DTSC, 2023) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2021. EnviroStor Sites and Facilities Database. Web. Accessed: February 16, 2023. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/?surl=imk7w
(DWR, 2023) Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2023. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard.

Web. Accessed: February 16, 2023. Available at :
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/
(EPC, 2022) EnviroPlus Consulting (EPC). 2022 (October 13). Habitat Suitability Evaluation for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly for Two Properties Within the West Haven Specific Plan in Ontario, California.
(FEMA, 2016) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016 (September 2). Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8639J. Web. Accessed: February 16, 2023.

Available at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444 d4879338b5529aa9cd
(IEUA, 2023) Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2023. Facilities, Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Web. Accessed February 16, 2023. Available:
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ (LD King, 2022a) LD King, 2022 (September 21). West Haven Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario – Impact of the Proposed Density Increase to the Master Plan Turner Storm Drain and WQMP’s.
(LD King, 2022b) LD King 2022 (August 31). West Haven Specific Plan Amendment – Impact of Increased Dwelling Units to the proposed and existing Master Plan Sewer Systems.
(Ontario, 2018) City of Ontario (Ontario). 2018 (July). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Web. Accessed February 16, 2023. Available at:
https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/ (Urban Crossroads, 2023a) Urban Crossroads, 2023. (June 8). West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Operational Air Quality Assessment.
(Urban Crossroads, 2023b) Urban Crossroads, 2023. (January 4) West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis.
(Urban Crossroads, 2023c) Urban Crossroads, 2023 (February 8, 2023). West Haven Specific Plan Traffic Analysis.
(VCS, 2023) VCS Environmental, 2023 (February 28). Burrowing Owl Breeding Season Survey Report and Biological Update for West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Project (Planning Areas 1 and 3); City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California.
(Webb, 2022) Webb, 2022 (June 15). Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply.
1554
SECTION 1 • INTRODUCTION
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 1-5
Original Breakdown – Subarea 6
D.U.

Acreage(2)
Total
Acreage
D.U.

Allowed
East of Haven 98 60.0% 495
West of Haven 74 40.0% 330
Total 172 100.0% 825
Original Breakdown – Subarea 12
D.U.

Acreage(2)
Total
Acreage
D.U.

Allowed
East of Haven 168 64.6% 773
West of Haven(1) 91 35.4% 423
Total 259 100.0% 1196
Breakdown (Amendment 2021) - Subarea 6
DU
Acreage(2)
Total
Acreage
D.U.

Allowed
East of Haven 98 ? 760
West of Haven 74 40% 330
Total 172 100.0% 1,090
Notes:

Breakdown includes relocation of Middle School from Subarea 6 to Subarea 12.

Tables provided by City of Ontario
(1) Assumes 73 D.U. Acres (336 D.U. Total) Transferred to Subarea 18 (2) D.U. Acreage = Gross Acres less Southern California Edison Easements, School and Neighborhood Center EXHIBIT 1-4: SUBAREAS 6 AND 12 RESIDENTIAL ALLOCATION EXHIBIT POLICY PLAN LAND Use Plan (As Amended 2022)

WEST HAVEN

SPECIFIC PLAN CT
ST

SAN LORENZO RVR RD

RIVERSIDE DR JOSHUA TREE ST

TREE RD

SADDLE ST AUTUMN
RIDGE
RD

PALOMINO CT

COLT WY

SWEETWATER
DR

L STALLION ST

CHINO AV

BLACK HORS

CHAPARR

HOPKINS ST

KLASSEN ST ASPEN ST

TREE BLOSSOM ST

HEARTWOOD ST

WING ST SUMAC ST

CHEERFUL PASEO

MOONLIGHT ST
SUNSET
DR
AILS

THOROUGHBRED ST
O DR E

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE

MAYAC PINE RIDGE LP AMA WY

CALGARY ST

RUTHERFORD DR

STERLING
ST

ARTESSA
WY

AVENIDA DR LA AVENIDA DR ONTARIO RANCH RD
K
EK

NORTH SHORE DR

PEAPL PEACHTREE
LN

Y PEACHTREE PL

PLAINFIELD PLADR DR

TURNER AVE TURNER AV

CENTURION PL CENTURION PL SILVER OAK WY

CENTURION WY

ROCKYWY
S AV

CLOVER PL CLOVER LN
CLOVER
L

S HAVEN

HAVEN AVE HAVEN AVE

DAYLIGHT AV WRIGHT AVE ADLE

ROSY PKWY TUOL

TWINKLE AVE

SUNRISE AV

NW CLAREMONT DR

QUINCY WY
TOP Policy Plan Land Use Breakdown
Land Use Acres Units
Low Density Residential (2.1–5.0 du/ac) –
Assumed Density 4.5 du/ac
110.03 495
Low Medium Density Residential (5.1–11 du/ac)
– Assumed Density 8.5 du/ac

19.17 170
162
Medium Density Residential (11.1 25 du/ac) –
Assumed Density 22 du/ac

28.52 657
627
Neighborhood Commercial (0.4 FAR) 11.74
Total 169.46 1,322
1,284
Legend
Residential
Rural (0-2 du/ac)
Low Density (2.1-5 du/ac)
Low-Medium Density (5.1-11 du/ac)
Medium Density (11.1-25 du/ac)
High Density (25.1-45 du/ac)
1555
SECTION 1 • INTRODUCTION
1-6 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN
PA
TOP
Land
Use
Residential
Gross AC Overall DU Overall Density
1(a)** 21.85 AC 93 DU 4.26 DU/
AC
1(b)** 6.67 AC 80 DU 11.99 DU/
AC
1 MDR 28.52 AC 451 DU 15.81 DU/
AC
3 LMDR 20.12 19.17
AC
92 DU
203 DU

4.57 10.01
DU/AC
4 LDR 20.11 19.73
AC 106 102 DU

5.27 5.16
DU/AC
5 LDR 30.56 AC 149 DU 4.88 DU/
AC
6*** 5.00 AC Park Park
8 7 LDR 16.82 29.00
AC 90 94 DU 5.35 3.24DU/AC
9 8 LDR 30.74 AC 143 DU 4.65 DU/
AC
Total 151.87 157.72
AC
753 DU 1,142
DU

4.96 7.52
DU/AC
TABLE 1-1: RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (AS AMENDED 2022)
Notes:
* Residential Gross Acres = Gross Acres less Southern California Edison Easements (Master Planned Street R/W and Neighborhood Edge uses within the Southern California Edison Easements are included within the Residential Gross Acreages). ** PA 1 Low and Medium Density Residential AC’s are approximate (as calculated by 80 DU / 12.0 DU/AC = 6.67 AC; Low Density Residential AC = 28.52 Gross AC - 6.67 AC = 21.85 AC).
*** As indicated by the City, the 5 AC Neighborhood Park Acreage is to be included as Low Density AC DU: Dwelling Units
1556
SECTION 3 • Land Use Plan
3-2 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN
203 DU

19.17 Gross AC
102 DU

19.73 Gross AC
451 DU

30.56 Gross AC
6 8 30.74 Gross AC 7
94 DU

29.00 Gross AC

19.07 Net AC
EXHIBIT 3-1: WEST HAVEN LAND USE PLAN
1557
SECTION 3 • Land Use Plan
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-3
Dwelling D
Land Use Dwelling Gross Units / Gross Net Acres (2)
Un Units Acres (1)
Acres
Residential Uses
PA 1 (Detached Courtyard 173 DU 28.52 AC 6.07 DU/AC 25.51 AC 6.7 & 4,000 SF Lots)
PA 3 (4,950 SF Lots) 92 DU 20.12 AC 4.57 DU/AC 18.93 AC 4.8 PA 4 (3,825 SF Lots) 106 DU 20.11 AC 5.27 DU/AC 17.18 AC 6.1 PA 5 (2,800 SF “Lane 149 DU 38.21 AC 3.90 DU/AC 27.08 AC 5.5 Loaded” & 5,100 SF Lots)
PA 8 (4,250 SF Lots) 90 DU 25.39 AC 3.54 DU/AC 15.07 AC 5.9 PA 9 (5,250 SF & 6,300 SF 143 DU 37.77 AC 3.79 DU/AC 28.84 AC 4.9 Lots)
Residential Uses Total 753 DU 170.12 AC 4.43 DU/AC 132.61 AC 5.6 Community Facility Uses
PA 2 (Neighborhood Center 11.74 AC 9.25 AC
Commercial)
PA 6 (Neighborhood Park) 5.00 AC 5.00 AC
PA 7 (School) 12.45 AC 9.80 AC
Community Facility Uses 29.19 AC 24.05 AC
Total
Other Uses
Master Planned Roadways 13.00 AC
Neighborhood Edge Buffers 3.90 AC
SCE & SCG Easements 25.10 AC
SCE Fee Owned Parcel 2.69 AC 2.04 AC
Old Schaefer R/W (To Be 1.30 AC
Abandoned)
Other Uses Total 2.69 AC 45.34 AC
Project Total 753 DU 202.00 3.73 DU/
Gross AC Gross
AC
(1) Gross Acres as calculated to street centerlines, including all easements. (2) Net Acres for Planning Areas exclude all applicable items as listed under the Other Uses category.

Land Use Dwelling
Units
Gross Acres
(1)
Dwelling Units
/ Gross Acres Net Acres (2)
Residential Uses
PA 1 (Detached Courtyard and
173 451 DU
92 203 DU
106 102 DU
149 DU
90 94 DU
143 DU
753 1,142 DU

28.52 AC

20.12 19.17
AC

20.11 19.73
AC

38.21 30.56
AC

25.39 29.00 AC

37.77 30.74
AC
170.12
157.72 AC

6.07 15.81 DU/
AC

4.57 10.01 DU/
AC

5.27 5.16 DU/
AC

3.90 4.88 DU/
AC

3.54 3.24 DU/
AC

3.79 4.65 DU/
AC

4.43 7.52 DU/
AC
Attached Homes) & 4,000 SF
Lots)
PA 3 (4,950 SF Lots Detached
and Attached Homes)
PA 4 (3,825 SF Lots)
PA 5 (2,800 SF “Lane Loaded” &
5,100 SF Lots)
PA 8 7 (4,250 SF Lots)
PA 9 8 (5,250 SF & 6,300 SF
Lots)
Residential Uses Total
Community Facility Uses
PA 2 (Neighborhood Center
Commercial)
PA 6 (Neighborhood Park)
PA 7 6 (School)
Community Facility Uses Total

11.74 AC 9.25 AC

5.00 AC 5.00 AC

12.45 AC 9.80 AC

29.19 AC 24.19 AC 24.05 AC 19.05 AC
Other Uses
Master Planned Roadways 13.00 AC
Neighborhood Edge Buffers 3.90 AC
SCE & SCG Easements 25.10 AC
SCE Fee Owned Parcel 2.69 AC 2.04 AC
Old Schaefer R/W (To Be
Abandoned)
Other Uses Total

1.30 AC

2.69 AC 45.34 AC
Project Total 753 1,142 DU 202.00 184.6
Gross AC

3.73 7.52 DU/
Gross AC
(1) Gross Acres as calculated to street centerlines, including all easements. (2) Net Acres for Planning Areas exclude all applicable items as listed under the Other Uses category.

Note: Refer to Table 1-1, “Residential Density,” for City defined Residential Gross Density.

TABLE 3-1: LAND USE SUMMARY (AS AMENDED 2022)
1558
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-32 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1213 Motorcourt SFD Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1559
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-33

ACTIVATE STREET/

PASEO WITH FRONT

DOORS, AND VARIED

MASSING

GUEST PARKING
SPACES

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area 1,850 s.f.

Lot width 30’
Lot depth 62’
Building Separation (Minimum) 6’-6”
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 5’
Living from common drive 7’
Garage from common drive 5’
Side Setbacks
To porch/balcony/fence 5’
To living 5’
Corner to living 10’
Rear Setbacks
Living space 5’
To garage 5’
Garage Setbacks
Garage face to garage face 30’
Garage face to driveway (apron) 5’*
Note: Lane width may be increased to 24’ when the
lane length exceeds 150’.

Maximum Encroachments into Building Setbacks
Fireplace, media niche (8' max length), bay windows 2’
(cantilevered), potshelves, brackets, etc.

Second floor cantilever over garage 2’
Private Open Space Per Unit
Minimum dimension 6’
Total per unit 100 s.f.

Parking
2 Garage Spaces (10’ x 20’
Clear)
Building Height 35’
* Measurement is to be taken from inside of the curb
EXHIBIT 9-16 MOTORCOURT SFD PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY
STREET
1560
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-34 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1314 6 and 8-Pack greencourt Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1561
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-35
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Number of Units per Cluster
Lot width
Lot depth
8 N/A
N/A
Building Separation (Minimum) 6’-6”
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 4’
Living from common drive 3’
Garage from common drive 3’
Side Setbacks
To porch/balcony/fence 4’
To living 5’
Corner to living 10’
To garage from property line 10’
Rear Setbacks
To living from common drive 3’
To living from property line 10’
To garage from common drive 3’
To garage from property line 10’
Garage Setbacks
Garage face to garage face 30’
Garage face to driveway (apron) 5’*
Note: Lane width may be increased to 24’ when the
lane length exceeds 150’.

Maximum Encroachments into Building Setbacks
Fireplace, media niche (8' max length), bay windows 2’
(cantilevered), potshelves, brackets, etc.

ALLEY MINIMIZES

GARAGES SEEN FROM
STREET
Second floor cantilever over garage 2’
Private Open Space Per Unit
Minimum dimension 6’
Total per unit 100 s.f.

Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Building Height 35’
* Measurement is to be taken from inside of the curb
EXHIBIT 9-17 6 AND 8-PACK GREENCOURT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

INNOVATIVE FLOOR PLANS
STREET

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS

AND PATIOS

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY
1562
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-36 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1415 12-Pack Greencourt Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1563
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-37

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS

ALLEY MINIMIZES

GARAGES SEEN

FROM STREET

GUEST PARKING

TUCKED INTO

CLUSTER

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Number of Units per Cluster 12
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum) 6’-6”
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 4’
Living from common drive 3’
Garage from common drive 3’
Side Setbacks
To porch/balcony/fence 4’
To living 5’
Corner to living 10’
To garage from property line 10’
Rear Setbacks
To living from common drive 3’
To living from property line 10’
To garage from common drive 3’
To garage from property line 10’
Garage Setbacks
Garage face to garage face 30’
Garage face to driveway (apron) 5’*
Note: Lane width may be increased to 24’ when the
lane length exceeds 150’.

Maximum Encroachments into Building Setbacks
Fireplace, media niche (8' max length), bay windows 2’
(cantilevered), potshelves, brackets, etc.

Second floor cantilever over garage 2’
Private Open Space Per Unit
Minimum dimension 6’
Total per unit 100 s.f.

Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Building Height 35’
* Measurement is to be taken from inside of the curb
EXHIBIT 9-18: 12-PACK GREENCOURT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STREET 1564
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-38 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN
1 9.4.1516 8-Pack greencourt Development Standards

KEY MAP
1565
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-39

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

ALLEY MINIMIZES

GARAGES SEEN

FROM STREET

GUEST PARKING

TUCKED INTO

CLUSTER

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS
STREET
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Maximum Number of Units per Cluster 8
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum) 6’-6”
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 4’
Living from common drive 3’
Garage from common drive 3’
Side Setbacks
To porch/balcony/fence 4’
To living 5’
Corner to living 10’
To garage from property line 10’
Rear Setbacks
To living from common drive 3’
To living from property line 10’
To garage from common drive 3’
To garage from property line 10’
Garage Setbacks
Garage face to garage face 30’
Garage face to driveway (apron) 5’*
Note: Lane width may be increased to 24’ when the
lane length exceeds 150’.

Maximum Encroachments into Building Setbacks
Fireplace, media niche (8' max length), bay windows 2’
(cantilevered), potshelves, brackets, etc.

Second floor cantilever over garage 2’
Private Open Space Per Unit
Minimum dimension 6’
Total per unit 100 s.f.

Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Building Height 35’
* Measurement is to be taken from inside of the curb
EXHIBIT 9-19: 8-PACK GREENCOURT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY 1566
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-40 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1617 Attached Motorcourt Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
Note: Artist’s conception; colors, materials
1567
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-41
STREET

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS,

PATIOS, AND VARIED

MASSING
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area N/A
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to living 18’
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 7’
To garage 18’
Side Setbacks
To living 12’
Corner to porch or balcony 7’
Corner to living 10’
Lot Coverage 60% Max
Minimum Porch Depth 4’
Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Tandem Permitted (10’ x 40’
Clear)
Building Height 35’
EXHIBIT 9-20: ATTACHED MOTORCOURT PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY 1568
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-42 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1718 3-Story Townhome Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1569
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-43
STREET

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS,

AND VARIED MASSING
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area N/A
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to living 15’
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 7’
Side Setbacks
To living 10’
Corner to porch or balcony 7’
Corner to living 10’
Lot Coverage 60% Max
Minimum Building Setback to Shared Driveway 3’
Minimum Porch Depth 4’
Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Tandem Permitted (10’ x 40’
Clear)
Building Height 40’
EXHIBIT 9-21: 3-STORY TOWNHOME PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1570
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-44 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1819 3-Story Triplex Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1571
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-45
STREET

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY

VARY FRONT WALL PLANE

FRONT DOORS ORIENT

TO STREET
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area N/A
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to living 15’
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 6’
Side Setbacks
To living 10’
Corner to porch or balcony 6’
Corner to living 10’
Lot Coverage 60% Max
Minimum Building Setback to Shared Driveway 3’
Minimum Porch Depth 4’
Parking
2 Garage Spaces (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Building Height 40’
EXHIBIT 9-22: 3-STORY TRIPLEX PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1572
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-46 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.1920 3-Story Tandem Townhomes Development Standards 1 KEY MAP
1573
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-47
STREET

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS,

AND VARIED MASSING
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area N/A
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to living 15’
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Minimum Building Setback to Shared Driveway 3’
Lot Coverage 60% (Max.)
Minimum Porch Depth 4’
Parking
2 Garage Spaces (10’ x 40’
Clear)
Living space
Porch/balcony
10’
6’
Building Height 40’
Side Setbacks
To living 10’
Corner to porch or balcony 6’
Corner to living 10’
Rear Setbacks
To garage 3’
EXHIBIT 9-23: 3-STORY TANDEM TOWNHOMES PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY
1574
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
9-48 WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN

9.4.2021 Flats Development Standards
1 KEY MAP
1575
SECTION 9 • Development Standards
WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN 9-49
STREET

ACTIVATE STREET

WITH FRONT DOORS,

VARIED MASSING
Minimum Standards
Minimum Lot Size
Lot area N/A
Lot width N/A
Lot depth N/A
Building Separation (Minimum)
Living to living 15’
Front Setbacks - To Back of Sidewalk - Street Facing
Living space 10’
Porch/balcony 6’
Side Setbacks
To living 10’
Corner to porch or balcony 6’
Corner to living 10’
Minimum Building Setback to Shared Driveway 3’
Lot Coverage 60% Max
Minimum Porch Depth 4’
Parking
1 Car (00’ x 20’
Clear)
2 Car Side-by-Side (20’ x 20’
Clear)
Tandem Permitted (10’ x 40’
Clear)
Building Height 40’
EXHIBIT 9-24: FLATS PLOTTING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY

COMMON DRIVE/ALLEY
1576
DATE: June 8, 2023
TO: Sage McCleve, West Haven 27 c/o Lewis Management Corp.

Derek Barbour, Richland Developers, Inc, “West Haven” c/o Richland Communities
FROM: Haseeb Qureshi
Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14574-06 AQ Assessment

WEST HAVEN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT OPERATIONAL AIR

QUALITY ASSESSMENT
As required by The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) (TOP Final SEIR) mitigation measure MM AQ-1, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Operational Air Quality Assessment for the West Haven Specific Plan Amendment (Project), located in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project would designate Planning Areas 1 (PA-1) and 3 (PA-3) with medium density residential and low-medium density residential land use designations, respectively, consistent with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan. The allowed uses in PA-1 would change from Detached Courtyard and 4,000 square foot (sf) lots to Detached Courtyard and Attached Homes, and the allowed uses in PA-3 would change from 4,950 square foot lots to Detached and Attached Homes. This would permit PA-1 to increase from 173 dwelling units to 451 dwelling units and PA-3 to increase from 92 dwelling units to 203 dwelling units. PA-1 and PA-3 in total would include 654 dwelling units (for analytical purposes, PA-1 is evaluated assuming 451 Attached Homes and PA-3 is evaluated assuming 108 Attached Homes and 95 Detached Homes), which represents an increase of 389 dwelling units compared to the currently allowed 265 units in these PAs. The West Haven Specific Plan currently permits 753 dwelling units. With the Project, the permitted units would equate to 1,142 dwelling units.

It should also be noted that TOP 2050 anticipates development of 789 residential units within PAs 1 and 3 of the West Haven Specific Plan area; therefore, the Project would allow 135 fewer units than what is anticipated in TOP 2050. At buildout of the proposed West Haven Specific Plan Amendment, there would be 142 fewer units than 1,284 units for the Specific Plan area anticipated in TOP 2050. 1577
Sage McCleve and Derek Barbour
June 8, 2023

Page 2 of 15 ends

14574-06 AQ Assessment

PROJECT AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS

METHODOLOGY
In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022.1. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operationalsource criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures (1). Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine operational air quality emissions.

AIR QUALITY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed regional operational significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, as summarized at Table 1 (2). The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact.

TABLE 1: MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Operations
NOX 55 lbs/day
VOC 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day
lbs/day – Pounds Per Day

REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operational activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational related emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions, The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by buildout associated with the net increase in residential units for PA-1 and PA-3 (389 dwelling units; 2,800 trips). Trip characteristics available from the West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis were utilized in this analysis (3).

The estimated operation-source emissions associated with the net increase of 389 dwelling units in PA-1 and PA-3, are summarized on Table 4. As shown on Table 2, operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant and no mitigation is required.
1578
Sage McCleve and Derek Barbour
June 8, 2023

Page 3 of 15 ends

14574-06 AQ Assessment
TABLE 2: 389 DU INCREASE IN PA-1 AND PA-3

PROJECT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Mobile Source 9.78 8.25 85.90 0.24 9.33 1.76
Area Source 18.10 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 0.79
Energy Source 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 0.25
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 28.10 21.10 91.30 0.32 10.40 2.80 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Mobile Source 9.24 8.85 72.20 0.23 9.33 1.76
Area Source 18.10 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 0.79
Energy Source 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 0.25
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 27.50 21.70 77.70 0.31 10.40 2.80 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
1579
14574-06 AQ Assessment

REFERENCES

1. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). [Online] May 2022. www.caleemod.com.

2. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. [Online] http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

3. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.
1580
14574-06 AQ Assessment

ATTACHMENT A

CALEEMOD PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS
1581
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 1 / 29
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
1582
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 2 / 29

4.3.2. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 1583
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 3 / 29

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1584
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 4 / 29

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
1585
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 5 / 29

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
1586
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 6 / 29

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations)
Operational Year 2032
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.80
Precipitation (days) 20.8
Location 34.01408959023665, -117.5786114751958
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5261
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.13

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
389 Dwelling Unit 47.7 758,550 4,556,301 — 1,288 —
1587
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 7 / 29

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.3 28.1 21.1 91.3 0.32 1.17 9.19 10.4 1.17 1.63 2.80 234 43,559 43,793 25.3 1.23 49.1 44,843 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 11.7 27.5 21.7 77.7 0.31 1.17 9.19 10.4 1.17 1.63 2.80 234 42,023 42,257 25.4 1.27 6.01 43,275 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 9.23 25.7 11.5 66.5 0.22 0.42 7.98 8.40 0.41 1.42 1.83 234 27,619 27,852 25.0 1.10 21.4 28,828 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.69 4.69 2.10 12.1 0.04 0.08 1.46 1.53 0.08 0.26 0.33 38.7 4,573 4,611 4.14 0.18 3.55 4,773

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1588
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 8 / 29
Mobile 10.8 9.78 8.25 85.9 0.24 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 24,732 24,732 0.99 1.09 44.3 25,126 Area 1.14 18.1 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Energy 0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 6,016 6,016 0.61 0.04 — 6,043 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Total 12.3 28.1 21.1 91.3 0.32 1.17 9.19 10.4 1.17 1.63 2.80 234 43,559 43,793 25.3 1.23 49.1 44,843 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 10.2 9.24 8.85 72.2 0.23 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 23,196 23,196 1.03 1.12 1.15 23,557 Area 1.14 18.1 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Energy 0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 6,016 6,016 0.61 0.04 — 6,043 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Total 11.7 27.5 21.7 77.7 0.31 1.17 9.19 10.4 1.17 1.63 2.80 234 42,023 42,257 25.4 1.27 6.01 43,275 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 8.80 7.94 7.78 64.9 0.20 0.12 7.98 8.09 0.11 1.42 1.53 — 20,336 20,336 0.89 0.98 16.6 20,667 Area 0.08 17.6 0.67 0.28 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 0.00 849 849 0.02 < 0.005 — 850 Energy 0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 6,016 6,016 0.61 0.04 — 6,043 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Total 9.23 25.7 11.5 66.5 0.22 0.42 7.98 8.40 0.41 1.42 1.83 234 27,619 27,852 25.0 1.10 21.4 28,828 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.61 1.45 1.42 11.8 0.04 0.02 1.46 1.48 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,367 3,367 0.15 0.16 2.75 3,422 Area 0.01 3.21 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 141 141 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1411589 14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 9 / 29
Energy 0.07 0.03 0.56 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 996 996 0.10 0.01 — 1,000 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.14 69.2 74.3 0.54 0.01 — 91.8 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 33.6 0.00 33.6 3.35 0.00 — 117 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.80 0.80
Total 1.69 4.69 2.10 12.1 0.04 0.08 1.46 1.53 0.08 0.26 0.33 38.7 4,573 4,611 4.14 0.18 3.55 4,773

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

10.8 9.78 8.25 85.9 0.24 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 24,732 24,732 0.99 1.09 44.3 25,126 Total 10.8 9.78 8.25 85.9 0.24 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 24,732 24,732 0.99 1.09 44.3 25,126 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

10.2 9.24 8.85 72.2 0.23 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 23,196 23,196 1.03 1.12 1.15 23,557 Total 10.2 9.24 8.85 72.2 0.23 0.14 9.19 9.33 0.13 1.63 1.76 — 23,196 23,196 1.03 1.12 1.15 23,557 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

1.61 1.45 1.42 11.8 0.04 0.02 1.46 1.48 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,367 3,367 0.15 0.16 2.75 3,422 1590
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 10 / 29
Total 1.61 1.45 1.42 11.8 0.04 0.02 1.46 1.48 0.02 0.26 0.28 — 3,367 3,367 0.15 0.16 2.75 3,422

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,115 2,115 0.27 0.03 — 2,131
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,115 2,115 0.27 0.03 — 2,131 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,115 2,115 0.27 0.03 — 2,131
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,115 2,115 0.27 0.03 — 2,131 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 350 350 0.04 0.01 — 353
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 350 350 0.04 0.01 — 353

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1591
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 11 / 29
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 3,901 3,901 0.35 0.01 — 3,912 Total 0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 3,901 3,901 0.35 0.01 — 3,912 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 3,901 3,901 0.35 0.01 — 3,912 Total 0.36 0.18 3.07 1.31 0.02 0.25 — 0.25 0.25 — 0.25 — 3,901 3,901 0.35 0.01 — 3,912 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing

0.07 0.03 0.56 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 646 646 0.06 < 0.005 — 648 Total 0.07 0.03 0.56 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 646 646 0.06 < 0.005 — 648

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.14 0.57 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Consum
er
Products
— 16.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1592
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 12 / 29
Architect — 1.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Total 1.14 18.1 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 1.14 0.57 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Consum
er
Products
— 16.2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 1.30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 1.14 18.1 9.76 4.15 0.06 0.79 — 0.79 0.79 — 0.79 0.00 12,393 12,393 0.23 0.02 — 12,406 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 141 141 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 141 Consum
er
Products
— 2.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.24 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 3.21 0.12 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 141 141 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 141

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1593
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 13 / 29
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 31.1 418 449 3.24 0.08 — 554 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.14 69.2 74.3 0.54 0.01 — 91.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.14 69.2 74.3 0.54 0.01 — 91.8

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.2. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1594
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 14 / 29
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 203 0.00 203 20.3 0.00 — 709 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.6 0.00 33.6 3.35 0.00 — 117
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.6 0.00 33.6 3.35 0.00 — 117

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.86 4.86
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1595
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 15 / 29
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.80 0.80
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.80 0.80

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1596
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 16 / 29
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
1597
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 17 / 29

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1598
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 18 / 29

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1599
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 19 / 29
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
2,925 3,447 2,863 1,091,662 28,018 33,011 27,422 10,455,971

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 589
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 65
1600
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 20 / 29

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1536063.75 512,021 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 2,960,143 261 0.0330 0.0040 12,171,699

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 16,213,977 89,430,245

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year) 1601
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 21 / 29
Single Family Housing 376 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
User Defined 750 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Single Family Housing Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
1602
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 22 / 29
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.0 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.95 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
1603
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 23 / 29
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3
1604
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 24 / 29
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 84.6
AQ-PM 95.6
AQ-DPM 57.0
Drinking Water 93.3
Lead Risk Housing 7.89
Pesticides 64.8
Toxic Releases 71.4
Traffic 14.2
1605
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 25 / 29
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 7.71
Groundwater 81.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 81.9
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 35.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 58.6
Cardio-vascular 79.3
Low Birth Weights 68.1
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 51.5
Housing 70.8
Linguistic 15.6
Poverty 40.3
Unemployment 40.6

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 50.9816502
Employed 66.62389324
Median HI 72.65494675
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 43.46208136
High school enrollment 100
1606
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 26 / 29
Preschool enrollment 17.18208649
Transportation—
Auto Access 93.63531374
Active commuting 23.14897985
Social—
2-parent households 66.79070961
Voting 49.36481458
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 65.76414731
Park access 55.29321186
Retail density 20.00513281
Supermarket access 52.71397408
Tree canopy 13.73027076
Housing—
Homeownership 73.48902862
Housing habitability 38.94520724
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 67.22699859 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 48.14577185
Uncrowded housing 46.38778391
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 44.20633902
Arthritis 84.5
Asthma ER Admissions 52.8
High Blood Pressure 89.6
Cancer (excluding skin) 77.2
Asthma 51.9
Coronary Heart Disease 88.8
1607
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 27 / 29
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 81.8
Diagnosed Diabetes 68.9
Life Expectancy at Birth 43.6
Cognitively Disabled 92.5
Physically Disabled 86.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.7
Mental Health Not Good 52.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 85.5
Obesity 50.5
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 65.0
Stroke 84.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 15.4
Current Smoker 54.4
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 62.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 51.6
Elderly 87.4
English Speaking 59.0
Foreign-born 27.3
Outdoor Workers 53.0
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 70.3
Traffic Density 21.2
1608
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 28 / 29
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 44.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 55.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 76.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 53.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Taken from Site Plan
1609
14574 - West Haven (389 SFH Operations) Detailed Report, 6/2/2023 29 / 29
Construction: Construction Phases Construction phases proportionally increased to account for client provided construction schedule of 2025-2029
Construction: Off-Road Equipment T/L/B replaced with Crawler Tractor to accurately calculate disturbance for Site Preparation and Grading phases
Standard 8-hour work days
Construction: Trips and VMT Vendor Trips adjusted based on CalEEMod defaults for Building Construction and number of days for Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction
Operations: Vehicle Data Taken from traffic analysis
Operations: Hearths SCAQMD Rule 445 no wood burning devices, Wood burning devices added to gas devices Operations: Refrigerants Beginning 1 January 2025, all new air conditioning equipment may not use refrigerants with a GWP of 750 or greater
Operations: Architectural Coatings SCAQMD Rule 1113
1610
February 28, 2023
Sage McCleve
Lewis Management Corp.
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
Derek Barbour
Richland Communities
3161 Michelson Drive, Ste. 425
Irvine, CA 92615
Subject: Burrowing Owl Breeding Season Survey Report and Biological Update for West Haven Specific Plan Amendment Project (Planning Areas 1 and 3); City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California.

Dear Sage and Derek,
This letter report provides a summary of existing conditions and provides the results of four burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW] surveys conducted in Spring and Summer 2022 within the Planning Areas 1 and 3 (“Project”) of the West Haven Specific Plan located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County (Figure 1; Regional Site Location Map). The Burrowing Owl Study Area includes the Project limits (Figure 2; Aerial Map), and a 500-foot surrounding buffer as depicted on Figure 3; Burrowing Owl Study Area where direct or indirect impacts could potentially occur.

The surveys were conducted pursuant to the CDFW survey guidelines described in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) [Staff Report], to determine the presence or absence of this species within the Project site. The results of these surveys will be used to determine whether this species would be affected by Project development.

Four breeding season BUOW surveys were conducted beginning on March 22, 2022, followed by surveys conducted three weeks apart on May 9, June 1, and June 21, 2022, led by Molly BurdickWhipp, Chris Ejlenholm, and Stephanie Fan of VCS Environmental (VCS). The biologists focused 1611
February 28, 2023

Page 2 of 10 ends

Ontario City CouncilJuly 18, 2023

Ontario City Council
July 18, 2023