A. Discussion
1. The Project Will Not Result in Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Tsai speculates that the Project will result in air quality impacts to sensitive receptors but provides no evidence. The Addendum determined that the Project’s air quality would be within the scope of the TOP EIR, and with mitigation, Project-level impacts would be less than significant. This conclusion is supported by detailed air quality modeling of the Project’s construction and operational emissions. This modeling, which is based on very conservative (i.e., environmentally protective) assumptions, includes an analysis of impacts to sensitive receptors based on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) healthbased Localized Significance Thresholds (“LSTs”). The modeling shows that the Project’s construction and operational emissions will be below all applicable significance thresholds, including the LSTs. Therefore, the Project’s impacts on sensitive receptors will be less than signficant.
2. The Project Will Not Result In Hazardous Waste Impacts.
Tsai also speculates that demolition of the existing buildings on the Site will result in the release of hazardous materials due to lead based paint (“LBP”) and asbestos containing building materials (“ACBM”) in the buildings. However, Tsai provides no evidence of such LBP or ACBM. Moreover, the Project will comply with mandatory regulations that require predemolition surveys for LBP and ACBM. Any LBP or ACBM found will be safely removed by qualified experts in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
SCAQMD Rule 1403, California Health and Safety Code Section 39650 et seq.; California Code of Regulations Title 8, Section 1529; California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1529 [asbestos] and Section 1532.1 [lead]); and the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part 763 [asbestos], and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead]). Therefore, the Project will not result in significant hazardous waste impacts.
711
The Honorable Planning Commission
of the City of Ontario
September 14, 2023
B. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and our August 16, 2023 letter, all of Tsai’s arguments are without merit. The Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project, and no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Therefore, we respectfully request that you adopt the Addendum and approve the Project.
Thank you for your consideration. We are available to answer any questions you may have.
.
Very truly yours,
Dale J. Goldsmith
cc: Planning Department
Legacy/Collier Residential LLC
712
ATTACHMENT
713
12100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 1600 | LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 | T: 310.209.8800 www.AGD-Landuse.com
DALE J. GOLDSMITH
T: 310.254.9054
E: [email protected]
August 16, 2023
BY EMAIL
City of Ontario Planning Commission
City Hall, 303 E. B Street
City of Ontario, CA 91764
Email: [email protected]
Re: Legacy/Collier Residential LLC, Proposed Development Plan, File No. PDEV22- 027; Planning Commission Hearing August 22, 2023
Dear Commissioners:
We represent Legacy Partners, the applicant for the above Development Plan for the construction of 346 apartments and 5,400 square feet of commercial space (Project) on 9.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street in the City of Ontario (City).
On the eve of the Design Advisory Board (DAB) hearing, Mitchell Tsai, representing Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC), submitted a lengthy legal letter objecting to DAB’s review of the Proposed Project. None of the arguments in this letter provides substantial evidence as to the inadequacy of the EIR Addendum prepared for the Proposed Project, and none have merit. Nonetheless, we have attached detailed responses to SWMSRCC’s comment letter to provide a more complete record for the Planning Commission.
In summary, (1) there is no legal requirement for local hire of construction workers, (2) the use of an addendum off of the 2022 The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 EIR is appropriate, (3) the Project was thoroughly and adequately reviewed, including by DAB, (4) a tiered EIR is not required, (5) all Project impacts are within those considered in the 2022 TOP EIR, (6) as there are no new significant impacts or increase in severity of significant impacts created by the Project as compared to the 2022 TOP EIR, a supplemental/subsequent EIR is not required, and (7) the Project Description for the Proposed Project is CEQA compliant.
Therefore, we respectfully request you approve DAB’s recommendation to approve the EIR Addendum and the Development Plan application.
Very truly yours,
Dale J. Goldsmith
cc: Alexis Vaughn, [email protected]
714
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Response to Mitchell Tsai August 7, 2023 Comment Letter on behalf of Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC) Comment No. 1:
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (SWMSRCC), my Office is submitting these comments ahead of the City of Ontario’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) August 7, 2023, Development Advisory Board (DAB) pubic [sic] hearing for the Euclid and Walnut Mixed Use project (“Project”).
Submitted by Legacy/Collier Residential LLC (“Applicant”), the Project involves a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027) to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Avenue (“Site”) within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Hub 8e – Euclid and Walnut (MU-NH 8e) zoning district. The Site is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and claimed to have been found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In conjunction with the Project, an Addendum (“Addendum”) to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH No. 2021070364) was prepared and certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The application before the City is claimed to introduce no new significant environmental impacts.
The DAB will review the Project and make two recommendations to the Planning Commission— to approve or deny the Addendum and to approve or deny the Development Plan.
According to the Staff Report, the Project has been submitted in conjunction with two other applications, namely, the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) (File No. PUD22- 004) to establish the development standards and design guidelines for an overall 10.6-acre Project site (subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council); and a Certificate of Appropriateness (PHP22-015) to determine whether the Project Site is an historic resource subject to recommendation by the Historic Preservation Subcommittee to the Planning Commission/Historic Preservation Commission.
SWMSRCC is a labor union representing over 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Some SWMSRCC members live, work, and recreate in the City and the surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
SWMSRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
715
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
SWMSRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its environmental review and associated documents and reports (including the City’s Staff Report), or lack thereof. See Citizens for Clean Energy v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, SWMSRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under CEQA (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010).
California Public Resources Code, sections 21092.2 and 21167(f) and California Government Code, section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Response to Comment No. 1:
The comment provides background on SWMSRCC and their interest in the Project. Further, the City will provide notice on all CEQA actions, approvals, determinations, and hearings as requested. The comment does not raise a specific issue relating to the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum or provide a legitimate basis for not approving the Project..
Comment No. 2:
The City should require that the Project be built using local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a program, or are registered apprentices in such a program.
Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impacts of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
716
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investmentsin growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf 4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf. other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediatelevel jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready.
While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, 717
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (AB2011). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.
The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate GHG emissions, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
Response to Comment No. 2:
The comment regarding community benefits including local hire does not raise CEQA issues regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum or provide a legitimate basis for not approving the Project. There is no CEQA provision, nor any City code, that mandates the hiring or use of individual development project’s construction labor. Furthermore, with specific respect to the City “utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts,” the comment does not present any substantial evidence of a Project-specific greenhouse gas impact or transportation impact that such a condition would mitigate.
As set forth in the Addendum, the Project would not result in any GHG impacts that were not addressed in the 2022 TOP EIR. Similarly, the Proposed Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different transportation impacts not previously considered and addressed in the 2022 TOP EIR. The Project would, at a minimum, be required to comply with the mandatory measures included in the current 2019 California Energy Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) and the 2019 California Green Building Code standards.
Regulatory compliance to this degree would require the Project to include energy efficiency and green building standards such as solar, water efficient landscaping, construction material diversion, low-polluting construction finishing materials, and installation of electric charging stations. Therefore, no further mitigation measures are warranted, and there is no legal nexus1to impose such a condition on the Project.
Comment No. 3:
A. Background Concerning Environmental Impacts Reports.
The California Environmental Quality Act is a California statute designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(1).5 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” 1 See, e.g., Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) 718
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. 5 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Pub. Res. Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 217.
CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A), (B).
While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Ibid. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Ibid.
719
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA. This presumption is reflected in what is known as the “fair argument” standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of “B” St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.
The fair argument test stems from the statutory mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a proposed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR. Pub. Res.
Code, §§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Parker Shattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (b)(2), 15064, subd. (f)(3). “Significant effect upon the environment” is defined as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.
This standard sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an EIR. Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v.
City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 90 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if other substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of “B” St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (f)(1).
B. Background Concerning Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations.
CEQA and CEQA Guidelines are strict and unambiguous about when an MND may be used. A 720
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subds. (f)(1), (2), 15063; No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 75; Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 111-112. Essentially, should a lead agency be presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subds. (f)(1), (2); see No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 75 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Substantial evidence includes “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).
The fair argument standard is a “low threshold” test for requiring the preparation of an EIR. No Oil Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 84; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1579. It “requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial[.]” County Sanitation, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1580 (quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15063, subd. (b)(1)). A lead agency may adopt an MND only if “there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines,§ 15074, subd. (b).
Evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant environmental impact triggers preparation of an EIR regardless of whether the record contains contrary evidence. League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historical Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-905. “Where the question is the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency’s determination is not appropriate[.]” County Sanitation, 127 Cal.App.4th at 1579 (quoting Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317-1318).
Further, it is the duty of the lead agency, not the public, to conduct the proper environmental studies. “The agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data.” Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 311. “Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” Ibid; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382 (lack of study enlarges the scope of the fair argument which may be made based on the limited facts in the record).
Thus, refusal to complete recommended studies lowers the already low threshold to establish a fair argument. The court may not exercise its independent judgment on the omitted material by determining whether the ultimate decision of the lead agency would have been affected had the law been followed. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Cal. Dept. of Forestry (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 486 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The remedy for this 721
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
deficiency would be for the trial court to issue a writ of mandate. Ibid.
Both the review for failure to follow CEQA’s procedures and the fair argument test are questions of law, thus, the de novo standard of review applies. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. “Whether the agency’s record contains substantial evidence that would support a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment is treated as a question of law. Consolidated Irrigation Dist., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at 207; Kostka and Zischke, Practice Under the Environmental Quality Act (2017, 2d ed.) at § 6.76.
In the MND context, courts give no deference to the agency. The agency or the court should not weigh expert testimony or decide on the credibility of such evidence—this is the EIR’s responsibility. As stated in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento:
Unlike the situation where an EIR has been prepared, neither the lead agency nor a court may “weigh” conflicting substantial evidence to determine whether an EIR must be prepared in the first instance. Guidelines section 15064, subdivision (f)(1) provides in pertinent part: if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. Thus, as Claremont itself recognized, [c]onsideration is not to be given contrary evidence supporting the preparation of a negative declaration. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 935 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
In cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts, CEQA requires erring on the side of a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332. The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Bd. of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.
C. Background Concerning CEQA Exemptions.
Where a lead agency chooses to dispose of CEQA by asserting a CEQA exemption, it has a duty to support its CEQA exemption findings by substantial evidence, including evidence that there are no applicable exceptions to exemptions. This duty is imposed by CEQA and related case law.
CEQA Guidelines, § 15020 (lead agency shall not knowingly release a deficient document hoping that public comments will correct the defects); see Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Agriculture Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 568 (lead agency has the burden of demonstrating that a project falls within a categorical exemption and must support the determination with substantial evidence); accord Assn. for Protection etc.
Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 732 (lead agency is required to consider exemption exceptions where there is evidence in the record that the project might have a significant impact).
722
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
The duty to support CEQA and exemption findings with substantial evidence is also required by the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and case law on administrative or traditional writs. Under the CCP, an abuse of discretion is established if the decision is unsupported by the findings, or the findings are unsupported by the evidence. CCP,§ 1094.5, subd. (b). In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, our Supreme Court held that implicit in CCP section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision or order. (1977) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 (internal citations and quotations omitted). The lead agency’s findings may be determined to be sufficient if a court has no trouble under the circumstances discerning the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action. West Chandler Blvd. Neighborhood Assn. vs. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1521-1522 (internal citations and quotations omitted). However, “mere conclusory findings without reference to the record are inadequate.” Id. at p. 1521 (finding city council findings conclusory, violating Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community, supra).
Further, CEQA exemptions must be narrowly construed to accomplish CEQA’s environmental objectives. Cal. Farm Bureau Federation v. Cal. Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187; accord Save Our Carmel River v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 677, 697 (these rules ensure that in all but the clearest cases of categorical exemptions, a project will be subject to some level of environmental review).
Finally, CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. See Pub. Res. Code, § 21080, subd. (c) (an EIR may be disposed of only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the entire record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or revisions in the project); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15061, subd. (b)(3) (common sense exemption only where it can be seen with certainty); 15063, subd. (b)(1) (prepare an EIR if the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial]; 15064, subd. (h) (the agency must consider cumulative impacts of past, current, and probable future projects); 15070 (a negative declaration may be prepared only if there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or project revisions would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment); No Oil, Inc., supra, 13 Cal.3d at 83-84 (significant impacts are to be interpreted so as to afford the fullest possible protection).
Response to Comment No. 3:
The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum; rather it provides background on CEQA, much of which is not relevant as the Project is proceeding by way of a CEQA Addendum – not an MND, EIR or Exemption. The EIR Addendum thoroughly analyzed and disclosed the potentially significant Project impacts, consistent with CEQA’s 723
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
information disclosure mandates. The Project has been analyzed relative to The Ontario Plan (TOP) EIR (SCH # 2021070364) (2022 TOP EIR), which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP 2050. Specifically, the 2022 TOP EIR evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area, where the Project is located. The Project proposes the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of non-residential development, well within the scope of analysis in the 2022 TOP EIR.
Comment No. 4:
Here, the Project involves the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of land. Considering the size and scope of the Project, the City must prepare and circulate a thorough, Project-specific EIR.
Section 15088.5, subsection (a) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR must be recirculated whenever there is disclosure of significant new information. Significant new information includes:
(1) disclosure of a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new proposed mitigation measure; (2) disclosure of a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; and, (3) disclosure of a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed which would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project which the project proponents decline to adopt.
The Project requires new feasible mitigation measures not specified in the original environmental analysis for the City’s General Plan or the applicable Specific Plan. Those analyses occurred, at the latest, in 2004—nearly 20 years ago. Specifically, the Project is slated to develop a new mixed-use development, yet the original environmental analyses governing this Site and its use provide no specification nor mitigation measures identifying, for example, how many or which of the Project’s parking spaces must be capable of supporting electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and ready to be compliant with the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11 (CGBSC), also known as CALGreen. In fact, there is no mention of electric vehicle (EV) accommodations anywhere in the original environmental analyses. Without revisions to the original environmental analyses, allowing the Project to commence without adequate and thorough CEQA review would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the local community and environment as well as on global climate change due to cumulative GHG emissions from vehicle exhaust, among other things. Further, the Project would be out of compliance with CALGreen and could incur for Applicant and the City extensive litigation and unnecessary turbulence in the pursuit and completion of the Project.
CALGreen, which became effective January 1, 2023, requires new buildings to designate 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces as EV-capable. See CALGreen, § 5.106.5.31 (Nonresidential Mandatory Measures). Therefore, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 60 of those spaces must have electrical panel space and load capacity to support EV charging. Additionally, this must all be laid out with sufficient detail for the City and the public 724
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
to thoroughly review, assess, and provide comments thereon.
Further, CALGreen requires new buildings to designate 25 percent of the total number of EVcapable parking spaces as EV spaces with Level 2 EV supply equipment (EVSE). Id. Hence, if the Project develops 299 additional parking spaces, 75 of those spaces must be equipped with a 208/240 volt 40-ampere branch circuit with the electric vehicle charging connectors, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, and power outlets installed. Id. CALGreen also requires, among other things, that new construction of large, non-residential buildings of 50,000 square feet or larger be hold LEED Silver certification or have Alternate Reference Standard6per Section 101.10.2.
This analysis is entirely absent from the prior environmental analyses or of any environmental analysis of the proposed Project, and as such they must be revised and recirculated to specify the additional EV mitigation requirements addressed above, or otherwise the DAB should recommend that the Planning Commission deny the Addendum and Development Review application, and recommend that the Planning Commission order the preparation and circulation of a Project-specific EIR.
____________________
6 According to Section 101.10.2 of the CGBSC, Developer may request to apply an alternate green building standard for the Project in lieu of the minimum standards per Table 101.10. In making a determination in response to an application under this section, the Building Official may allow an alternate standard if they find that the proposed alternative standard complies with all of the following: (A) Addresses a comprehensive scope of green building issues including energy efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficient materials, and healthy building practices; (B) applies standards that are, when taken as a whole, as stringent as the GPR and LEED standards; (C) includes a formalized certification process that incorporates third party verification; and, (D) the project will advance the purposes of this Chapter. See Ord. 22-2245, part, 2022; Ord. 19-2193, § 2 (part), 2019.
Response to Comment No. 4:
The commenter claims that the Project should not be compared to “the original environmental analysis for the City’s General Plan or the applicable Specific Plan,” both of which are 20 years old. This is not correct. The Project is subject to and consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050, which is the most current version of the TOP, and its environmental impact report is dated August 16, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). The EIR Addendum is to the 2022 TOP EIR.
The Project will implement all applicable mitigation measures adopted by the City when it certified the 2022 TOP EIR. Regarding electric vehicles, TOP 2050 includes the following modified policy: LU-1.4: Multimodal Mobility. We require development and urban design, where appropriate, that reduces reliance on the automobile and capitalizes on active transportation, transit, electric vehicles, and multimodal transportation opportunities. The Project will be subject to applicable CALGreen requirements, as well as TOP 2050 EIR Mitigation Measure AQ 3-3, which requires assessment of operation-phase-related air quality impacts and, if operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the 725
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities, which include CALGreen measures such as:
(1) “Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures),” (2) “Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures),” (3) “Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures),” and (4) “Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).”
Comment No. 5:
Although the Project seeks a DAB recommendation which the City asserts is an entirely ministerial decision, this does not necessarily preclude the Project from including discretionary aspects. As the California Second District Court of Appeal discussed in Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987), “a municipality’s classification of a certain approval process as ministerial is not conclusive. The applicability of CEQA cannot be made to depend upon the unfettered discretion of local agencies, for local agencies must act in accordance with state guidelines and the objectives of CEQA.” 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 270 (hereinafter, “Friends of Westwood”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). For example, Friends of Westwood cited to People v. Dept. of Housing & Community Development in which the court deemed the issuance of a mobile park construction permit to be a discretionary act that was subject to CEQA.
Id. at 271 (citing People v. Dept. of Housing & Community Development (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 194 (hereinafter, “Ramey”)). While the Ramey court acknowledged that the mobile home park approval process included numerous ministerial decisions that applied “‘fixed design and construction specifications[,]’” the court noted that some of the other approval decisions involved “‘relatively general’” standards. Id. at 271 (citing Ramey, supra, at 193). The Ramey court also noted that for the construction permit at issue there, the applicant must provide a description of the water supply, ground drainage, and method of sewage disposal; there must be a sufficient supply of artificial lighting; the water supply must be adequate and potable; and the site must be well-drained and graded. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Ramey court thus concluded that these decisions rendered the entire construction permit process discretionary for purposes of CEQA given that they required “relatively personal decisions addressed to the sound judgment and enlightened choice of the administrator.” Id.
Here, the DAB is tasked with assessing the Project’s design, layout, and location on the Project Site, and, in particular, making a determination as to the Addendum and Development Plan application. The DAB will then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval. Given that the DAB must exercise its discretion in determining whether the Project’s features, including its FAR and height, are consistent with applicable codes and plans, the Project should be deemed discretionary and reviewed accordingly. 726
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Response to Comment No. 5:
The comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR Addendum; rather, the commenter discusses the DAB’s review authority. The commenter makes the unsupported claim that the DAB’s review of the Project is not a ministerial action and that because DAB must exercise discretion in determining if the Project is consistent with applicable codes and plans, “the Project should be deemed discretionary and reviewed accordingly.” Regardless of whether the DAB’s review authority is ministerial or discretionary, the Project was subject to thorough review, including as required by CEQA. The EIR Addendum contains thorough impact analyses relative to the 2022 TOP EIR and contains hundreds of pages of technical studies in support. The commenter provides no evidence that the Project has not been adequately reviewed or that the DAB’s approval recommendation was based on inadequate review.
Comment No. 6:
CEQA permits agencies to ‘tier’ EIRs, in which general matters and environmental effects are considered in an EIR “prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific [EIRs] which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior [EIR] and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21068.5. The initial general policy-oriented EIR is called a programmatic EIR (PEIR) and offers the advantage of allowing “the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts.” CCR, § 15168. “[T]iering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous [EIRs].” Pub. Res. Code, § 21093. CEQA regulations strongly promote tiering of EIRs, stating that “[EIRs] shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency.” Ibid.
Once a program EIR has been prepared, “[s]ubsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” CCR, § 15168, subd. (c). The first consideration is whether the activity proposed is covered by the PEIR. Id. If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a separate project and the PEIR may not be relied upon in further review. Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307. The second consideration is whether the “later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR.” CCR, §§ 15168, subd. (c)(1). A PEIR may only serve “to the extent that it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the project.” (Sierra Nevada Conservation v. Cnty. of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156. If the PEIR does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, a tiered EIR must be completed before the project is approved. Id. For these inquiries, the “fair argument test” applies. Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at 1318; see also Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1164 (when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the question for a 727
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project ‘is one of law, i.e., the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument).
Under the fair argument test, a new EIR must be prepared “whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact. Id. at 1316 (quotations omitted). When applying the fair argument test, “deference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary.” Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1312. “[I]f there is substantial evidence in the record that the later project may arguably have a significant adverse effect on the environment which was not examined in the prior program EIR, doubts must be resolved in favor of environmental review and the agency must prepare a new tiered EIR, notwithstanding the existence of contrary evidence.” Id. at 1319.
In Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens, supra, the California Supreme Court explained the differing analyses that apply when a project EIR was originally approved and changes are being made to the project, and when a tiered program EIR was originally prepared and a subsequent project is proposed consistent with the program or plan:
For project EIRs, of course, a subsequent or supplemental impact report is required in the event there are substantial changes to the project or its circumstances, or in the event of material new and previously unavailable information. (Friends of Mammoth, citing § 21166.) In contrast, when a tiered EIR has been prepared, review of a subsequent project proposal is more searching. If the subsequent project is consistent with the program or plan for which the EIR was certified, then ‘CEQA requires a lead agency to prepare an initial study to determine if the later project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the first tier EIR.’ (Ibid. citing Pub. Resources Code, § 21094, subds. (a), (c).) ‘If the subsequent project is not consistent with the program or plan, it is treated as a new project and must be fully analyzed in a project—or another tiered EIR if it may have a significant effect on the environment.’
(2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 960.
Here, the City prepared an SEIR for The Ontario Plan 2050 and certified it in August 2022. As a result, CEQA requires the City to prepare, at minimum, an initial study to determine if the Project may cause significant environmental effects not examined in the SEIR—which the City had prepared but did not produce in its three PRA productions to this Office over the last year.
Pub. Res. Code, § 21094. There exists here substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the SEIR. Accordingly, a subsequent EIR must be prepared.
If a project may have a significant effect on any of the specified environmental factors, CEQA review must occur. Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1107. CEQA places the duty to investigate the Project’s impacts on the 728
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
City. CEQA Guidelines, § 15144 (an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose such impacts); Sundstrom v. Cnty. of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (agency should not be allowed to hide behind its own failure to gather relevant data). “An agency’s duty to provide such factual support ‘is all the more important where . . . opponents of the project have raised arguments” about impacts. Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386. In reviewing an agency’s determination to prepare an Addendum, courts should assess whether the agency made a “definitive finding” and whether it met its initial burden to support its finding by substantial evidence. Banker’s Hill, Hillcrest, Park W. Cmty. Pres. Grp. v. City of San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 249, 268 (lead agency must make a definitive finding, at the preliminary review stage, as to whether or not there will be a significant environmental effect).
The Project’s environmental review documents, including technical studies relating to the preparation of the Addendum, were not provided to my Office despite the three Public Records Act requests we submitted on or about August 30, 2022; January 6, 2023; and July 25, 2023. This Office has received at least three Public Records Act productions between August 2022 and July 2023—none of which have included the environmental review documents or studies upon which the City has based the Project’s Addendum.
Unfortunately, the Addendum’s environmental analyses and accompanying studies were not provided to this Office for review and comment in violation of CEQA until the early evening of August 3, 2023—just one business day before the DAB hearing is to take place. Considering that the Addendum is upwards of 1,880 pages, the City’s failure to provide the Addendum earlier precludes this Office’s and the public’s ability to fairly and accurately assess and comment upon the Project.
According to the CEQA Guidelines:
Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency’s activities.
CEQA Guidelines, § 15201.
As far as the public is concerned, the City’s environmental review and technical studies related to the Project’s environmental impacts have not occurred. Given that the Project involves a demolition and construction of a five-story-high building in an area surrounded by other developments and sensitive receptors, a thorough and Project-specific EIR is necessary. The City’s failure to provide for public review and commentary the environmental analyses and studies upon which it rests its CEQA determination constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (hereinafter, “Bakersfield Citizens”). “Failure to comply with the information disclosure requirements constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion when the omission of relevant information has precluded . . . informed public participation[.]” Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. 729
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Cnty. Of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26; accord Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. Cnty. of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1391. Further, “the ultimate decision of whether to approve a project, be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an [environmental determination] that does not provide the . . . public with the information about the project that is required by CEQA.” Santiago Cnty. Water Dist. v. Cnty. of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829. Consequently, the Project approvals and associated land use entitlements also must be voided and an EIR prepared and circulated. See Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1221 (citing Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 868).
“When the informational requirements of CEQA are not complied with, an agency has failed to proceed in ‘a manner required by law.’” Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 118. As a result of the City’s omissions, “meaningful assessment of the true scope of numerous potentially serious adverse environmental effects was thwarted.” Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220-1221. As such, a Projectspecific EIR must be produced and circulated.
Response To Comment No. 6:
The commenter claims the City must prepare an Initial Study to determine if an SEIR must be prepared and that, because the commenter only received the EIR Addendum when it was released for public review when the staff report for the DAB hearing was issued, the City has failed to proceed in a manner required by law. As set forth below, neither contention has merit.
First, there is no requirement that an Initial Study be prepared when the lead agency, here the City, is proceeding by way of an Addendum to a certified EIR. The EIR Addendum addresses all impact areas analyzed in the 2022 TOP EIR and determined that all Project impacts were within those analyzed in that certified EIR. In any event, the initial pages of the EIR Addendum contain the Initial Study checklist for the Project. (See DAB Staff Report, Item D, pages 22-30.) The Initial Study Checklist and Addendum are a combined document. (Ibid. Item D, pages 1 – 1893.) Second, an addendum is not subject to publication and public comment. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15164 (c).) The fact that the commenter, and the public, had limited time to review the detailed addendum prior to the DAB meeting is of no moment, as the DAB was not an approving body, but only a recommending body. The commenter and the public will have ample time to review and comment on the EIR Addendum before and at the Planning Commission meeting on August 22, 2023 at which the Commission will consider the DAB’s recommendation.
Furthermore, there has been no showing that the final EIR Addendum was available prior to its inclusion of the staff report, such that it should have been produced in response to the cited Public Records Act (PRA) requests. Draft CEQA documents are not subject to PRA requests. (Government Code section 6254(a); see also Citizens for a Better Env't v Department of Food & Agric. (1985) 171 CA3d 704, 711.)
Finally, there is no showing that the City has in any manner failed to proceed in a manner required by law, CEQA or other applicable laws.
730
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Comment No. 7:
The City is mistaken in concluding that the Project may be analyzed under CEQA Guidelines, sections 15164 and 15162 given that these sections are applicable only where a project has recently undergone CEQA review. As the California Supreme Court explained in San Mateo Gardens, subsequent CEQA review provisions “can apply only if the project has been subject to initial review; they can have no application if the agency has proposed a new project that has not previously been subject to review.” Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 950 (hereinafter, “San Mateo Gardens”). Lead agencies may prepare addendums for project modifications or revisions and avoid further environmental review only if the project has a previously certified EIR or negative declaration. See Save our Heritage v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 667.
If the proposed Project here had been addressed in the SEIR, the standard for determining whether further review is required would be governed by California Code of Regulations, section 15162 and Public Resources Code, section 21166, and an addendum could potentially be allowed under California Code of Regulations, section 15164. These sections are inapplicable here, however, given that the proposed Project has never undergone CEQA review. An EIR has not been prepared, and the Project, as proposed, was never mentioned or discussed in the SEIR.
In a similar case in 2010, the City of Irvine adopted a plan to guide development of the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), which covered almost 3,000 acres in the City of Irvine. IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100. The City of Irvine also prepared and approved a PEIR in 2010 that studied the effects of the development plan under CEQA. Ibid. Several years later, the applicant and appellant Gemdale 2400 Barranca Holdings, LLC, submitted a plan to redevelop a roughly five-acre parcel in the IBC. Ibid. The City of Irvine determined that all the environmental effects of the proposed project were adequately analyzed in the 2010 PEIR, and it found the project would have no additional significant environmental effects. Ibid. The City of Irvine approved the project over the objections of plaintiff and petitioner IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development. Ibid.
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandate. Ibid.
The trial court granted the writ and entered judgment in favor of Petitioner. Ibid. The City of Irvine and Gemdale appealed, contending that the City correctly approved the project. Ibid. The Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with the arguments made on appeal there existed insufficient evidence showing the project’s GHG emissions were within the scope of the 2010 PEIR, and that no exemption applied because the project involved unusual circumstances which could cause significant environmental effects. Ibid. As such, the Court affirmed the judgment.
Ibid.
731
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
Here, the environmental impacts of the Project are outside of the scope of those studied in the SEIR. Consequently, the City cannot rely on the subsequent review provisions of CEQA Guidelines, sections 15162 or 15164 and an independent, CEQA-compliance environmental analysis must be conducted and circulated in the form of an EIR.
Response To Comment No. 7:
The commenter again mistakenly claims the Project, as evaluated in the EIR Addendum, was compared to the 2010 TOP EIR. In fact, the Project was analyzed relative to 2022 TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364), which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP 2050. Specifically, the 2022 TOP EIR evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area, where the Project is located. The Project proposes the construction of 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of non-residential development. Thus, the Project is well within the scope of analysis in the 2022 TOP EIR, and the commenter’s cited cases are inapposite. The City’s review of the Proposed Project with the EIR Addendum was appropriate under CEQA, and the commenter has submitted no evidence, let alone substantial evidence, to the contrary.
Comment No.8:
An EIR must be prepared for the Project given that the SEIR determined that the Ontario Plan would cause significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.
In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency, the Third District Court of Appeal held that when a “first tier” EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are “mitigated or avoided.” (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125 (citing CEQA Guidelines, §15152, subd. (f). There, the court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR given that they were not “mitigated or avoided.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125. Therefore, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,” in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” Ibid. Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmental detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” Id. at 124-125.
Here, given that the SEIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is now required to determine whether mitigation measures must now be imposed to reduce or 732
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
eliminate those impacts. Should the impacts remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations would be required.
Response To Comment No. 8:
The commenter claims, based on Communities For A Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th 98, that a new EIR must be prepared for the Proposed Project because the 2022 TOP EIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts. This is incorrect. First, the Proposed Project is not tiering off the prior 2022 TOP EIR, as discussed in CEQA Guidelines section 15152. Rather, the City has prepared an addendum to the 2022 TOP EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. The EIR Addendum meets all of the criteria under section 15164, and the commenter has not demonstrated otherwise. Second, that case, while disapproved by numerous subsequent cases, is not applicable precisely because the Proposed Project is not proceeding by way of a tiered EIR, but by an adequate addendum to a certified EIR. The commenter provides no basis or substantial evidence to require the preparation of a second tier EIR.
Comment No. 9:
Legal precedent has established that Project entitlements must be approved simultaneously to a project’s CEQA review. See Coalition for Clean Air v. City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408, 423-425, fn. 18 (noting that a CEQA document cannot be approved, and Notice of Exemption filed, before the underlying project is approved); see also County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 963, fn. 16. A project’s environmental review cannot and should not occur prior to the project plans being submitted and its design review taking place, especially given that a project’s environmental review must hinge on the final project design and development plan. For this reason, the DAB must not make any recommendation to the Planning Commission, but instead advise that the Addendum be revised or a Project-specific EIR be prepared.
Response to Comment No. 9:
The commenter presents no legal basis as to why the DAB could not review the Project Application and the EIR Addendum. Indeed, the DAB was not approving the Project; it was only making a recommendation. All Project approvals, including the Application and EIR Addendum, will be considered simultaneously by the Planning Commission. There is no basis to assume, let alone conclude, that the Project entitlements and CEQA evaluation will be separately considered – either by the DAB or the Planning Commission. As such, Coalition for Clean Air v.
City of Visalia (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 408 and County of Amador v. El Dorade County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 93 are inapplicable.
Comment No. 10:
A project description must be stable and finite in order to afford a lead agency and the public an adequate opportunity to assess and comment on the project and its impacts. “[A]n accurate, 733
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient” environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 200. “A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process” as an accurate, stable, and finite project description is necessary to allow “affected outsiders and public decision- makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. Id. at 192-93.
CEQA Guidelines, section 15124 requires that a description describe the project in enough detail to allow for evaluation of its potential environmental impacts: (a) the project’s precise location and boundaries; (b) a clearly written statement of objectives sought by the proposed project; (c) a description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and, (d) a statement describing a list of agencies, permits, and approval which the project expects to use.
Here, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the Project application includes an adequate and compliant Project description with the details listed above, including objectives sought, the Project’s economic characteristics, and more. The City should demand that Applicant resubmit its application materials with CEQA-compliant parameters.
Response to Comment No. 10:
The commenter claims the Project Description is CEQA-inadequate, yet identifies no inadequacies. The Project Description contained in the EIR Addendum is stable, accurate, and complete and is therefore adequate under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines section 15124.) Comment No. 11:
A detailed and thorough review of the Project’s impacts must be studied, supported by substantial evidence, and mitigated against where necessary. Without this in-depth analysis and a higher standard for the quantity and quality of evidence supporting it, it is impossible to determine, with a high degree of certainty, the magnitude and extent of the Project’s environmental impacts.
In light of the aforementioned, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City: (1) require the Project utilize a local trained and skilled workforce; (2) prepare and circulate a thorough, projectspecific EIR which focuses heavily on the Project’s impacts that were not previously or adequately addressed in the SEIR; and, (3) order Applicant to revise the Project to ensure its consistency with all applicable laws and regulations especially those addressing human and environmental health. Should the City have any questions or concerns, it should feel free to contact my office.
Response to Comment No. 11:
The commenter provides a conclusion summarizing its demands. As demonstrated above, each of the commenter’s comments and objections are without merit. The commenter has not submitted any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, that calls into question the City’s use of a 734
City of Ontario Planning Commission
August 16, 2023
CEQA addendum, demonstrates the criteria for a CEQA addendum have not been met, or otherwise provides a legitimate basis for denying the Project approvals. 735
File Nos. PUD22-004, PHP22-015, and PDEV22-027
Attachment B: Addendum Resolution
(Attachment to follow this page)
736
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-074
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN
ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS. PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, AND PHP22-015
WHEREAS, LEGACY/COLLIER RESIDENTIAL LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the Euclid Walnut Planned Unit Development, File No. PUD22-004, establishing the development standards and design guidelines for the overall 10.6-acre Project site, in conjunction with a Development Plan, File No. PDEV22-027, to construct 346 apartment units and 5,400 square feet of commercial space on 9.4 acres of the Project site and a Certificate of Appropriateness, File No. PHP22-015, to determine whether the Project site is a historic resource, on land located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as "Certified SEIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
737
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, PHP22-015 - Addendum
September 26, 2023
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified SEIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, and is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and is, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
(2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental 738
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, PHP22-015 - Addendum
September 26, 2023
assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of Project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.
SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or 739
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, PHP22-015 - Addendum
September 26, 2023
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.
SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.
SECTION 4: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR, and does hereby approve the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 5: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
SECTION 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 7: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
740
741
742
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PUD22-004, PDEV22-027, PHP22-015 - Addendum
September 26, 2023
ATTACHMENT A:
Addendum to TOP 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
743
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Project Title/File No.: Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development Mixed-Use Project (File Nos. PDEV22- 027, PUD22-004, and PHP22-015)
Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036 Contact Person: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner, 909.395.2416, Email: [email protected] Project Sponsor: Legacy/Colliers Residential, LLC
Project Location: The 10.6-acre project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario (City) as shown in Figure 1 below. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County.
As illustrated in Figure 2 below, the project site is almost square shaped and located north of W. Walnut Street and west of Euclid Avenue in the southwest portion of the City (just south of SR-60). The project site includes Assessors’ Parcel Numbers; 1051-271-67, 1051-271-06, 1051-271-66. All full rights-of-way for public streets that are required for this project have already been dedicated and granted to the City.
Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
City of Ontario
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Phone: 909.395.2036
Fax: 909.395.2420
California Environmental Quality Act
Addendum to The Ontario Plan
Environmental Impact Report
PROJCT SITE
744
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
June 28, 2023
Figure 2: PUD VICINITY MAP
745
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
General Plan/Zoning. The Ontario Plan (TOP) is the City’s comprehensive plan for the community over the next thirty years. TOP 2050 is the City’s established framework for development and has three policy level components, the Vision, a Governance Manual and the Policy Plan. The most current version of TOP and its environmental impact report (EIR) are dated August 16, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364). Figure LU-01 of The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 is the City’s current Land Use Plan which indicates the project site is designated as Mixed Use but is further classified as a Neighborhood Community Hub (NH). The site is currently zoned Mixed-Use (MU-8e) within the Euclid Avenue (EA) overlay corridor as shown below:
General Plan Designation: Existing – Mixed Use Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) Proposed – Mixed Use Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) Zoning: Existing – Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
Proposed – Planned Unit Development (PUD) with Commercial/ Residential Mixed Use within Euclid Avenue Overlay Zoning District (EA) The Mixed-Use Neighborhood Hub (MU-NH) designation allows low-rise buildings (3-5 stories) with a mixture of retail and residential uses that will create identity and place and serve the surrounding residents.
This category allows for residential densities ranging from 20 - 75 dwelling units per acre and non-residential intensity of 1.00 Floor Area Ratio.
The TOP shows a total of five locations within the City with the MU-NH land use designation. The Future Buildout Projections Table of the Land Use Element provides further details for each of these five MU-NH sub-areas. The three parcels subject to this PUD make up 10.6 acres (“PUD site”) of the overall 16 acres that comprise the “MU-NH” sub-area. The remaining 5.4 acres of the MU-NH area include approximately 28,000 square feet of existing businesses (gas station, pre-school, and 2 small businesses) and 15 single family homes between the PUD site and the SR-60 Freeway to the north. The PUD site currently contains a Carl’s Jr. restaurant, former Kmart Shopping Center, and a strip retail building. The TOP indicates the projected buildout for the entire 16 acres of this sub-area will eventually have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. Development of the proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (369 MF+15 SF=384 total units vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (12,000 SF in the PUD plus 28,000 existing = 40,000 SF vs. 142,840 SF). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project described below, the preceding analysis demonstrates the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the PUD are considered to be equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area.
Description of PUD Project: The Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) project proposes to demolish the existing commercial center and construct a total of 369 apartment units with 12,000 square feet (SF) of ground floor retail uses. The PUD project is expected to be completed in two phases. Phase 1 would leave the existing Carl’s Jr. site in its current condition, demolish the other existing commercial structures, and develop 5,400 SF of ground floor retail space and 346 apartment units consisting of 18 studio units, 190 one-bedroom units, and 138 two-bedroom units. Phase 2 would consist of demolishing the existing Carl’s Jr. and constructing an additional 23 apartment units and 6,600 SF of ground floor retail space. Table 1 shows the building characteristics of the proposed project as part of the PUD while Figure 3 shows the proposed zoning of the PUD project.
746
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 1: Proposed PUD Project Land Uses
AREA/TIMING ACRES UNITS SQUARE FEET
Existing Uses
(to be demolished)
10.6 0 105,050
Euclid/Walnut PUD
Phase 1
Phase 2
10.6 9.4
1.2 369
346
23 12,000
5,400
6,600
Remainder of MU-NH Area 5.4 0 130,840
TOTAL 16.0 369 142,840
Source: PUD May 2023 NA = acres not applicable due to mixed use development Figure 3: PROPOSED PUD ZONING
Source: PUD May 2023
Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD provides planning and design principles, development regulations, and performance standards to guide the redevelopment of an existing commercial shopping center. The PUD will facilitate mixed-use development of high-density apartments, restaurants, retail shops, and other commercial services. The PUD is intended to achieve the City’s goals to economically revitalize and aesthetically enhance an underutilized parcel located along the Euclid Avenue corridor.
The PUD is organized to meet the requirements of the Ontario Development Code (ODC) and will replace the existing zoning district designation and ODC regulations applicable to the affected properties. The PUD site also falls within the “Euclid Avenue Overlay” Zoning District (EA) and any applicable requirements of the EA will remain in effect. City staff and private developers will rely on this PUD to determine whether future precise plans for development ("Development Plans") adequately meet the City's land use and design objectives as outlined in The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050.
747
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD establishes a singular zoning district of Commercial/Residential Mixed Use consistent with TOP 2050 MU-NH land use designation. The PUD allows both horizontal and vertical mixed-use buildings with a combination of three- and four-story buildings. Buildings with direct Euclid Avenue frontage will contain ground-floor commercial uses and residential units directly above. All other buildings will contain residential units on all floor levels. A combination of garages, tandem spaces, carports, and surface level parking spaces will be provided onsite with gated access limited to residents and residents’ guests. Unrestricted access to surface level parking will serve the commercial uses and provide additional resident guest parking spaces.
It should be noted the TOP EIR addendum is required in order for the PUD project’s density to exceed the TOP 2050 land use assumptions for the site (i.e., Mixed-Use – Neighborhood Activity Hub 8e - Euclid & Walnut) which designates the site at 75% of the area at 30 du/ac and 25% of the area at 0.80 FAR retail.
The proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (384 total units with PUD vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (40,000 SF with the PUD vs. 142,840 SF under TOP growth). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts compared to what was analyzed in TOP EIR.
Phasing. The PUD project will be completed in two phases. Phase 1 comprises the entire PUD site except for the existing drive-thru restaurant site (Carl’s Jr.) which is occupied by an approximately 4,100 square foot building and its related site improvements. Phase 1 will require the demolition of a combined 100,950 square feet of commercial/retail buildings (not including the Carl’s Jr.) and related site improvements. Phase I will be redeveloped with two four-story buildings and six three-story buildings, providing a combined total of 346 dwelling units; 5,400 square feet of ground floor commercial space, associated on-site parking areas for both residential and non-residential land uses, and landscaping and recreational amenities for residents.
Figure 4 shows the Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan.
Phase 2 will finish implementation of the total build-out of the area within the PUD project by demolishing the Carl’s Jr. restaurant building and related site improvements and replacing them with additional vertical mixed-use development, constructing an additional four-story building. Completion of the second phase would provide up to an additional 23 dwelling units and up to an additional 6,600 square feet of groundfloor commercial space, and the associated site improvements.
The PUD is applicable to both phases of the project, which will construct a horizontal and vertical mixeduse development, with a maximum of 369 dwelling units and up to 12,000 square feet of commercial land uses occupying the ground floor of buildings with Euclid Avenue frontage.
Construction. All construction activities, including site demolition, regrading, building construction, paving, and the application of architectural coatings, are expected to take approximately 28 months for Phase 1.
The specific timing of development of Phase 2 has not yet been determined but will include similar activities as those listed for Phase 1. The overall construction of the PUD project is consistent with the level of development outlined in TOP and its EIR and would only differ by having +4% more units but 28% less non-residential square footage with the PUD. While no additional specific information on Phase 2 construction is presented at this time, overall development and construction of the 10.6-acre MU-NH subarea would be similar with or without the PUD in terms of land area developed. 748
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Figure 4: PHASE 1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Development Regulations. Development within this PUD will comply with Ontario Development Code (ODC) standards and requirements applicable to Multiple-Family Dwellings and Commercial development, as determined appropriate by the City Director of Community Development. Table 2 provides a summary of development standards for the PUD project. The PUD project will not exceed a maximum 40 dwelling units per acre and will not exceed 369 dwelling units upon build-out of Phase 2. The overall building height of four-story buildings will not exceed 60 feet and all other buildings will not exceed 50 feet (max. 3 stories), inclusive of architectural projections. Non-residential development is subject to a maximum 0.5 floor area ratio based upon the net site area.
Access and Improvements. Vehicular access from the public right of way will be limited to two locations along Euclid Avenue and a maximum of three locations along Walnut Street as approved by the City Engineer. As determined by the City Engineer, design and construction of street improvements, adjacent to the property frontage of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street will be conditioned and may include, but are not limited to concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, LED streetlights, signing and striping, and parkway landscaping.
749
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 2: Summary of PUD Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENT NOTES
Maximum Intensity – Floor Area Ratio 0.50 FAR Gross building square footage of commercial
space
Density Range – Minimum and Maximum 20.1 – 40 Up to a maximum of 369 dwelling units
Maximum Building Height by Number of
Stories
Four Stories
Three Stories
60 feet
50 feet
Inclusive of architectural
projections and equipment
screening
Building Setbacks – From Right-of-Way
10 feet minimum
Setbacks – Interior Property Line
Buildings Adjacent to Residential
Buildings Adjacent to Non-Residential
Carport or Trash Enclosure
50 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
Building Separation
Building to Building
Building to Drive Aisle or Parking Areas
Building to Carport
Patio to Patio
25 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
25 feet minimum
15 feet minimum
Individual driveway depth
limited to 5 ft. or less, or 18
ft. or more
Minimum Number Parking Spaces
Ratio for Residential Uses
Ratio for Non-Residential Uses
1.2 spaces/bedroom
1 space/250 square feet
Inclusive of guest spaces
Residential Open Space and Common
Amenities – Combined Minimum Ratio
Minimum Private Open Space Ratio
Minimum Common Amenity Ratio
250 square feet/dwelling unit
50 square feet/dwelling unit
175 square feet/dwelling unit
5 feet min. width and length
15% maximum indoor
Residential Storage Units 150 cubic feet/dwelling unit
minimum
Does not include closets or
cabinets interior to the unit
Source: PUD Table 4-1, Summary of Development Standards Grading and Drainage. The PUD site is already developed and essentially flat so its development is not expected to require substantial grading and earthwork is generally expected to be balanced onsite (i.e., no substantial import or export of soil). Under the PUD, onsite stormwater drainage facilities will be provided consistent with the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program's Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) requirements for new development projects. Stormwater capture and infiltration facilities may include the utilization of vegetated swales, depressed landscaped basins, pervious concrete pavement or underground stormwater retention/infiltration vaults.
Landscaping. The PUD site will be fully landscaped according to a detailed Landscaping Plan that will be submitted with the Development Plan. The Landscaping Plan will specify all landscape and hardscape elements of the residential open space and common amenities, as well as the perimeter yards abutting the street rights-of-way and all street trees. The Plan will provide water conservation through low water using plant materials, hydro zones, water efficient irrigation and weather-based controllers. Landscaped areas will also be used for storm water infiltration through vegetated swales, retention basins, or dry wells as needed with appropriate planting materials. The Landscaping Plan will satisfy the requirements of the City’s Landscape Development Standards outlined in the ODC. Street trees shall comply with the variety, size, and spacing as directed by the City of Ontario Master Street Tree Plan.
Open Space/Recreation. The PUD indicates each residential unit will have 50 square feet of private open space (i.e., balcony or patio) and will have 175 square feet per residential unit of common amenities. The PUD project proposes a total of 369 units so the overall development will have a minimum of 64,575 square feet of common open space amenities. This may include a combination of passive and active, indoor and 750
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
outdoor spaces, roof top or upper floor decks, as well as landscaped and hardscaped ground surfaces providing paseos between or adjacent to buildings. Up to 15 percent of the overall common amenity square footage may consist of indoor area and be grouped into a single building that is accessible to all residents; providing opportunities for fitness, various lounge/gathering space, business/mail center and similar amenities. The remaining common amenities provided shall be in the form of outdoor common areas consisting of both programmed and unprogrammed spaces. Programmed space may provide specific amenities such as a dog park, seating/conversational area, outdoor cooking facilities with table seating areas, etc. while unprogrammed space may provide passive use, such as landscaped paseos.
Fences and Walls. Exhibit 5-6 in the PUD provides a comprehensive plan for walls and fences that is compatible with the proposed building architecture and will not encroach into the public right-of-way.
Lighting. The PUD project includes security and decorative lighting for the new proposed commercial and residential buildings, parking areas, and access routes consistent with the PUD and the City’s Development Code. The lighting plan shows that all lighting is shielded and directed toward the ground to the extent necessary to minimize potential impacts on neighboring residential uses.
Utilities. The PUD project site is already developed so its redevelopment will be served by existing water lines and wastewater flows and/or upgraded to satisfy the required capacities as determined by the City and its service purveyors/agencies.
Requested Approvals. The PUD project requires approval of the PUD and subsequent approval of site plans and improvement plans consistent with the PUD. The project application includes a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-027, a Planned Unit Development (File No. PUD22-004), and an Addendum to the EIR prepared for TOP which was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022. The EIR Addendum will allow the PUD project to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUD Objectives. The proposed PUD will facilitate the redevelopment of the project site with structures and related improvements that support both residential and non-residential land uses within the same project site. In addition to facilitating achievement of many City TOP goals and policies, this PUD establishes the following objectives:
Develop and provide new, high-quality rental housing combined with a mixed-use component. Provide transition between new mixed-use development and surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial properties.
Provide areas of private and passive open space for each residential unit, as well as community gathering and active open spaces.
Promote development that is consistent with the MU-NH – Mixed Use Neighborhood Activity Hub land use designation.
Promote revitalization of commercial uses on the project site by establishing new ground-floor retail and similar uses that serve on-site residents and those in surrounding neighborhoods. Provide outdoor gathering places adjacent to commercial storefronts, such as outdoor patio or bench seating with inviting/attractive landscape elements. Orient non-residential, ground-floor uses towards Euclid Avenue. Incorporate site design solutions to allow for phased development. Satisfy the build-out projections for residential dwelling units within the MU-NH (Euclid- Walnut) sub-area, as defined in TOP 2050.
Project Setting: The PUD project site consists of approximately 10.6 acres of land within western Ontario.
The site is almost square in shape and is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and W. Walnut Street just south of the SR-60 Freeway. The site is currently developed with a 4,100-square foot Carl’s Jr. drive-through restaurant and 100,950 square feet of commercial buildings including a former Kmart building) plus a small retail building with several tenants. The site is relatively flat with elevations ranging 751
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
from 818 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the northeast corner down to 810 feet amsl at the southeast corner with a gentle slope of less than one percent to the southwest. Runoff from the site generally flows toward the adjacent roadways (Euclid to the east and Walnut to the south).
The site is in a built-up urbanized area with existing residential uses to the west, south, and southeast, commercial uses to the east, and mixed residential and commercial uses to the north up to the freeway.
The location and extent of existing land uses are shown in the previous Figure 2.
Project Background: The PUD project site was developed in the later part of the 20th Century with a variety of commercial uses, many of which are now vacant. No major planning, development, or environmental work has been done in the past 10+ years on this site. However, the City’s TOP and its EIR was most recently adopted in 2022 and contain current and accurate environmental information about the project site and applicable mitigation as explained below and as summarized at the end of this document.
On August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted the latest version of TOP, which serves as the City’s General Plan under state law and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation.
The TOP consists of six (6) distinct components: 1) Vision; 2) Governance Manual; 3) Policy Plan; 4) Council Priorities; 5) Implementation; and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The Policy Plan component of TOP meets the functional and legal mandate of a municipal General Plan and contains nine elements; Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design and Social Resources.
The City Council certified TOP EIR (SCH # 2021070364) which analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan and impacts from population and employment growth in the City. The project proposes land uses consistent with TOP 2050. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in TOP EIR included: agriculture resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise and transportation/traffic.
CEQA requires lead agencies to use the most current and accurate environmental information in analyzing project impacts. Therefore, consistent with the requirements of CEQA, the proposed project has been analyzed relative to current technical studies and TOP EIR. These uses will be consistent with the residential uses to the west, south, and southwest, the commercial uses to the east, and the mixed residential and commercial uses to the north.
CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of an EIR or negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the EIR (or negative declaration) are necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous 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 EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
752
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
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 PUD project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may adopt an addendum to TOP EIR.
CEQA Analysis: According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration or EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:
1) Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
Substantial changes are not proposed by the project compared to what is allowed in TOP, and project implementation will not require revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The site is located within the Mixed Use – Neighborhood Community Hub (MU-NH) designation of TOP. The PUD project will provide both mixed uses and be an activity hub for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Under TOP, projected buildout of the entire 16 acres of MU-NH overlay property would have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development on 10.6 acres, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.
Since the anticipated buildout resulting from the PUD project will be equivalent to or less than that originally analyzed in TOP EIR, no revisions to TOP EIR are required.
In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures of TOP EIR are conditions of project approval or mitigation measures and are incorporated herein by reference. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as a mixture of land uses up to 369 residential units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.
753
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to TOP EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted TOP EIR mitigation measures are incorporated herein by reference. This document provides an analysis of the project and verification that the project will not cause any new or more significant environmental impacts.
3) Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
No new information has been provided that would indicate the proposed project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in TOP EIR. TOP EIR evaluated the site as a mixture of land uses up to 369 residential units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of the non-residential development, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.
TOP Figure LU-01, Land Use Plan, and TOP EIR Figure 1-3, Proposed Land Use Plan, indicate the proposed PUD project is consistent with the surrounding residential, commercial, and mixed uses.
Since adoption of the 1992 General Plan, 2022 TOP, and certification of the 2010 TOP EIR, the subject site has been planned for a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
Conclusion: TOP EIR, certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022 was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines section 15121(a), and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. TOP EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP. Consequently, TOP EIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and would only differ by having +4% more units but 28% less non-residential square footage with the PUD. While no additional specific information on Phase 2 construction is presented at this time, overall development and construction of the 10.6-acre MU-NH subarea would be similar with or without the PUD in terms of land area developed. The overall construction of the PUD project is generally consistent with the level of development outlined in TOP and its EIR The amount of development anticipated at PUD project buildout as shown in the previous Table 1 and outlined in the Project Description will be equivalent to the development analyzed in TOP EIR.
The proposed PUD differs from the TOP’s assumptions for this project site, so this addendum and supplemental studies are required to ensure the project introduces no new significant environmental impacts that were identified in TOP EIR. The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. Should no new significant environmental impacts arise as a result of this project and related analyses, all previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval.
Accordingly, and based on the conclusions of the previously certified TOP EIR, the analysis in this document, CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for additional mitigation with implementation of the number of conditions of approval required by the City based on the results of the site-specific technical studies for burrowing owl and airport safety.
Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is in a built-up urbanized area with existing residential uses to the west, south, and southeast, commercial uses to the east, and mixed residential and commercial uses to the north up to the freeway. See Table 3 for onsite and surrounding land uses and zoning designations.
Onsite and surrounding land uses are also shown in the previous Figure 2. 754
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 3: Existing Land Uses and Zoning Designations
Location Existing
Land Uses
TOP
Designation
Zoning
Designation
PUD Site Vacant older retail commercial
and fast-food restaurant
Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Community Hub (MU-NH)
Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
North Mixture of residential and
commercial uses
Mixed Use-Neighborhood
Community Hub (MU-NH)
Mixed-Use 8e (Euclid and Walnut)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
South Single Family Residential Low Density
Residential (2.1-5 du/ac) Low Density Residential (LDR-5) East Commercial shopping center Neighborhood
Commercial (0.4 FAR)
Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
within Euclid Avenue Overlay (EA)
West Multi-Family Residential Medium Density Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) Medium Density Residential (MDR-18)
Source: City Website 2022 and Google Earth 2022 du/ac = dwelling units per acre Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None
Tribal Consultation: Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? Yes No If “yes”, has consultation begun? Yes No Completed
NOTE: Consultation was already conducted as part of TOP EIR and no new consultation is required for this Addendum to TOP EIR
Additional Studies: The following additional studies have been or are being prepared in support of the analysis in this document regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. These studies are in the Appendices to this document and include:
• Euclid/Walnut Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Appendix A) • Health Risk Assessment (Appendix B)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Appendix C)
• Trip Generation (Appendix D)
755
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
July 5, 2023
Signature Date
Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner City of Ontario
Printed Name and Title For
756
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
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 15063I(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. For this project, reference will be made to TOP EIR as appropriate.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 757
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest
resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to
information compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and
Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland
zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
758
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
759
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
760
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the
project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
761
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne 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?
762
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of road or other
infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
763
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subsection(c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subsection (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
20. WILDFIRES. If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
764
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed in
TOP FEIR
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.
Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. 765
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
EXPLANATION OF ISSUES
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concludes… “the scale and design of the City under TOP 2050 would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains which are the dominant scenic resource in the City of Ontario.
Regulations such as the City’s Municipal Code and policies [of TOP] would ensure that increased development would not impact scenic vistas” (SEIR p. 5.1-5). TOP Policy CD1-5 requires all major northsouth streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains.
The project site is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and Walnut Street just south of the SR60 Freeway. Surrounding roadways and public areas have views of the mountains to the north. The PUD project proposes 3 and 4-story buildings with the taller buildings along the west side of Euclid to accommodate commercial uses on the ground floors. The residential uses to the south are across Walnut Street from the site so the new buildings would not block public views from this area as well. The future buildings would be consistent in terms of mass and height with what is allowed in TOP and current zoning although they would be controlled by the PUD. The new uses are already allowed under TOP and do not obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains from onsite or surrounding north-south streets. No adverse impacts are anticipated in relation to the project.
Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states “…The Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor are the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. These are not State-designated scenic highways, and Ontario does not have any State scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City” (SEIR 5.1-6). The City is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I-10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. The project site is just south of SR-60 and west of the I-15 freeway. These segments of I-10, I15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the City.
The project site currently supports commercial buildings of various types and sizes but the largest buildings on the west side of the property (former Kmart) are vacant. The site does not contain any visual or scenic resources or historic buildings. Therefore, it will not damage any scenic resources and not result in any adverse environmental impacts.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to the EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR characterized this area as having existing commercial development and the area contained urban land uses including both residential and commercial development planned on and around the project site. TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City, which includes the mixed uses planned on the PUD project site, would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 5.1-7). 766
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
TOP EIR also states:
…future development under the [TOP 2050] would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which includes general development requirements for development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetic of the City. Finally…the Development Code is enacted to assist implementation of planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws and the TOP and to achieve the proper arrangement of land uses envisioned in TOP. Because it is the overriding planning document for the City, and because it is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions, the…TOP 2050…would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality. (SEIR p. 5-1-7) The project site is located in a completely urbanized area with developed uses surrounding the site. The PUD project would introduce new buildings onto the site which would have a suburban/urban appearance consistent with newer uses and buildings along the Euclid Avenue corridor to the north. Therefore, the project is consistent with TOP land uses and zoning so it would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings.
The proposed project will be required to comply with the policies of the Community Design Element of TOP Policy Plan and zoning designations on the property, as well as the design requirements of the Euclid/Walnut PUD. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts are anticipated, and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR.
No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that new development throughout the City would increase ambient light levels over time as development occurred, but that compliance with Development Code lighting requirements would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, and no mitigation was required (SEIR p. 6.1-7).
The project proposes the development of several residential and mixed-use buildings on the site, with the mixed uses (retail commercial on the ground floor and residential above) along Euclid Avenue and the residential buildings in the central and western portions of the site.
New development will have architectural and security lighting on buildings and in parking lots, and streets will have new lighting installed or existing street lighting continue in place. Pursuant to the requirements of the Euclid/Walnut PUD and the City’s Development Code, onsite lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to onsite users, pedestrians, and motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within each building site and minimize light spillage. Site lighting plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 767
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
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 (LESA) Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that the City is underlain by prime agricultural soils in a number of areas but that the City envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. The EIR concluded TOP “… would have no direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use” (SEIR p.
5.2-12). The EIR concluded this because those changes had already been evaluated in the 2010 TOP which represents the baseline condition for the 2050 TOP. TOP EIR did not anticipate these changes to be a significant adverse impact and as a result did not recommend mitigation.
The project site is presently fully developed and does not contain any agricultural uses. Although the general area supported agriculture long ago, the site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Based on the information above, no adverse environmental impacts from the project related to prime farmland are anticipated.
Therefore, the project will have no significant impacts on agricultural resources and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates that some areas of the City were used for agriculture in the past, including the general project area. However, the City currently has no agricultural land use or zoning designations. Figure 5.2-2 of TOP EIR indicates there are a number of Williamson Act contracts in the City but they are in the southern portion of the City which also is transitioning to suburban land uses. The project area long ago transitioned from agriculture to suburban and urban land uses, and no Williamson Act contracts are active in this area at present. In this regard, no significant impacts were anticipated in TOP EIR and no mitigation was recommended.
The PUD project site is not zoned for agricultural use and the site is designated for mixed residential and commercial uses which are permitted under TOP. Future development will be consistent with the development standards and land uses allowed under TOP and the proposed Euclid/Walnut PUD.
Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with Williamson Act contracts. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses in the City, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any impacts related to rezoning of forest or timberland to non-forest use. 768
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD project proposes residential and commercial buildings consistent with the mixed-use land use designation in TOP and the Euclid/Walnut PUD. The PUD project would not result in the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or land zoned Timberland Production because such land use designations do not exist within the City.
Therefore, no impacts to forest or timberland are anticipated and the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any impacts related to the conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p. 5.2-13).
There is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g), including the project site. Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land anywhere in the City.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated future development would not conflict with agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. It also concluded there is no forest land in Ontario, and therefore the project would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use (SEIR p.
5.2-14). TOP envisions a natural transition of these lands to suburban and urban uses over time based on market forces and the desires of property owners. TOP EIR indicated there were no forest resources in the City, so development of planned land uses, including the mixed uses of the PUD project site, would not result in any cumulative impacts related to loss of forest land.
Implementation of the PUD project would not result in changes to the existing environment other than those previously addressed in TOP EIR. While conversion of farmland increases the potential for adjacent areas to also be converted from farmland to urban uses, there are no agricultural uses occurring onsite or in the vicinity and the project will not directly or indirectly result in conversion of farmland. No new cumulative impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR would result from project implementation. As a result, the project will not result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use.
Additionally, there is currently no land in the City that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land.
Based on available data, the proposed PUD project would not result in changes to the existing environment that would affect forest land. There will be no impacts and no mitigation is required. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 769
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
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 project site was analyzed in the current (2022) and previous (2010) TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses, consistent with the surrounding mixture of similar land uses.
TOP EIR concluded future land uses, including the proposed project, may conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). TOP EIR concluded that future development and the cumulative air pollutant emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds. As noted in the previous TOP EIR (Section 5.3) from 2010, pollutant levels in the City already exceeded Federal and State standards at that time. To reduce pollutant levels, the City is actively participating in efforts to enhance air quality by implementing control measures in the AQMP for local jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of non-residential development in Phases 1 and 2, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway.
The TOP indicates the projected buildout for the entire 16 acres of this sub-area will eventually have a total of 369 dwelling units and 142,840 square feet of non-residential development. Development of the proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (369 MF+15 SF=384 total units vs. 369 projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (12,000 SF in the PUD plus 28,000 existing = 40,000 SF vs. 142,840 SF). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project, the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the PUD are considered to be equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area. The proposed project is therefore generally consistent with TOP land use designations upon which the AQMP is based. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the City’s participation in the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plan. The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3- 1, 3-2, and 3-3 which include fugitive dust control measures pursuant to SCAQMD’s Rule 403, use of Tier 3 construction equipment, proper service and maintenance of construction equipment, limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment, use of Super-Compliant volatile organic compounds (VOC) paints for coating and architectural surfaces, providing non-vehicular access options, and calculate and reduce any significant health risks from future development on nearby sensitive receptors (MM 3-1 through 3-3, respectively).
At the request of City staff, a health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared for the project to determine if air pollutant emissions from the nearby freeway would result in any significant impacts to human health including cancer and non-cancer related deaths of project residents. The HRA concluded that freeway emissions would not result in any significant human health risks for project residents. Minimum Efficiency Rating Value (MERV) 13 filters, which are required for the residential buildings by the CalGreen Code, are sufficient to reduce risks below SCAQMD thresholds. (see Appendix B).
Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required but the following measures from TOP EIR are applicable to the proposed project:
AQ 3-1: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the 770
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
− Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion. − Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities. − Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards • Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes. • Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/SuperCompliant_AIM.pdf.
These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
AQ 3-2: The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g., sidewalks).
AQ 3-3: Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions. • Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures). • Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures). • Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures). 771
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area. The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of non-residential development in Phases 1 and 2, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway. The remainder of the MU-NH area is currently built out with 15 single-family dwellings and approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial uses.
TOP EIR concluded that air pollutant emissions from future development within the City consistent with TOP land uses, including the proposed project, would exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed PUD project is within the amount of growth planned for the project site under TOP and would make an incremental contribution to the significant air pollutant emissions and impacts identified for TOP.
As outlined in Section 3.a above, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts from what was analyzed in TOP EIR. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project, the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the addition of the PUD are considered to be generally equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area.
Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 as outlined in Section 3.a have already been adopted by the City that would facilitate continued City cooperation with the SCAQMD and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to reduce short-term construction emissions, help promote regional air quality improvement goals and energy conservation design and development techniques, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and implement transportation demand strategies. However, TOP EIR concluded that air pollutant impacts would be significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ 3- 1 through 3-3.
The proposed PUD project would implement MM AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3 and is generally within the limits established for the site in TOP and evaluated in TOP EIR. Therefore, the PUD project itself will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality because the project is consistent with the existing TOP land use designation for the site and the overall air quality impacts of TOP have already been evaluated in TOP EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared and certified along with TOP EIR.
Due to the size of the PUD project site and the amount of development proposed, construction under either Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the PUD, or the combination of both phases, will not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds and less than significant impacts would occur. No mitigation beyond that identified in TOP EIR is required.
The PUD project will comply with Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 outlined in TOP FEIR as recommended by the SCAQMD, resulting in project level impacts that are less than significant with mitigation. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3 as described in Section 3.a above, otherwise, no project specific mitigation is required.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that development and operation of new land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 proposed land use plan could generate new sources of localized criteria air pollutant and Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) in the City from area/stationary sources and mobile sources.
772
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The Overlay Planning Area was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses under the MU-MH land use designation. Certain land uses contain persons especially susceptible to air pollutants (children, the elderly, sick persons, etc.). These types of “sensitive” land uses include residences, day care centers, hospitals, etc. and are referred to as sensitive receptors. The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The PUD project does have sensitive receptors west and north of the site. However, the size of the site and anticipated amount of new development is not expected to result in significant short- or long-term air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
With implementation of TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through AQ 3-3, the proposed PUD project would not result in any new impacts beyond those identified in TOP EIR and no project specific mitigation is required for sensitive receptors. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to other emissions, such as those leading to odors (SEIR p. 5.3-47). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses which is consistent with the existing land uses surrounding the site. The mixed uses proposed on the project site will not create objectionable odors. Further, the project shall comply with the policies of the Ontario Municipal Code and TOP regarding solid waste storage and disposal which will prevent potential odor impacts. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that “no sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the City have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species” (SEIR p. 5.4-30). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
According to TOP EIR, the Overlay Planning Area (including the PUD project site) is located within an area that has been identified as having the potential to contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These species include: the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSFLF), coast horned lizard, burrowing owl, and various species of nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The proposed project is consistent with TOP land use designation and zoning classification for the site of mixed use (MU) as a Neighborhood Community Hub (NH). The project does have a potential to impact nesting birds by removal of landscaping during redevelopment. However, governmental database information and TOP EIR indicate there is little or no potential for any listed or otherwise sensitive species to be present on the project site. With regulatory compliance (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish and Game codes), TOP EIR concluded that future development in the City would not have significant impacts on listed or sensitive species and no mitigation was recommended.
773
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD project site is currently developed with several commercial buildings. Due to its developed condition and surrounding urban land uses, the project site does not contain or support any listed or otherwise sensitive species of plants or animals. With regulatory compliance, the PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicated development “of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat onsite for sensitive species. If sensitive species were found on-site, the project proponent would be required to consult with the CDFW regarding impacts to sensitive species and ensuing mitigation” (SEIR p. 5.4-31).
The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. In TOP EIR, the Overlay Planning Area, including the PUD project site, was previously analyzed as mixed use. TOP EIR does not identify any natural drainage features in this portion of the City due to its urbanized condition. With regulatory compliance, the EIR did not recommend any specific mitigation for future development relative to jurisdictional features.
Based on a review of aerial photographs, the site is totally developed and does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by CDFW or USFWS (GoogleEarth). Therefore, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. 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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any wetland habitat or resources on the project site or in the immediate surrounding area due to its urban condition. The EIR stated TOP “would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to state or federally protected wetlands.
Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the TOP [2050] were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds” (SEIR p. 5.4-33).
According to aerial photographs, the site is developed and no drainage areas or wetland habitat are present on the project site (GoogleEarth). Therefore, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. 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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any drainages or wetland habitat that could support fish on the project site, and the site is not located within an identified wildlife movement corridor due to its physical condition and development of the surrounding area.
TOP EIR found that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, so it did not result in substantial adverse effects to wildlife movement (SEIR p. 5.4-33).
According to aerial photographs, the site is developed with no drainages or native vegetation present (GoogleEarth). As a result, there are no wildlife corridors connecting this site to other areas. The project site and area may support nesting birds but regulatory compliance (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Fish 774
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
and Game codes) will help assure there will be no impacts to migratory birds. With regulatory compliance, the project will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City includes the Ontario Recovery Unit for the DSFLF with
21.7 square miles mainly in the eastern and southwestern portions of the City (i.e., not on or adjacent to the project site), The EIR concluded TOP would not conflict with the requirements of the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit (SEIR p. 5.4-34).
The City does not currently have any specific policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City’s Development Code requires replacement of trees removed. With implementation of the ODC requirements for tree replacement, and its proposed Landscaping Plan, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR only acknowledges a small portion of the City that contains an HCP for DSFLF but this plan does not apply to the proposed Project, and there are no HCPs or NCCPs to protect biological resources that affect the proposed Project site.
The site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved habitat conservation plan. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation required.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that buildout of TOP could result in significant impacts to historical resources or paleontological resources but Mitigation Measure 5-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (SEIR p. 5.5-23). The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses.
The PUD project site is developed with a number of commercial buildings the largest of which is vacant.
The site does not contain any buildings or structures constructed more than 50 years ago and cannot be considered for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.
The Euclid Avenue (EA) Overlay District was established to recognize, protect, and enhance the visual character and quality of Euclid Avenue as a major scenic and historic resource of the City as well as its position on the National Register of Historic Places. Properties located within the EA require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to ensure no adverse impacts to designated historic resources occur as a result of new development and buildings. This PUD includes design criteria within Chapter 5 for site and building design that is consistent with the overall character of Euclid Avenue. 775
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue from Philadelphia Street north to the I-10 Freeway was designated as Local Landmark No. 67 on January 16, 2001 by the Ontario City Council. On August 10, 2005, the public right-of-way of Euclid Avenue from Philadelphia Street in Ontario north to 24th Street in Upland was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a significant cultural landscape. One contributing characterdefining feature of the public right-of way is the 60-foot-wide median separating the north/south bound vehicular lanes of Euclid Avenue. The Euclid/Walnut PUD project does not alter or affect this feature.
Several buildings within the proposed PUD project have frontage on Euclid Avenue. However, the PUD site is 0.4 mile south of the southern boundary (Philadelphia Street) of this Local Landmark/National Register of Historic Places designation. The extended view of the Euclid Avenue corridor, whether viewed northward from the parcels or southward towards the parcels of the PUD, is also visually disrupted within the immediate foreground view as a result of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60), which is elevated above Euclid Avenue. Additionally, the proposed PUD is approximately three miles south of the City’s Downtown Historic District. Based upon the City’s Historic Preservation records, there are no potential or proposed historic resources within the immediate surrounding area of the parcels within the PUD project. Therefore, the PUD will not alter or affect any designated historical districts or resources in the City.
In addition, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR (Section 5.5) indicates no archeological sites or resources have been recorded in the City with the Archeological Information Center at San Bernardino County Museum. The CRAs prepared for the project site included a pedestrian survey, a record search, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search, and a review of existing documentation for the project site and surrounding area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a SLF search as part of TOP EIR preparation which indicated the project site contained no identified archaeological or tribal resources.
The NAHC SLF search also did not indicate any archaeological resources or artifacts associated with Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) were located within the project site. The project site has been highly disturbed by modern human activities including agricultural use in the distant past and development for commercial uses more recently. It is likely these activities could have displaced potential surface and subsurface archaeological resources if any were present. Therefore, it is not anticipated the proposed project will impact archaeological or identified TCRs.
While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its disturbed nature, the project will implement TOP MM CUL 5-2 to ensure that, in the event of unanticipated archeological discoveries, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine significance of these resources. If the find is discovered to be historical or unique archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR.
No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. However, the following mitigation measure from TOP EIR is applicable to the project:
CUL 5-2: In areas of documented or inferred archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities.
776
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist. If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including catalog with museum numbers.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states there are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, but none on or adjacent to the project site. Future development and grading of sensitive areas may disturb human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries (SEIR p. 5.5-20).
The proposed PUD project site is developed and the area has been previously and extensively disturbed by human activity. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during any construction activities. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, would afford protection for human remains discovered during development activities. Per state law, in the event unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been completed, if deemed applicable.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. However, the PUD project shall implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2 as outlined above.
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: Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. TOP EIR concluded TOP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction or result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts (SEIR p. 5.6-13).
Implementation of the project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site and gasoline consumption in the region during construction and operation, as described below:
Electricity
Construction. Temporary electric power would be required for lighting and electronic equipment (e.g., computers) located in trailers used by the construction crew. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.
Operation/Occupancy. The proposed PUD project entails the construction of 369 new apartment units and 12,000 square feet of new commercial uses which are consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations for the property. These commercial and residential buildings will be similar in design and operation to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and will have similar energy use during operation to existing commercial businesses and apartments in the City. Operation of the PUD project would require electricity for multiple purposes, such as: building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics.
The PUD project will be required to comply with the CALGreen Building Code (CBC) commercial and residential requirements in effect at the time of development. Typical CBC requirements that would reduce electricity consumption include but are not limited to enhanced window insulation, cool-roofing, improved efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, enhanced duct insulation, Energy Star commercial appliances, water efficient landscaping and irrigation systems, and water-efficient toilets and 777
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
faucets. Although electricity consumption would increase at the site with implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance.
With implementation of these various measures, the electricity that would be consumed by the project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Construction. Natural gas consumption is not anticipated during construction of the PUD project. Fuels used for construction would generally consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed in the next subsection.
Operation/Occupancy. The proposed PUD project is consistent with TOP and zoning designations for the site. Planned commercial and residential uses will be similar in size and appearance to existing and planned uses in the surrounding area and will have similar natural gas use during operation or occupancy. During operation and occupancy, the PUD project would require natural gas consumption for various purposes, such as building heating and cooling.
All future structures developed on the site would be built to the Title 24 CALGreen efficiency requirements in effect at the time of development. These requirements include but are not limited to wall, attic, and window insulation; high efficiency water heaters, and optimized building orientation. Although natural gas consumption would increase at the site under implementation of the project, the building envelope, HVAC, lighting, and other systems, would be designed to maximize energy performance. The project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in the CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the natural gas that would be consumed by the project is not considered to be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Diesel and Gasoline Fuel
Construction. Diesel and gasoline fuels, also referred to as petroleum in this subsection, would be consumed throughout construction of the PUD project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource consumed over the course of construction, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the transportation of construction materials (e.g., deliveries to the site) and worker trips to and from the site would also result in petroleum consumption. Whereas on-site, heavy-duty construction equipment and delivery trucks would predominantly use diesel fuel, construction workers would generally rely on gasoline-powered vehicles.
The project will be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and required to conduct development activities, it would not be wasteful or inefficient, and impacts would be less than significant.
Operation/Occupancy. Fuel consumption associated with operation of the PUD project’s commercial uses and occupancy of the project’s residential uses. As regulatory requirements increase (i.e., become more stringent), the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation and occupancy is anticipated to decrease over time.
There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single, coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in California. In addition, CARB adopted a regional goal for the SCAG region of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% in 2020 and 19% in 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles. Accordingly, operation of the project is expected to decrease the amount of petroleum it consumes in the future due to improvements in state-wide fuel economy over time. Although the project would increase petroleum use in the region during construction and operation, the use would be a small incremental fraction of the statewide use and due to efficiency increases would diminish over time. As such, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not be considered to be inefficient or wasteful so its energy-related impacts would be less than significant. The project will comply with Title 24 and other applicable state energy conservation regulations as recommended in TOP EIR. In November 2014, the City adopted the most current version of the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) which includes energy conservation that results from implementation of the recommended GHG reduction measures. The PUD project will be required to comply with applicable portions of the City’s CCAP. Compliance with the CCAP and Title 24 will result in the project not having any new, increased or substantially different impacts not considered and addressed in TOP EIR. 778
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project-specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: Energy was analyzed at a programmatic level in TOP EIR based on the 2019 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (SEIR p. 5.6-14).
The PUD project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and roofs, etc.) on energy consumption. As described above, the project would be required to comply with the appropriate Title 24 CALGreen standards current at that time. Since each new building will comply with applicable State standards and adhere to the City’s CCAP, which includes energy reductions measures, the PUD project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
This impact would be less than significant and the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
7. GEOLOGY & SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to 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: According to TOP EIR, there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section
5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The EIR determined TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to seismic-related hazards (SEIR p. 5.7-19).
Given that the closest active fault zone is located over ten miles from the PUD project site, fault rupture within the project area is not likely. All development will comply with the CBC seismic design standards to reduce geologic hazard susceptibility. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates there are no active faults known on the site and the project site is located outside the Fault Rapture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone). TOP EIR (Section
5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City. The closest fault zone is located more than eight miles from the Project site.
The proximity of the PUD project site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will comply with the CBC, the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC), TOP and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
779
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: As identified in TOP EIR (Section 5.7), groundwater saturation of sediments is required for earthquake induced liquefaction. In general, groundwater depths shallower than 10 feet to the surface can cause the highest liquefaction susceptibility. TOP EIR indicates that depths to groundwater in the project site vicinity during the winter months is estimated to be over 200 feet below ground surface.
Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal. Implementation of TOP strategies in the Safety Element regarding seismic building design, the CBC, and the OMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR did not identify any significant slopes in the City or the project area, so there were no impacts related to landslides and no mitigation is needed.
The project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides because the relatively flat topography of the project site (less than one percent slope) and the chance of a landslide onsite would be remote. The PUD project proposes 369 new apartments and 12,000 square feet of new commercial uses onsite which are consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations.
Therefore, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that potential impacts from erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-20).
The project site will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the previously disturbed nature of the project site, its current developed condition (i.e., site is covered by mainly impervious surfaces), and implementation of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)(see Appendix C) for water quality control (including erosion). Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans by the City Engineer will ensure no significant impacts will occur. In addition, the City requires an erosion/dust control plan for projects located within this area.
Implementation of a WQMP and Best Management Practices (BMPs), consistent with the federal water quality permitting requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES) program, the Environmental Resource Element of TOP Policy Plan strategies, the CBC, and the OMC, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. 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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR (Section 5.7) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from an aquifer. The project would use domestic water supplies and would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The EIR states that future projects under TOP could 780
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from lateral spreading, ground subsidence, liquefaction, and compressible soils, However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur (SEIR p. 5.7-21).
The City is relatively flat, including the project site, so the risk of landslides is negligible.
The new commercial and residential buildings would not result in the location of development on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because as previously discussed, the potential for liquefaction and landslides associated with the project is less than significant. Further, implementation of TOP strategies, the CBC and the OMC would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project would not create greater landslide potential impacts than were identified in TOP EIR.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. 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: TOP EIR identified limited soil stability impacts of future development if expansive or other soil constraints were present beneath structures. TOP EIR recommended compliance with the CBC and OMC to assure impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.7-21).
The majority of Ontario, including the project site, is located on alluvial, and in some areas, aeolian (i.e., sandy) soil deposits. These types of soils are not generally considered to be expansive. In addition, specific soil conditions beneath each proposed building will be verified and addressed by specific foundation design to be confirmed by the City Engineering Department as part of the City’s development permitting process.
With this regulatory compliance, no adverse impacts will occur.
Through the City’s development and design review process, the project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that TOP policies and state regulations would ensure that the potential impacts from geology and soils hazards would be less than significant. Wastewater from Ontario is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on a case-by-case basis (SEIR p. 5.7-22).
The PUD project area is served by the local sewer system and the use of alternative systems is not necessary. Future sewer service is based on planned land uses and sizing of pipes and treatment facilities to accommodate planned growth. Since the project is consistent with TOP land use and zoning designations on the site, there will be no significant impacts to the sewage system.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and UpperPleistocene sediments deposited during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene time, Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are, therefore, considered to have high sensitivity at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. In addition, TOP EIR (Section
5.5) indicates that only one paleontological resource has been discovered in the City. The project site has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the 781
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
San Gabriel Mountains to the north or as dune sands. These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain by older sedimentary materials at estimated depths greater than 10 feet which could contain paleontological resources.
Project grading may exceed 10 feet in depth in some areas so the project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, which is included in Section 5, Cultural Resources, as this measure addresses paleontological resources. The measure requires that, in the event unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate resource protection actions will be taken.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: The project will be required to implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measure 5-2. No additional project specific mitigation is required.
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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined TOP would have a significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to the generation of GHG emissions (SEIR p. 5.7-26). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses (i.e., mixed use). The impact of buildout of the TOP on the environment due to the emission of GHGs was analyzed in the EIR for the Policy Plan of TOP. According to TOP EIR, this impact would be significant and unavoidable and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for this impact. Developing the site with mixed residential and commercial uses will not create significantly greater impacts than were identified in TOP EIR.
The analysis, methodology, and significance determination (thresholds) are based upon the City’s CCAP which includes GHG emission inventories (2008 and 2020 forecasts), a year 2020 emission reduction target, the goals and policies to reach the target, and TOP EIR Addendum prepared for the CCAP. The City will require the PUD project to be consistent and comply with the CCAP. 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 TOP EIR, which was certified by the City; (2) the proposed project would not result in any GHG impacts that were not addressed in TOP EIR; and (3) the proposed PUD project is consistent with TOP. The proposed impacts of the PUD project were already analyzed in TOP EIR and the project will be built to current energy efficient standards. Potential impacts of project implementation will be less than significant and will be supported by compliance with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards of the California Code of Regulations. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary. Regulatory compliance adequately addresses any GHG impacts and there is no need for any project specific mitigation measures.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: The EIR determined TOP was consistent with statewide strategies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions including CARB’s Scoping Plan and SCAG’s Connect SoCal (SEIR p.
5.8-27). The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (residential and commercial).
By implementing TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 regarding air pollutant emissions, the proposed project is consistent with TOP Goal ER 4 of improving air quality by, among other things, implementation of Policy ER 4-3, regarding the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with regional, state and federal regulations. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the policies outlined in Section 5.6.4 of the EIR for TOP, which aims to reduce the City’s contribution of GHG emissions at buildout by implementing energy efficient design, energy efficient irrigation systems, electric vehicle charging 782
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
stations, and compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The PUD project will be required to comply with the City’s CCAP. Therefore, the proposed PUD project does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: Project will implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures AQ 3-1 through 3-3 but no project specific mitigation is required.
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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure less than significant impacts from transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. It further concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, release of hazardous materials, and emission and handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste (SEIR p.
5.9-37).
The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as a mixture of residential and commercial uses (i.e., mixed use). As a residential and commercial project, the PUD will not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials during either construction or project implementation based on the land use restrictions for mixed use in TOP. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. However, in the unlikely event of an accident, implementation of the strategies included in TOP regarding emergency services such as police and fire protection will decrease the potential for health and safety risks from hazardous materials to less than significant levels.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. 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? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element, in addition to existing regulations, would ensure that development under TOP would not exacerbate hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites (SEIR p. 5.9-39).
The subject site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (e.g., residential and commercial uses).
Since it is not an industrial use, the proposed PUD project would not involve the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. In addition, there are no known stationary commercial or industrial land uses within close proximity to the PUD project site which use or store hazardous materials to the extent that they would pose a significant hazard to visitors/occupants to the subject site. Therefore, upset conditions resulting in the release of hazardous materials are not anticipated.
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that several hazardous material facilities were within a quarter mile of various schools in the City and impacts were potentially significant, such that mitigation was recommended. However, the project site is not within a quarter mile of any school sites so there will be no impacts and no mitigation is required relative to TOP EIR analysis. 783
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD involves residential and commercial uses, so it does not involve the use, emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste that would typically be associated with industrial uses. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. 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: TOP EIR identified that implementation of the policies in the Safety Element in addition to existing regulations ensured that development of TOP would not exacerbate existing hazards associated with existing hazardous materials sites. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to location on a site which is included on a list of hazard materials. Accordingly, no changes or alterations to the Proposed Project were required to avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental impacts under those thresholds. (Draft SEIR pg. 5.9-39) The PUD project site is not listed on the hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or the environment and no impact is anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. For a project located within the safety zone of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT or Chino Airports, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Discussion of Effects: Sections 5.9 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and 5.11 (Land Use and Planning) of TOP EIR indicated that with proper land-use planning, aircraft safety risks could be reduced, primarily by avoiding incompatible land uses. The FAA and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics provide guidance for land use safety near airports. However, the proposed PUD project is not within the hazard or influence zones of either the Ontario International Airport to the northeast or the Chino Airport to the south. The PUD project will therefore have no impacts relative to airport safety or land use compatibility.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts that were not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary, and there is no need for any project specific mitigation measures.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded TOP would not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan.
According to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP, the threat of flood is the City’s greatest hazard as large portions of the City are within the flood zone (i.e., the project site is within the 500-year flood zone). Figure S-10 of TOP indicates that Haven Avenue to the west, Airport Drive to the north, and Jurupa Street to the south are designated evacuation routes in the City. The City's Safety Element, as contained within TOP, 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 disasters or emergencies. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impairment of or interference with adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans (SEIR p. 5.9-41).
The project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. Because the project is required to comply with all applicable City codes, any impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 784
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates the City would result in less than significant risks from wildfire hazards. The City is outside of the state responsibility area, and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. The EIR concluded TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to wildland fires (SEIR p. 5.9-42). Figure S-04 from TOP indicates the project site is not within any designated wildfire area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project is residential and commercial in nature and not industrial so it will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded there would be less than significant impacts related to water quality from development activities associated with future development under TOP. Nearly the entire City is developed, and implementation of TOP would not substantially alter the amount of developed land in the City. TOP EIR would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to surface or groundwater quality (SEIR p. 5.10-21).
The PUD project site is already developed and served by City water and sewer service and will not affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids, trash and debris, oil and grease, organic compounds, pesticides, nutrients, heavy metals and bacteria pathogens in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is required to comply with the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) Title 6, Chapter 6 (Stormwater Drainage System). This compliance would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance.
A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) is required to be prepared for the PUD project prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The PWQMP will identify how the site will comply with storm water discharge and water quality management requirements of the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The PWQMP includes site design measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs), such as infiltration, biotreatment and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP would include the use of underground stormwater infiltration systems for both of the PUD project phases of development.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge and supply for TOP. At buildout, TOP is forecast to increase residential units by 25,399 and increase nonresidential square footage by 1,092,508 square feet; future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater 785
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
recharge. TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to impediment of sustainable groundwater management of the basin (SEIR p. 5.10-23).
The PUD Project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (i.e., residential and commercial uses). No increases in the current amount of water flow to the project site are anticipated, and the proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge. The water use associated with the proposed use of the property was included in TOP EIR analysis. For development of the site, grading and excavation is expected to be less than 25 feet and would not reach a depth that could affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be over 200 feet below the ground surface. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. c. 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; Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded that implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts.
Therefore, development would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (SEIR p. 5.10-24).
The site is already developed and the project hydrology report and PWQMP demonstrate that the project will not alter the drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would result in erosion, siltation or flooding on-or-off site, nor will the proposed PUD project increase the erosion of the PUD project site or surrounding areas. The existing drainage pattern of the site will not be altered, and it will have no significant impact on downstream hydrology. Stormwater generated by the project will be discharged in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements. With the full implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program, the project’s potential impact would be reduced to below a level of significance. No streams or streambeds are present on the site. No changes in erosion off-site are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff water in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that the current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City only shows small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are within the 100-year floodplain. In addition to TOP policies, the OMC, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. The City requires that all new structures in a special flood hazard area have elevations above the base flood elevation. Therefore, with implementation of existing policies, the potential to impede or redirect flood flows was considered less than significant (SEIR p. 5.10-25).
The project hydrology report concludes the proposed PUD project will not increase the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm from the site and will not create a burden on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, with the implementation of an approved PWQMP developed for the site, in compliance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit requirements, stormwater runoff volume shall be reduced to below a level of significance.
786
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 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; Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates there are three major regional drainage channels that convey stormwater runoff from the City’s storm drain system—San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, and Day Creek Channel. There are also several flood retention facilities and spreading basins in the City that are used to retain flood flows and recharge the Chino Groundwater Basin. Projects considered for approval under TOP would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies. The methodology for these studies is provided in the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, which describes the approach for estimating stormwater runoff and peak flow rates, for the 100-year storm event (SEIR 5.10- 26). In addition, TOP EIR stated TOP would have a less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation (SEIR p. 5.10-27).
The site is already developed and the PUD project simply reconstructs the site with new residential and commercial land uses. The site is expected to have approximately 85% impervious surfaces (buildings, roofs, parking, sidewalks).
Pursuant to the requirements of TOP, the City’s Development Code, and the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit, individual developments must provide site drainage and PWQMP plans according to guidelines established by the City’s Engineering Department. The City’s development review process requires a project-specific hydro report and a PWQMP to demonstrate that a new development will not have any significant drainage or water quality-related impacts. The PUD project will be required to have an approved hydro report and PWQMP prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
With this regulatory compliance, the PUD project will not increase offsite runoff or change the overall direction of runoff from the site.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR states that the current FIRM for the City only shows small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks that are within the 100-year floodplain.
In addition to TOP policies, the OMC, Chapter 13, Flood Damage Prevention Program, requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. However, Figure S-03 of TOP indicates most of the project site is not within the 500-year or 100-year flood plains, so there will be no flooding impacts relative to the 100-year flood zone. Impacts will be less than significant.
Urbanization in the areas surrounding the project site have resulted in increased responsiveness of the basin to rainfall. The increase in impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots has resulted in a decrease in groundwater infiltration and larger storm surges. The project site currently slopes gently to the southwest and the existing drainage pattern is characterized by sheet flow in that direction.
The PUD project site is not impacted by offsite flows and is not located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel designated Flood Zone Risk, and according to the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) no wetlands or other ponding features exist on the property. The project will lead to the conversion of permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces such as parking areas, building roofs, and building foundation areas. The project site would discharge onsite flows into a combination of onsite infiltrations basins and existing storm drain facilities. As such, the PUD proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. With adherence to existing federal, state, and local regulation, no changes to the existing flood flows would occur. 787
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion of Effects: Figure S-04 of TOP indicates the project site is not within the inundation zones of either the San Antonio Dam to the northwest or overflow of debris basins to the north. Due to its location and surrounding conditions, TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to flood hazards, tsunamis, seiches, or dam inundation (SEIR p. 5.10-27).
Impacts associated with flooding are primarily related to the construction or placement of structures in areas prone to flooding including within an unprotected 100-year flood zone, and in areas susceptible to high tides, tsunamis, seiches, mudflows or sea level rise. Specifically, structures placed in flood prone areas, if flooded, would be damaged, and could subject people to injury or death. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 requires the identification of floodplain areas and establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. FEMA administers the programs and coordinates with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. According to FEMA, the project site is not located in a known floodplain as shown in Figure S-04 of TOP. The project site is located within a flood hazard area identified as “Zone X”, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard. The project site is not located within a 100-year or 500-year flood hazard zone. Furthermore, this area is not known to flood and is not typically subjected to flooding.
The project site is developed and does not contain any vegetation associated with riparian features. No wetlands have been mapped on the project site according to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
According to the FEMA, the project is not located in an area that is subject to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. The project site is located over 55 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is not located in a mapped tsunami zone. Therefore, the PUD project would not have a significant risk of flood hazard, tsunami, seiche zones, release of pollutants due to project inundation.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts related to water quality or groundwater issues. The City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. TOP EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to a conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (SEIR p. 5-10-27).
The Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's anti-degradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the region. The project would be required to adhere to requirements of the water quality control plan, including all existing regulation and permitting requirements. This would include the incorporation of BMPs to protect water quality during construction and operational periods. The PUD project would be subject to all existing water quality regulations and programs, including all applicable construction permits. Existing TOP policies related to water quality would also be applicable to the project. Implementation of these policies, in conjunction with compliance with existing regulatory programs, would ensure that water quality impacts related to the project would be less than significant.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary. 788
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR concluded TOP policies would prevent conflicting land uses and would not divide any established communities. TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to physical division of an established community (SEIR p. 5.11-2).
The project site is developed with commercial buildings but the largest one is currently vacant. Development of the PUD project will allow local residents to again circulate on and around the site in a safe and efficient manner. It will in fact reconnect the existing surrounding neighborhoods by improving the site and having regular ongoing commercial activities along with the residential uses. The project buildings will also be of compatible in size and design with surrounding development. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 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? Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR found that buildout of TOP would not conflict with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including SCAG regional plans and policies and the land use compatibility plans for the Ontario International Airport (OIA) and the Chino Airport.
The project site is just east of the OIA and within its safety and noise impact zones (SEIR p. 5.11-6).
TOP EIR in 2022 evaluated the development of a maximum of 369 residential units and approximately 142,840 square feet of non-residential development on the Overlay Planning Area (including the PUD project site). The PUD project proposes 369 units and approximately 12,000 square feet of non-residential development in Phases 1 and 2, leaving 130,840 square feet of non-residential development to be built in the remainder of the MU-NH area adjacent to the SR-60 Freeway. Development of the proposed PUD would slightly exceed the total number of residential units for this area under the TOP (369 proposed MF units+15 existing SF units = 384 total units vs. 369 TOP projected total units). However, development of the PUD would substantially reduce the amount of anticipated non-residential growth in this sub-area (12,000 SF in the PUD plus 28,000 existing = 40,000 SF vs. 142,840 SF). Therefore, development of the “PUD project” would result in a 4% increase in residential impacts but a 28% decrease in commercial impacts. While this Addendum only covers impacts of the new residential and commercial uses currently proposed under the PUD Project described below, the preceding analysis demonstrates the anticipated impacts of growth in this MU-NH sub-area with the PUD are considered to be equivalent or less than those identified in TOP EIR for this sub-area. Therefore, the proposed PUD project is generally consistent with the MU land use designation and level of growth estimated for the site under the 2022 TOP and the TOP EIR. TOP 2050 has three components: the Vision; a Governance Manual; and the Policy Plan (General Plan).
The Ontario Vision – the central theme adopted by the City Council that motivates the Vision is “A sustained, community-wide prosperity which continuously adds value and yields benefits.” Value is comprehensive in this regard and is expressed in land, revenues, infrastructure, businesses, education, employment, health, community services, recreation, etc. In particular, Ontario is committed to being “A Premier Community by Design.” One of the foundations to accomplish this is described in the Vision as ensuring that development is “distinctive.” The Euclid/Walnut PUD helps the City in realizing specific “Points of Vision” as outlined for “Distinctive Development” as follows:
• A system of vibrant retail, town, and neighborhood centers responsive to market demands and woven into the fabric of the community.
• A demonstrated ability to attract housing in pursuit of our acknowledged responsibility to balance housing with the job growth that drives our quality of life. • Superior quality and design of the built environment and open spaces through careful attention to 789
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
detail at every scale, including public and private spaces and structures.
The Governance Manual – the purpose of the Manual is to institutionalize Ontario’s approach to governance and to provide a “business plan” for the City. Ontario believes that the job of the City is to create, maintain and grow economic value. The overall purpose of the Manual is to guide the City’s leadership and to ensure that TOP 2050 is integrated into the City’s daily operations and provide for effective administration. The Euclid/Walnut PUD is established in conformance with the City’s requirements and includes an administrative section consistent with provisions contained in the Development Code for consideration of “Development Plans.” The Policy Plan (General Plan) – The Land Use Element designates the subject parcels within the Euclid/Walnut PUD as “MU - Mixed Use.” Generally, these properties are developed with an intense mixture of uses that, when concentrated, create focal points for community activity and identify and facilitate walking, biking, and the use of transit. The MU – Mixed Use land use category accommodates a horizontal and/or vertical mixture of retail, service, office, restaurant, entertainment, cultural and residential uses. The densities and intensities of the MU – Mixed Use designation represent the intended level of anticipated development; however, individual projects may vary depending upon an approved master plan, such as a specific plan, or planned unit development.
Implementation of the PUD project will achieve many City goals and policies outlined in The Policy Plan (General Plan). Those specific goals and polices are evaluated in Table 4.
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1 Balance. A community that has a spectrum of
housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
both apartment units and commercial
employment to allow people to live and
work in the City.
Policy LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth
in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks
throughout the City.
Consistent. The PUD project site has
underutilized commercial uses and will be
redeveloped with both housing and retail
uses. It is adjacent to Euclid Ave. and SR60 which facilitates transit.
Policy LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a
variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community
where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where
they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
both apartment units and commercial
employment to allow people to live and
work in the City which is one aspect of a
complete community.
Goal LU-2 Compatibility. Compatibility between a wide
range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.
Consistent. The PUD provides
compatibility for residential uses to the
west and south, commercial uses to the
east, and mixed uses to the north.
Policy LU-2.1 Land Use Decisions. We minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent properties when
considering land use and zoning requests.
Policy LU-2.2 Buffers. We require new uses to provide
mitigation or buffers between existing uses where
potential adverse impacts could occur. Additional
mitigation is required when new uses could negatively
impact environmental justice areas.
Consistent. The PUD project has a
comprehensive wall and fence plan plus
a landscaping plan to provide adequate
buffers from adjacent land uses.
Goal LU-4 Phased Growth. Development that provides
short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.
Consistent. The PUD project divides the
commercial development into two phases
with most of the apartment units being
built in Phase 1.
790
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy LU-4.2 Interim Development. We allow
development in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented
Place Types that is not immediately reflective of our
ultimate Vision for the Place Type, provided it can be
modified or replaced when circumstances are right to
support development aligned with the Place Type Vision.
We will not allow development that impedes, precludes,
or compromises our ability to achieve our Vision.
Consistent. The PUD project divides the
commercial development into two phases
with most of the apartment units being
built in Phase 1.
Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.
Consistent. The PUD requires
necessary utility and infrastructure to be
installed prior to or during development of
new land uses to minimize impacts on
existing systems.
Policy LU-4.4 Shared Infrastructure. We encourage and
facilitate the use of shared infrastructure (including
shared or managed parking) in urban, mixed use, and
transit-oriented Place Types.
Consistent. The PUD project shares
parking between the residential and
commercial uses to maximize
convenience for residents and customers.
Housing Element
Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity. Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of
household income levels, accommodate changing
demographics, and support and reinforce the economic
sustainability of Ontario.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
both apartment units and commercial
employment to allow people to live and
work in the City.
Policy H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize
transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are
architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors.
Consistent. The PUD project is within the
Euclid Avenue corridor and proposes
higher density apartment units consistent
with TOP guidelines.
Policy H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural
excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable
practices, and other best practices.
Consistent. The PUD emphasizes high
quality design and best practices
consistent with Euclid Avenue corridor
design standards.
Policy H-2.6 Infill Development. We support the
revitalization of neighborhoods through the construction of higher-density residential developments on
underutilized residential and commercial sites.
Consistent. The PUD project site has
underutilized commercial uses and will be
redeveloped with both housing and retail
uses consistent with the Euclid Avenue
Overlay requirements.
Goal H-3 Governmental Regulations. A City regulatory
environment that balances the need for creativity and
excellence in residential design, flexibility and
predictability in the project approval process, and the provision of an adequate supply and prices of housing.
Consistent. The project includes a PUD
to emphasize high quality design while
providing 369 new apartment units
adjacent to Euclid Avenue and SR-60 for
transit options.
Policy H-3.2 Flexible Standards. We allow flexibility in the application of residential and mixed-use development standards in order to gain benefits such as exceptional design quality, economic advantages, sustainability, or other benefits that would otherwise be unrealized.
Consistent. The project includes a PUD
to best plan for mixed uses on the site
(i.e., residential and commercial) within
the Euclid Avenue corridor.
Environmental Resources Element
Goal ER-1 Water & Wastewater. A reliable and costeffective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
Consistent. The PUD project will
redevelop an existing underutilized
commercial site using existing utilities.
Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that
available water supply and demands be balanced.
Consistent. The PUD project will utilize
water conservation design and demand
will be similar to that accounted for in TOP
791
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
EIR. PUD will reuse an existing
underutilized infill site.
Policy ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity. We encourage
the use of low impact development strategies, including green infrastructure, to intercept run-off, slow the
discharge rate, increase infiltration, and ultimately reduce discharge volumes to traditional storm drain systems.
Consistent. The PUD will encourage low
impact development through best
management practices (BMPs) for runoff
and water conservation as part of its
Water Quality Management Plan. Policy ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality. We require the control and management of urban run-off, consistent with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations.
Policy ER-1.8 Wastewater Management. We require the
management of wastewater discharge and collection
consistent with waste discharge requirements adopted
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Consistent. The PUD will encourage low
impact development through BMPs for
water conservation which helps reduce
wastewater generation.
Goal ER-3 Energy. Cost-effective and reliable energy
system sustained through a combination of low impact
buildings, site and neighborhood energy conservation,
and diverse sources of energy generation that
collectively helps to minimize the region’s carbon
footprint.
Consistent. The PUD will encourage low
impact development through energy
conservation strategies as outlined in the
City’s TOP and Community Climate
Action Plan (CCAP).
Policy ER-3.3 Building and Site Design. We require new
construction to incorporate energy efficient building and site design strategies, which could include appropriate solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight,
passive solar, and natural ventilation.
Goal ER-4 Air Quality. Improved indoor and outdoor air
quality and reduced locally generated pollutant
emissions.
Consistent. The PUD project will
implement the latest Green Building Code
guidelines which reduces energy use and
related air pollutants. It has both
residential and commercial uses and it is
next to Euclid Ave. and SR-60 which are
transit corridors – both conditions will help
reduce vehicular traffic and associated air
pollutant and GHG emissions.
Policy ER-4.1 Land Use. We reduce GHG and other
local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use,
and transit-oriented development and development that
improves the regional jobs-housing balance.
Community Economics Element
Goal CE-1 Complete Community. A complete
community that provides for all incomes and stages of
life.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
apartment units of various sizes and
commercial uses/employment to allow
people to live and work in the City at
various stages of life.
Policy CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development
community to provide housing opportunities for every
stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing
supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of
existing viable uses.
Policy CE-1.7 Retail Goods and Services. We seek to
ensure a mix of retail businesses that provide the full continuum of goods and services for the community.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
space for various kinds of commercial
uses and employment.
Goal CE-2 Placemaking. A City of distinctive
neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where
people choose to be.
Consistent. The PUD project is intended
to provide a high-quality community hub
for the surrounding neighborhoods along
the Euclid Avenue corridor.
Policy CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new
development and redevelopment to create unique, highquality places that add value to the community. 792
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those
proposing new development and redevelopment to
demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will
compete well with their competition within the region.
Consistent. The PUD demonstrates how
the project will provide a high-quality
community hub for the surrounding
neighborhoods along the Euclid Avenue
corridor.
Safety Element
Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards. Minimized risk of
injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and
other geologic hazards.
Consistent. This TOP EIR Addendum
demonstrates how the PUD project will
not have significant seismic or geologic
risks for future residents and workers.
Policy S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and
Standards. We require that all new habitable structures be designed in accordance with the most recent
California Building Code adopted by the City, including provisions regarding lateral forces and grading.
Consistent. This TOP EIR Addendum
demonstrates how the PUD requires CBC
and OMC compliance which will minimize
seismic and geologic risks for future
residents and workers.
Policy S-1.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We
follow state guidelines and the California Building Code to determine when development proposals must conduct
geotechnical and geological investigations.
Consistent. TOP EIR already included
these investigations and PUD project will
provide a confirmatory project-specific
analysis prior to the issuance of permits.
Goal S-2 Flood Hazards. Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage and economic and social disruption caused by flooding and inundation hazards.
Consistent. This TOP EIR Addendum,
and supporting technical reports,
demonstrate how the PUD is not in a flood
zone which will minimize flood risks for
future residents and workers.
Policy S-2.5 Stormwater Management. We maintain the
storm drain system to convey a 100-year storm, when
feasible, and encourage environmental site design
practices to minimize flooding and increase groundwater recharge, including natural drainage, green
infrastructure, and permeable ground surfaces.
Consistent. TOP EIR already included
these investigations and the PUD project
will have a hydrology report and WQMP
to confirm it will not increase offsite runoff
and be a low impact development.
Consistent with TOP.
Goal S-3 Fire & Rescue Hazards. Reduced risk of death,
injury, property damage and economic loss due to fires, accidents and normal everyday occurrences through
prompt and capable emergency response.
Consistent. The PUD project reutilizes
an existing commercial property in a fully
developed portion of the City which
already has adequate services available.
Policy S-3.1 Prevention Services. We proactively
mitigate or reduce the negative effects of fire, hazardous materials release, and structural collapse by
implementing the regularly adopted California Fire Code and California Building Code.
Consistent. The City’s development
review process requires compliance with
the CFC and CBC prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Policy S-3.8 Fire Prevention through Environmental
Design. We require new development to incorporate fire
prevention consideration in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Consistent. The PUD demonstrates the
project has a number of buildings with
landscaping and open space that will
provide adequate fire safety.
Goal S-4 Noise Hazards. An environment where noise
does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
Consistent. TOP EIR already included
these investigations and
required subsequent site-specific interior
noise studies to confirm TOP EIR
conclusion. PUD will provide the required
study prior to issuance of building permits
to demonstrate noise along Euclid
Avenue will not impact residents.
Policy S-4.1 Noise Mitigation. We utilize the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and
Consistent. The City’s development
review process requires compliance with
793
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
development codes to mitigate noise impacts. the CBC and City Noise Ordinance to minimize noise impacts along the Euclid
Avenue corridor.
Goal S-5 Wind-Related Hazards. Minimize the risk of
injury, property damage, and economic loss resulting
from windstorms and wind-related hazards.
Consistent. The PUD project will
implement CBC requirements regarding
wind design for new buildings.
Policy S-5.1 Dust Control Measures. We require the
implementation of Best Management Practices for dust
control at all excavation and grading projects.
Consistent. The PUD project will
implement TOP EIR Mitigation Measures
AQ 3-1 through 3-3 which includes dust
control measures.
Goal S-7 Law Enforcement. Residential neighborhoods,
commercial areas, and industrial districts that are kept safe through a multi-faceted approach of prevention,
suppression, and community involvement in public
safety.
Consistent. The City’s development
review process includes an evaluation by
the Police Department regarding
defensible space, crime prevention, and
police patrol services (i.e., CPTED).
Policy S-7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED). We require new development to
incorporate CPTED in the design of streetscapes, sites, open spaces, and buildings.
Community Design Element
Goal CD-1 Image & Identity. A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a
positive sense of identity and belonging among
residents, visitors, and businesses.
Consistent. The PUD project provides
both apartment units and commercial
employment to allow people to live and
work in the City which enhances the
feeling of community.
Policy CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in
urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new
development within each Place Type to incorporate
prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking
priorities.
Consistent. This mixed-use project is
intended to provide an attractive, high
quality community hub for the
surrounding neighborhoods along the
Euclid Avenue corridor which is
demonstrated by the PUD document.
Goal CD-2 Design Quality. A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public
spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human- scale, and distinct.
Policy CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture.
We encourage all development projects to convey visual
interest and character through:
1. Building volume, massing, and height to provide
context-appropriate scale and proportion;
2. A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
3. Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
Policy CD-2.4 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented
Areas. We establish Place Types to require mixed use,
urban, and transit-oriented areas to be designed and
developed as pedestrian oriented areas that are
integrated with adjacent neighborhoods and promote a
vibrant, comfortable, and functional environment, as
794
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
defined for each Place Type.
Policy CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the
development community to design and build
neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces,
landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand
through solar orientation, maximum use of natural
daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building
materials, and construction techniques.
Consistent. The PUD will encourage low
impact development through energy
conservation strategies as outlined in the
City’s TOP and Community Climate
Action Plan (CCAP).
Policy CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible
space design into new and existing developments to
ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on
pathways, corridors, and open space and at building
entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and
visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and
accessibility, and using lighting.
Consistent. The City’s development
review process includes an evaluation by
the Police Department regarding
defensible space, crime prevention, and
police patrol services (i.e., CPTED). The
PUD outlines how the project will provide
or foster these conditions.
Policy CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage
durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping
materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of
structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
Consistent. The PUD project has a
comprehensive Landscaping Plan which
will utilize native plants, minimize water
use, and be attractive for project
residents, workers, and customers.
Policy CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work
collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high
degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely
processing of all development plans and permits.
Consistent. The PUD will help expedite
the development processing for the
project by providing comprehensive
development-related information about
the mixed-use project to be completed in
two phases.
Goal CD-3 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-Oriented
Place Types. Vibrant urban environments that are
organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and
transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and
within developments that are conveniently located,
visually appealing and safe during all hours.
Consistent. This mixed use project is
intended to provide an attractive, high
quality community hub with public spaces
for the project residents, workers, as well
as surrounding neighborhoods along the
Euclid Avenue corridor, all of which is
demonstrated by the PUD document
including architecture, urban design and
layout, landscaping and hardscape areas
with public spaces, and articulation with
surrounding uses and the Euclid Avenue
corridor.
Policy CD-3.1 Unique Identity. We promote
development that heightens the unique character and
identity of each Place Type by requiring compatible land uses and land planning, site design, and building design that promotes an active public realm.
Policy CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design.
We require appropriate building and site design that
complements existing development, respects the intent
and identity of the Place Type, and provides appropriate transitions and connections between adjacent uses to
ensure compatibility of scale, maintain an appropriate
level of privacy for each use, and minimize potential
conflicts.
Policy CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively
pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building,
business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to
sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize
safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).
795
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
Table 4: TOP Consistency Analysis
TOP Element, Goals, and Policies Consistency Analysis
Policy CD-3.6 Managed Infrastructure. We collaborate
with developers and property owners to facilitate
development that realizes the envisioned character and
functionality of the Place Type through the use of green and shared infrastructure within each Place Type.
Consistent. The PUD project has
integrated mixed uses with open space
and landscaping that provides low impact
development through energy and water
conservation strategies, as outlined in the
City’s TOP and Community Climate
Action Plan (CCAP).
Source: PUD, September 2022 PUD = Planned Unit Development Table 4 demonstrates the proposed PUD project is consistent with the various applicable TOP goals and policies. Therefore, the PUD project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There will be no impacts and no project specific mitigation is required.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
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?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR indicates there are two areas in Ontario that are designated Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) where significant mineral resources are known or are likely. The remainder of the City is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s ProductionConsumption maps (SEIR p. 5.12-6). The project site is not within the portions of the City designated as MRZ-2.
The PUD project site is developed and surrounded by urban land uses in all directions. There are no known mineral resources so no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation required.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 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: TOP EIR indicates there are two areas in Ontario that are designated Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) where significant mineral resources are known or are likely. The remainder of the City is designated Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s ProductionConsumption maps (SEIR p. 5.12-6).
The PUD project site is not within the portions of the City designated as MRZ-2. There are no known mineral resources in the area so no impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 796
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
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: TOP EIR found stationary and transportation noise impacts of future development under TOP to be less than significant with implementation of Safety Element Policy S-4.1, Noise Mitigation, which utilizes the City’s Noise Ordinance, building codes, and subdivision and development code regulations to reduce noise from future development projects (SEIR p. 5.13-32).
The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR as mixed use (with residential and commercial uses).
Due to the nature of the project, it is not expected to expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of the standards established in TOP EIR (Section 5.12). The project site is surrounded on all sides by urban development with multi-family residential uses to the west, single family residential uses to the south, and mixed uses to the north. The SR-60 Freeway is north of the existing mixed-use area.
The PUD project proposes residential and commercial development which is consistent with existing surrounding land uses. The PUD specifies that a parking management plan will organize loading and unloading in proximity to both the residential and non-residential uses to help minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. In addition, noise shall be addressed as part of the parking management plan submitted to the Planning Director and trash receptacles/recyclable container storage areas will be provided for all residential and commercial uses. Such receptacle/storage area may receive trash from commercial and residential sources. The PUD project must also demonstrate compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance through the development review process.
TOP EIR evaluated potential noise impacts in the City as the result of future development and recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure MM NOI 12-1 to address potential site-specific noise impacts along major roadways in the City. With implementation of TOP EIR MM NOI 12-1, potential noise impacts of the proposed PUD land uses will be less than significant and no project-specific mitigation is required.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: The PUD project site is adjacent to Euclid Avenue, a major roadway, and a portion of the site falls within the roadway’s 65 dBA CNEL contour. TOP EIR contains Mitigation Measure MM NOI 12-1 to address site specific noise impacts along major roadways:
NOI 12-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits for any project that involves a noise-sensitive use within the 65 dBA CNEL contour along major roadways, freeways, railroads, or the Ontario International Airport, the project property owner/developers shall retain an acoustical engineer to conduct an acoustic analysis and identify, where appropriate, site design features (e.g., setbacks, berms, or sound walls) and/or required building acoustical improvements (e.g., sound transmission class rated windows, doors, and attic baffling), to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Compatibility Criteria and the California State Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 and 21 of the California Code of Regulations). b. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Discussion of Effects: The project proposes commercial and residential uses consistent with TOP Policy Plan. The site was previously analyzed by the TOP EIR as supporting both residential and commercial uses (i.e., mixed use). TOP EIR indicates these types of uses do not normally induce significant ground-borne vibrations because they do not typically involve equipment or activities which result in large vibrations (e.g., blasting, impact compaction, handling of large boulders, etc.). Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. 797
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or the noise impact zones of the airport land use compatibility plan for ONT and Chino Airports, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion of Effects: The Land Use Element of TOP states that all new developments surrounding airports should be consistent with the adopted ALUCP and should meet standards and recommendations of Part 77 of the FAA, adopted through Ordinance 2758 in the Ontario Municipal Code. Section 9.3.e. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, indicates the site is not within the hazard or influence area of either the Ontario International Airport or the Chino Airport. Therefore, there are no impacts and no mitigation required.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP FEIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
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: TOP EIR identified less than significant impacts associated with population and housing increases. TOP allows the City to accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City (SEIR p. 5.14-11).
The proposed PUD project is consistent with the Mixed-Use TOP land use designation. The project site was previously analyzed by TOP EIR with both residential and commercial uses so it would generate additional housing and population which was already calculated in TOP EIR.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: The purpose of TOP is to adequately plan and accommodate future growth through the distribution, location, balance, and extent of land uses. Implementation of TOP 2050 would accommodate population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. The EIR concluded TOP would have less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to displacement of people and housing (SEIR p. 5.14-12). The PUD project site is all commercial does not contain any existing housing, nor is it designated or zoned for residential uses.
The PUD will result in the 10.6-acre MU-NH sub-area to exceed its residential growth projection in TOP by 4% while reducing the planned non-residential growth in the sub-area by 28%, On balance these changes are minimal and will not result in any significant housing or growth impacts.
The PUD project will therefore not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required.
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:
798
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015
i. Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined TOP would result in an increase in development and population, which would result in increased demand on fire protection services. The EIR indicated that existing facilities and services would not be adequate to meet increased demand from growth under TOP.
Therefore, the Fire Department was planning on adding facilities and/or services as demand increases.
With implementation of TOP policies and Fire Department review of new development, impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.15-3).
The PUD project site is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Fire Department. The Project is consistent with TOP land use designations, and TOP EIR states the City will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities in this portion of the City. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. ii. Police protection?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR determined TOP would result in an increase in development and population, which would result in increased demand on police protection services. The EIR indicated that existing staffing would not be adequate to meet increased demand from growth under TOP. Therefore, the Police Department is planning on adding facilities and/or services as demand increases. With implementation of TOP policies and Police Department review of new development, impacts will be less than significant (SEIR p. 5.15-7).
The site was previously developed and is in a developed area currently served by the Ontario Police Department. It is not anticipated the project will contribute to the need for construction of any new police facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. No impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No site-specific mitigation is required.
iii. Schools?
Discussion of Effects: TOP EIR identified impacts to school facilities and services as less than significant upon payment of SB 50 school impact fees (SEIR p. 5.15-14).
The PUD project proposes mixed uses (i.e., residential apartments and retail commercial uses) which are expected to generate school-aged students that require educational facilities or services. The project will be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits, which is considered adequate mitigation under CEQA. No impacts are anticipated.
The PUD project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts not previously considered and addressed in TOP EIR. No changes or additions to TOP EIR analyses are necessary.
Mitigation: No project specific mitigation is required. iv. Parks?
Discussion of Effects: TOP would generate additional residents, increasing the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, TOP EIR concluded this would not result in a significant impact as long as development of park facilities keeps pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout (SEIR p. 5-15-14).
The site is in a developed area currently served by the City in terms of parks and recreational services. The project has both a residential and commercial component and will provide onsite recreational amenities.
Due to the size of the residential portion of the project (369 apartments), the PUD project will not require the construction of any new park facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the 799
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File Nos.: PDEV22-027, PUD22-004, PHP22-015