Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, November 21, 2023 (part 14 of 17)

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 8/16/2023
File No: PSPA22-006
Related Files: PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034
Project Description: An amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial and make graphic and textual modifications throughout to support the change, on 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller Avenue and Wanamaker Avenue, within the proposed Light Industrial Land Use Designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan; (APNs: 0238-201-41 and 0238-221-22); submitted by Link Logistics Real Estate Management LLC.

Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
Phone: 909.395.2416 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:

2.1 Specific Plan Amendment. The following shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment:
(a) Two copies of the final Specific Plan document – double-sided, bound, color;
(b) One CD or flash drive containing a complete copy of the final Specific Plan document with all required revisions in the following formats:
(i) An accessible editable format (e.g. Microsoft Word, InDesign), including all required revisions;
(ii) One complete PDF copy;
3730
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PSPA22-006

Page 2 of 2 ends

(iii) A complete electronic website version broken down by chapter, optimized for web. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, the historical resolutions appended to the front of the document may be separated out as their own PDF.

2.2 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 any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. 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.

2.3 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.

2.4 Related Applications. Specific Plan Amendment approval shall not be final and complete until such time that related File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034 have been approved by the Planning Commission and the related Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR has been approved by the City Council.

2.5 Additional Requirements.
(a) Per the findings of the related Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR, Appendix D, Phase I ESA, the Project shall not be converted to a commercial land use without further environmental analysis.
(b) Planning staff shall work with the applicant after Project approval to finalize the Specific Plan document. Updates include, but may not be limited to, the addition of the final Specific Plan Amendment approval information to the document (amendment file number, City Council Resolution number, approval date); the addition of the final amended Specific Plan document to the City website; and making any final modifications to the document as needed for clarity and consistency.
3731
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Robert Morales
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Thomas Grahn
Staff Member Presenting:

Scott Murphy, Executive Director Community
Development
Reviewed By: Kimberly Ruddins, Rudy
Zeledon, Scott Murphy
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND DESIGNATIONS (FILE NO. PGPA23-001) AND ZONE CHANGES (FILE NO. PZC23- 003) ON VARIOUS PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
November 21, 2023
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider the following:

A. Adopt a Resolution approving the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364); B. Adopt a Resolution for an amendment to the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan to modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) changing the land use designation; and
C. Introduce and waive further readings of an Ordinance approving a Zone Change application (File No. PZC23-003) to rezone.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: There are no direct fiscal impacts anticipated with the adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. Any potential long-term fiscal impact and anticipated expenditures to the City would be offset by development impact fees and property tax revenues from the future development.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS:

On August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted the Ontario Plan 2050 Update (TOP 2050) to align the 3732
On August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted the Ontario Plan 2050 Update (TOP 2050) to align the City's Policy Plan with state housing mandates and new legislation addressing various community aspects. This initiative prompted a zoning consistency project to ensure the City's Zoning Map corresponds to the TOP 2050 Policy Plan's goals, as mandated by Government Code Section 65860.

On March 28, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss proposed Zone Changes (File No. PZC22-001) in line with the adopted TOP 2050 Update Land Use Plan. These changes supported mixed-use development, fulfilling Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing requirements, and addressed underutilized properties along the Holt Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route. During the hearing, residents who live near the Project sites A1 (south of 5th Street, west of Mountain Avenue) and C2 (north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue) expressed concerns about increased traffic, potential parking issues, and privacy loss due to higher-density residential development near single-family homes. Despite these concerns, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council approval of the zone changes (6-0) while recommending that the City Council consider retaining the existing zoning for Areas A1 and C2, as a result of public feedback.

On April 18, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing to deliberate on proposed zone changes aimed at updating the official Zoning Map. Following deliberations, the City Council unanimously approved all zone changes (6-0), with exception to Areas A1 and C2, which sought to transition Area A1 from LDR-5 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district and Area C2 from MDR-25 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district to HDR45 (High-Density Residential) zoning district. The City Council instructed Staff to revert the General Plan designations in these areas to their previous land use designations.

General Plan Amendment — The City of Ontario has initiated requests to amend its General Plan and Official Zoning Map. These amendments involve changes to land use designations and zoning designations for multiple parcels of land within the city. The proposed modifications include:

Modify land use designations for 3.8 acres from High-Density Residential (25.1-45 dus/acre) to Mixed Use – Downtown located north of D Street, south of E Street, and to the west of Laurel Street. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A-1);
As directed by City Council for area A1, modify land use designations for 9.3 acres from Medium-Density Residential (11.1-25 dus/acre) to Low-Density Residential (2.1-5 dus/acre) located south of 5
th Street and west of Mountain Avenue. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A-2); As directed by City Council for area C2, modify land use designations for 4.7 acres from HighDensity Residential (25.1-45 dus/acre) to Medium-Density Residential (11.1-25 dus/acre) located north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A-3);
Modify land use designations for 9.8 acres from Business Park to Mixed Use – East Holt located on the north side of Holt Boulevard, 800 feet east of Imperial Street. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit A-4)
Modify text in the Land Use Designation Summary Table (Exhibit LU-02) to allow Civic uses within the Mixed-Use Downtown land use designation. (See Attachment 1, Exhibits B and C) Zoning Map Amendment — The City of Ontario has initiated requests to amend its Official Zoning 3733
Map, involving changes to zoning districts for multiple parcels of land within the City. The proposed modifications include:

Rezone 3.8 acres of land from HDR-45 (High-Density Residential 25.1-45 dus/acre)) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) located north of D Street, south of E Street, and to the west of Laurel Street. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit D-1)
Rezone 9.8 acres of land from BP (Business Park) to MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use) located on the north side of Holt Boulevard, 800 feet east of Imperial Street. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit D-2)
Rezone 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) located on the southwest corner of Sultana Avenue and D Street. (See Attachment 1, Exhibit D-3)
Analysis: The City's proposal involves revising the land use designations and rezoning of additional properties to mixed-use within specific areas. These areas encompass properties located in the Downtown area to the north of D Street, south of E Street, and to the west of Laurel Street, extending to include the southwest corner of D Street and Campus Avenue. The City proposes to incorporate Civic Land Uses within the downtown area to foster a more dynamic and adaptable environment, in support of the revitalization of the downtown district.

Rezoning of the properties includes properties located on the north side of Holt Boulevard approximately, 800 feet east of Imperial Street to Mixed Use designation to support opportunities for residential and commercial developments along the East Holt Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route.

In compliance with Senate Bill 330 (known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019), rezoning of properties to higher residential densities is required to comply with the provision of ‘No Net Loss of Zoning Capacity’, mandating that the City maintain its existing residential capacity. Under SB 330, local governments are prohibited from reducing the zoning capacity for residential development unless they provide equivalent zoning elsewhere within the jurisdiction. This requirement ensures that the overall housing capacity remains consistent.

With the proposed land use changes, the total assumed buildout for the City would result in an additional 58 units, to the City’s total housing capacity of 129,562 units (TOP 2050 Table LU-03). As there is an increase in overall unit capacity, the City remains fully compliant with the provisions of SB 330.

On October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. The Planning Commission concluded the hearing on that date and unanimously voted (7-0) to recommend the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council.

Community Meetings: Over the past year, the City has organized several neighborhood meetings, one of which took place on November 21, 2022, at City Hall. During this meeting, Staff presented an overview of File No. PDEV22-013, a Development Plan for a 27,835-square-foot, 2-story fire station.

This Project site is the same site where the proposed Zone Change aims to rezone 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) at the southwest corner of D 3734
Street and Sultana Avenue. Three community members attended the meeting to learn more about the project, and Staff addressed their questions. Notably, there was no opposition to the Project.

On February 22, 2023, the Planning Department conducted a neighborhood meeting regarding a Project involving Zone Changes (File No. PZC22-001) in different areas of the City. The meeting included the participation of 50 community members and City Staff received 6 email inquiries.

Participants included residents from 5
th Street and Princeton Street (refer to Attachment 1, Exhibit A-2) West Holt (refer to Attachment 1, Exhibit A-3) who shared their concerns during the meeting.

Comments included fears of high-rise multiple-family units negatively impacting existing neighborhoods, increased on-street parking issues, elevated traffic congestion, and potential delinquency and loitering problems. In response, the Planning Department clarified that the Project aimed to align with City policies, future developments would adhere to zoning standards, parking concerns would be addressed, traffic impacts would be evaluated, and measures to address security and loitering would be taken in coordination with the Police Department and Community Improvement.

On October 5, 2023, the Planning Department conducted an in-person Open House at the Ontario Senior Center, presenting an overview of File Nos. PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003, General Plan Amendment and Zone change for an approximately 10-acre parcel situated near Imperial Avenue and Holt Avenue. Five community members attended the meeting, and they expressed concerns regarding potential construction impacts, including noise, vibration, and traffic along Holt Boulevard. Staff clarified that the meeting's primary objective was to inform residents and property owners about the zoning and General Plan change and that no development proposal is currently in place.

Housing Element Compliance: As noted previously, local jurisdictions are required to maintain their Housing Element Sites Inventory in compliance with Government Code Section 65583. This inventory must consistently accommodate the jurisdiction's regional housing needs throughout the planning period.

The proposed General Plan Amendment will alter the land use designation for a 4.7-acre Project site situated to the north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue (refer to Attachment 1, Exhibit A-3). The affected property is presently listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, specifically found within Tables B-1 and B-2 (Map ID Nos. 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-9 & 2-10) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

Local jurisdictions have the flexibility to decrease residential density for specific parcels if they identify sufficient alternative sites to ensure that there is no overall reduction in City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligations. The removal of the subject property from the inventory will not affect the RHNA capacity, as the City maintains an adequate number of sites to meet the RHNA requirement.

Environmental: 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. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of Project approval and are 3735
incorporated herein by this reference.
3736
Attachment 1: General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
Exhibit A: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Downtown Mixed Use A-1
A-1
3737
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Low Density Residential A-2
A-2
3738
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential A-3
A-3
3739
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Business Park Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – East Holt Mixed Use A-4
A-4
3740
Exhibit B: FUTURE BUILDOUT
3741
3742
3743
3744
Exhibit C: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION TABLE (LU-02)
3745
Exhibit D: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
Existing Zone: HDR-45 (High Density Residential—25.1 to 45.0 DU/Acre) Zoning District Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-1
D-1
3746
Existing Zone: BP (Business Park) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-2
D-2
3747
Existing Zone: OL (Low Intensity Office) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-3
D-3
3748
Case Planner: Robert Morales, Assistant Planner Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB
PC 10/24/2023 Recommend
Submittal Date: July 12, 2023 CC 11/21/2023 Final
FILE NOS: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
SUBJECT: A City initiated amendment to the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan to: [1] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) changing the land use designation for 3.8 acres of land from High-Density Residential to Mixed Use - Downtown, [2] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) changing the land use designation for 9.3 acres of land, from Medium-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential, [3] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) changing the land use designation for

4.7 acres of land from High-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential, [4] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) and Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) changing the land use designation for 9.8 acres of land from Business Park to Mixed Use – East Holt, and [5] Modify the text in the Land Use Designation Summary Table (Exhibit LU-02) to allow Civic uses within the Mixed-Use Downtown land use designation, and a Zone Change request to amend the Official Zoning Map: [1] rezoning 3.8 acres of land from HDR-45 (HighDensity Residential) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use), [2] rezoning of 9.8 acres of land from BP (Business Park) to MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use), and [3] rezoning 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) (APNs: 0110-072-25, 0110-081- 06, 0110-081-07, 1008-551-01, 1008-551-07, 1008-551-11, 1008-551-12, 1008-551-13, 1008- 561-06, 1010-491-02, 1010-491-03, 1010-491-16, 1048-344-03, 1048-353-04, 1048-353-05, 1048-353-09, 1048-353-13, 1048-353-14, 1048-541-15, 1048-576-01, 1048-576-02, 1048-604- 13, 1048-604-14, and 1048-604-15); City Council Action Is Required.

PROPERTY OWNER: Various
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and adopt the following:
(1) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)(State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2022;
(2) Adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, File No. PGPA23-001, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached Resolution; and
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
October 24, 2023
Approval
3749
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 2 of 18 ends

(3) Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the Zone Change, File No. PZC23-003, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolution.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — On August 16, 2022, the Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) was adopted to align the City's Policy Plan (General Plan) with state housing mandates and new legislation addressing various community aspects. This initiative prompted a zoning consistency project to ensure the City's Zoning Map corresponds to the TOP 2050 Policy Plan's goals, as mandated by Government Code Section 65860. The City is currently processing requested General Plan Amendments and associated Zone Changes for the following:
(a) General Plan Amendment — The City of Ontario has initiated requests to amend its General Plan and Official Zoning Map. These amendments involve changes to land use designations and zoning designations for multiple parcels of land within the city.

The proposed modifications include:
 Modify land use designations for 3.8 acres from High-Density Residential to Mixed Use - Downtown. Located on properties in the Downtown area to the north of D Street, south of E Street, and to the west of Laurel Street. (Exhibit A-1)  Modify land use designations for 9.3 acres from Medium-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential. Located om properties south of 5th Street and west of Mountain Avenue. City Council directed. (Exhibit A-2)
 Modify land use designations for 4.7 acres from High-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential. Located north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue. City Council directed. (Exhibit A-3)  Modify land use designations for 9.8 acres from Business Park to Mixed Use – East Holt. Located on the north side of Holt Boulevard 800 feet east of Imperial Street. (Exhibit A-4)
 Modify text in the Land Use Designation Summary Table (Exhibit LU-02) to allow Civic uses within the Mixed-Use Downtown land use designation. (Exhibits B and C) (b) Zoning Map Amendment — The City of Ontario has initiated requests to amend its Official Zoning Map, involving changes to zoning districts for multiple parcels of land within the City. The proposed modifications include:
 Rezone 3.8 acres of land from HDR-45 (High-Density Residential) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use). Located on properties in the Downtown area to the north of D Street, south of E Street, and to the west of Laurel Street. (Exhibit D-1)  Rezone 9.8 acres of land from BP (Business Park) to MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use).

Located on the north side of Holt Boulevard 800 feet east of Imperial Street. (Exhibit D-2)
3750
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 3 of 18 ends

 Rezone 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use). Located on the southwest corner of Sultana Avenue and D Street. (Exhibit D-3)
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS: The City has conducted neighborhood meeting over the last year and includes a neighborhood meeting held on November 21, 2022, presented an overview of File No. PDEV22-013, for the southwest corner of D Street and Sultana Avenue.

On February 22, 2023 a neighborhood meeting was held regarding File No. PZC22-001, for zoning consistency of 9.3 acres of land located on properties south of 5th Street and west of Mountain Avenue to be zoned from LDR-5 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district to MDR-18 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district and 4.7 acres located north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue from MDR-25 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning district to HDR-45 (High-Density Residential) zoning district. During this neighborhood meeting members of the public requested that the zone changes remain unchanged. Subsequently, City Council instructed staff to revert the General Plan land Use Plan to align with the existing zoning map.

On October 5, 2023, the Planning Department conducted an in-person Open House at the Ontario Senior Center, presenting an overview of File Nos. PGPA23-001 and PZC23- 003, General Plan Amendment and Zone change for a 10-acre parcel situated near Imperial Avenue and Holt Avenue. A total of five community members attended the meeting. Attendees expressed concerns regarding potential construction impacts, encompassing issues including noise, vibration, and traffic along Holt Boulevard. Staff reaffirmed that the meeting's primary objective was to inform residents and property owners about the zoning and general plan change, clarifying that no development proposal is currently in place. Staff reaffirmed residents that they would receive notifications when entitlement applications are formally submitted.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

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

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment A."
3751
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 4 of 18 ends

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

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

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Operate in a Businesslike Manner.
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods. (2) Vision.

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

Decision Making:
3752
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 5 of 18 ends

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

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The proposed General Plan Amendment action modifying land use designations for 4.7 acres from High-Density Residential to MediumDensity Residential, located north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue (Exhibit A-3), is not consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan component of The Ontario Plan. The property is listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and inconsistent with the number of dwelling units or density specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory; therefore, a General Plan Amendment to remove the subject property from the Housing Element Sites Inventory is required. Removal of the subject property from the inventory will not impact the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") obligations, as there are an adequate number of sites in the inventory to meet the RHNA obligation.
3753
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 6 of 18 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of this Project were previously reviewed in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) which was adopted by the City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002. An Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 SEIR was prepared to address the environmental effects of the project. 3754
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 7 of 18 ends

Exhibit A: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Downtown Mixed Use A-1
A-1
3755
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 8 of 18 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Low Density Residential A-2
A-2
3756
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 9 of 18 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential A-3
A-3
3757
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 10 of 18 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Business Park Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – East Holt Mixed Use A-4
A-4
3758
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 11 of 18 ends

Exhibit B: FUTURE BUILDOUT
3759
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 12 of 18 ends

3760
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 13 of 18 ends

3761
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 14 of 18 ends

3762
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 15 of 18 ends

Exhibit C: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION TABLE (LU-02)
3763
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 16 of 18 ends

Exhibit D: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
Existing Zone: HDR-45 (High Density Residential—25.1 to 45.0 DU/Acre) Zoning District Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-1
D-1
3764
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 17 of 18 ends

Existing Zone: BP (Business Park) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-2
D-2
3765
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 18 of 18 ends

Existing Zone: OL (Low Intensity Office) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District.

D-3
D-3
3766
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-084

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 CERTIFIED

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364), FOR WHICH AN INITIAL STUDY

WAS PREPARED, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS.

PGPA23-001 AND PZC23-003.

WHEREAS, in August 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No.2021070364), adopted an update to The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (general plan) and the Preferred Land Use Plan, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, an addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for File No. PZC23-003, (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum"), all 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 and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("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
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 a General Plan Amendment (File No.

PGPA23-001) and Zone Change (File No. PZC23-003) application; and 3767
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003 - Addendum
October 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is the recommending body for the General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA23-001) and Zone Change (File No. PZC23-003), therefore approval will not be final and complete until it has been approved by the City Council; 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 Environmental Impact Report 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 are, 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) adopted by 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 assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and 3768
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003 - Addendum
October 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

(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 EIR 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 3769
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003 - Addendum
October 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

(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: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby 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 EIR, and does hereby recommend that the City Council APPROVES the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: 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 5: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3770
3771
3772
Planning Commission Resolution
File Nos. PGPA23-001 & PZC23-003 - Addendum
October 24, 2023

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050)
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
3773
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Supplemental Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title/File Nos.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

3. Contact Person: Robert Morales, Assistant Planner, Phone: (909) 395-2432

4. Project Sponsor: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

5. Project Location: The Project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. 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 on Figures 1 and 2, below, the Project site is located at various properties located throughout the City.

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Project Site
3774
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 2 of 58 ends

Figure 2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
3775
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 3 of 58 ends

3776
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 4 of 58 ends

3777
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 5 of 58 ends

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Various

7. Zoning Designation: Various

8. Description of Project:
a. A City initiated request to amend the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan to:
i. [1] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) changing the land use designation for 3.8 acres of land from High-Density Residential to Mixed Use - Downtown, ii. [2] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) changing the land use designation for 9.3 acres of land, from Medium-Density Residential to Low-Density Residential,
iii. [3] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) changing the land use designation for 4.7 acres of land from High-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential,
iv. [4] Modify the Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) changing the land use designation for 9.8 acres of land from Business Park to Mixed Use – East Holt, and v. [5] Modify the text in the Land Use Designation Summary Table (Exhibit LU-02) to allow Civic uses within the Mixed-Use - Downtown land use designation. b. A City-initiated Zone Change request to amend the Official Zoning Map:
i. [1] rezoning 3.8 acres of land from HDR-45 (High-Density Residential) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use),
ii. [2] rezoning of 9.8 acres of land from BP (Business Park) to MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use), and
iii. [3] rezoning 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use).

9. Project Setting: As illustrated in Figure 1, the Project site is located is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario.

10. Analysis: According to the California Environmental Quality Act (“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:
a. 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 and project implementation will not require revisions to TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the final buildout of the Official Land Use Plan. TOP 2050 SEIR assumes the same overall development at buildout as shown below.
3778
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 6 of 58 ends

TOP Buildout Analysis Units Population Non-Residential
Square Footage Jobs
Buildout per current TOP
2050 SEIR 129,562 410,492 261,491,779 296,002
Buildout per Proposed
Project
129,620
+58
410,643
+151
261,417,457
(74,322)
295,776
(226)
Since the anticipated buildout change is minor, no revisions to TOP 2050 SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. b. 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 2050 SEIR in that the proposed zoning changes are consistent with what was analyzed under the TOP 2050 SEIR; therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.
c. 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 2050 SEIR; therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval are incorporated herein by reference. The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a 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 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).)
3779
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 7 of 58 ends

Under CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; or
ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; or
iii. 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 iv. 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 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 properly adopt an addendum to the Certified SEIR.

Conclusion: TOP 2050 SEIR was prepared as a Supplemental EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA, and in accordance with Section 15121(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). The SEIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP. Consequently, the SEIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City’s Official Land Use Plan and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth. The proposed land use designation changes coordinate with the existing uses of the properties and uses within the surrounding areas. The Project will not result in a change in the final buildout projections (TOP Buildout Analysis, page 10). Subsequent activities within TOP 2050 SEIR have been evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared.

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the previously certified TOP 2050 SEIR, the analysis above, the attached Initial Study, and CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP SEIR.

No changes or additions to TOP SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council hereby adopts this Addendum to TOP SEIR.
3780
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 8 of 58 ends

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None

12. 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

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
3781
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 9 of 58 ends

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 Certified The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Certified TOP 2050 SEIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, the analysis from the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR prepared for this project was used as a basis for this Addendum, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date: October 24, 2023
Printed Name: Robert Morales, Assistant Planner For: City of Ontario

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 onsite, 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 3782
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 10 of 58 ends

if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from the "Earlier Analyses” Section may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3783
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 11 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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 Dept. 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3784
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 12 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3785
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 13 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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 wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3786
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 14 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 offsite; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3787
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 15 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3788
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 16 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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) 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3789
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 17 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15065(a).)
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 selfsustaining 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 the potential to achieve shortterm environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) 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.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) 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 County 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. 3790
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 18 of 58 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project will not have a significant adverse effect aesthetically. As provided in TOP 2050 SEIR, the City of Ontario’s physical setting lends opportunities for many views of the community and surrounding natural features, including panoramic views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains and stretches of open space and undeveloped land south of Riverside Drive. TOP 2050 SEIR provides that compliance with TOP Policy CD-1.5 in the Community Design Element will avoid significant impacts to scenic vista by making it the policy of the City to protect public views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The Project does not permit construction of new buildings and so does not conflict with Policy CD1.5 in the Community Design Element as it will not alter existing public views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Since no adverse aesthetic impacts are expected, no mitigation is necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion of Effects: As provided in TOP 2050 SEIR, the City of Ontario 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. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR-60 have not been officially designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. Remnants of native vegetation are virtually absent. The general aesthetic character of this project area within OMC is urban and within Ontario Ranch is predominantly agricultural. The proposed Project will not disturb historic buildings, or any scenic resources identified on or in the vicinity of the Project area.

No impact on scenic resources would occur as a result of implementation of the Project and no mitigation measures would be required. In addition, the TOP 2050 SEIR provides that compliance with TOP Policy CD-1.5, CD-2.5, and CD-4.2 in the Community Design Element will avoid significant impacts to scenic vista by making it the policy of the City to protect scenic resources.

Development Code of the City’s Municipal Code, requires that individual development projects 3791
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 19 of 58 ends

submit to site-specific review pursuant to the City of Ontario processes. These design guidelines and standards would regulate the features of buildings and streets that affect the public realm and would guide the physical development of any development project within the City’s boundaries. Therefore, TOP would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the City of Ontario. Implementation of the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the TOP 2050 SEIR provides that compliance with TOP Community Design Element will avoid significant impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Page 20 of 58 ends

Discussion of Effects: The sites in the Project are not zoned for agricultural use. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on any of the subject sites. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
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: No land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning provide designations for forest land. The TOP 2050 SEIR provides that compliance with TOP Environmental Resources Element will avoid significant impacts to loss of farmland. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest 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? 3793
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 21 of 58 ends

Discussion of Effects: The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan. As noted in TOP 2050 SEIR (Section 5.3 (Air Quality)), pollutant levels in the Ontario area already exceed Federal and State standards. To reduce pollutant levels, the City of Ontario is actively participating in efforts to enhance air quality by implementing Control Measures in the Air Quality Management Plan for local jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Basin.

TOP 2050 SEIR has addressed short-term construction impacts, however, and adequate mitigation (Mitigation Measure(s) MM 3-1 and AQ-1) have been adopted by the City that will help reduce emissions and air quality impacts. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

The proposed Project is consistent with The Ontario Plan, for which the SEIR was prepared, and impacts evaluated. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the City's participation in the Air Quality Management Plan and, because of the project's limited size and scope, will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the plan.

Mitigation: No new mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Discussion of Effects: The Project 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 of the scope of the project. Although no impacts are anticipated, the Project will still comply with the air quality standards of the TOP 2050 SEIR and the SCAQMD resulting in impacts that are less than significant.

Short term air quality impacts will result from construction related activities associated with construction activity, such as excavation and grading, machinery and equipment emissions, vehicle emissions from construction employees, etc. The daily emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates from resulting grading and vehicular emissions may exceed threshold levels of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Page 22 of 58 ends

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Section 5.3 of TOP 2050 SEIR, the proposed Project is within a non-attainment region of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and any new contribution of emissions into the SCAB would be considered significant and adverse. Adequate mitigation (Mitigation Measure(s) MM 3-1 and AQ-1) have been adopted by the City that will reduce air pollutants to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located within an area that has not been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Page 23 of 58 ends

addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
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 2050 SEIR requires implementation of regulatory and standard conditions of approval to mitigate for impacts to species and project specific CEQA review will be undertaken at the appropriate time. Policy ER-5.1 in the Environmental Resources Element encourages efforts to protect biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: Implementation of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5.

In addition, Title 9, Division 4.02.050. Historic Preservation -Certificate of Appropriates and Demolition of Historic Resources of the City of Ontario Municipal Code protects sensitive historical resources of local interest. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.
3796
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 24 of 58 ends

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP 2050 SEIR (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. While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at these sites due to their urbanized nature, standard conditions will be imposed on future development that in the event of unanticipated archeological discoveries, construction activities will not continue or will 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 proposed Project is located in an area that has undergone previous development, and there are no known religious or sacred sites within the Project area. While it is not expected that human remains will be encountered during construction activities, should such a discovery occur, existing regulations, including California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, provide protection for human remains found during development.

Furthermore, standard conditions will be imposed on future development. In the event unanticipated discoveries of human remains are made during excavation or construction activities, the area will not be disturbed until any necessary investigations are completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation has been conducted, as deemed applicable.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: The Project would have no impact relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources as there is no construction or operations proposed on the Project. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. 3797
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 25 of 58 ends

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: 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). The TOP SEIR (Section 5.7/Figure 5.7-2) identifies eight active or potentially active fault zones near the City.

Given that the closest fault zone is located more than ten miles from the project site, fault rupture within the project area is not likely. All development will comply with the Uniform Building Code seismic design standards to reduce geologic hazard susceptibility. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: 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). The Land Use Plan (Figure LU-6) of the Policy Plan (General Plan) SEIR (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 ten miles from the project site. The proximity of the site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will be in compliance with the California Building Code, the Ontario Municipal Code, The Ontario Plan and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Page 26 of 58 ends

addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: As identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR (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.

Depth to ground water at the project site during the winter months is estimated to be between 250 to 450 feet below ground surface. Therefore, the liquefaction potential within the project area is minimal. Implementation of TOP strategies, Uniform Building Code, and the Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: The Project will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the scope of the Project. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. Compliance with the California Building Code 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 NPDES program, the Environmental Resource Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) strategies, Uniform Building Code, and the Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Page 27 of 58 ends

significant. TOP 2050 (Section 5.7) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The Project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. Further, implementation of TOP strategies, Uniform Building Code, and the Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

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: As part of TOP 2050 SEIR, The City updated the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP). The CCAP serves as the programmatic tiering document for review of the climate change impacts of projects under CEQA. The 2022 CCAP is included in the TOP 2050 SEIR.

The CCAP includes a greenhouse gas inventory baseline for the Year 2019, a future "business-asusual" projection of greenhouse gas emissions for the Year 2030 and Year 2050, an emissions reduction target consistent with the State's emissions reduction goals, an implementation plan identifying specific measures, and a timeline for implementation of said measures to reach the reduction targets for Year 2030 and Year 2050.

The CCAP is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (California Code of Regulations Section 15183.5). This allows the 2022 CCAP to support and streamline environmental review of GHG emissions for future development projects in the City. Therefore, the Project will not introduce new GHG emissions beyond those previously analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR.
3800
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 28 of 58 ends

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: The Proposed project is consistent with TOP Goal ER-4 (Air Quality) of improving air quality. The implementation of Policy ER-4.3, regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is in accordance with regional, State, and federal regulations.

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: The Project will have no impacts relating to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, to release of hazardous materials, and to emission and handling materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Page 29 of 58 ends

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Discussion of Effects: The proposed 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.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
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: Per the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones & Influence Areas) of TOP, the proposed site falls within the airport land use plan. However, it's important to note that the Project will not pose a safety hazard to individuals working or residing in the area, as it will not obstruct aircraft maneuvering. Additionally, the ALUCP designates the Project area for uses consistent with the 60-65 and 65-70 CNEL noise zones. In accordance with Land Use Element Policy LU-5.2, the City is committed to coordinating with airport authorities to ensure that the Proposed Land Use Plan aligns with the established master land use plans and compatibility plans for both Chino Airport and Ontario International Airport (ONT). As a result, the Project is not anticipated to generate adverse impacts.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Furthermore, the Project is committed to adhering to the requirements set forth by the Ontario Fire Department and all City regulations related to fire safety and emergency access. Given the 3802
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 30 of 58 ends

Project's obligation to comply with all applicable City codes, it is expected that any potential impacts would be effectively mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any other water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or potential for discharge of storm water pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? Discussion of Effects: The Project area currently benefits from City water and sewer services, and its use will not introduce new effects on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The implementation of the Project aligns with all local, state, and federal regulations governing water quality and waste discharge. There are no new impacts anticipated beyond those already identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR (refer to TOP Policies ER-1.5, ER-1.6, and ER-1.7).

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Discussion of Effects: The Project will not result in increased water flow to the site, nor will it deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge. The City has already adopted adequate policy measures (as outlined in ER-1.5, ER-1.6, and ER-1.7) to effectively mitigate potential groundwater impacts to a level that is less than significant. No new impacts beyond those identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR are anticipated as a result of Project implementation.

Page 31 of 58 ends

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm or potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Discussion of Effects: Policy Measures (ER-1.5, ER-1.6 and ER-1.7) have already been adopted by the City that would reduce impacts to existing hydrology patterns to a less-thansignificant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site or potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff to cause environmental harm? Discussion of Effects: The Project would not involve conversion of permeable soils to an impermeable surface, resulting in an increase in surface runoff. Policy Measures (ER-1.5, ER-1.6 and ER-1.7) have already been adopted by the City that would reduce impacts to existing hydrology patterns to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (a&b) during construction and/or post-construction activity?
Discussion of Effects: The Project would not involve conversion of permeable soils to an impermeable surface, resulting in an increase in surface runoff. Policy Measures (ER-1.5, ER-1.6 and ER-1.7) have already been adopted by the City that would reduce impacts to existing hydrology patterns to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

Page 32 of 58 ends

significant. No new impacts beyond those previously identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR are expected as a result of Project implementation.

Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Page 33 of 58 ends

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: The implementation of the Project is not expected to result in physical improvements that would divide an established community. Additionally, the application of Land Use Policies LU-2.3, LU-2.4, LU-2.5, and LU-2.6 has been designed to minimize conflicts between potentially contradicting land uses. Consequently, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

As such no conflicts or impacts are anticipated.

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: The Project site is situated within a primarily developed urban area, and there are no known mineral resources in the vicinity. As a result, there are no anticipated impacts.

Page 34 of 58 ends

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: There are no known mineral resources in the area. No impacts are anticipated.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Discussion of Effects: The City has already implemented sufficient mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, and 12-4) to reduce severe noise levels to a point that they no longer pose a significant concern. The implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts beyond those previously identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR.

Page 35 of 58 ends

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Discussion of Effects: The implementation of the Project itself would not result in a significant temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity compared to the levels existing without the Project. The City has already adopted adequate mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, and 12-4) to reduce noise impacts to a level deemed less than significant. Therefore, no new impacts beyond those identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR would arise from Project implementation.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
e. For a project located within 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 implementation of the Project itself would not subject residents or workers in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The City has already adopted adequate mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 12-1) to reduce noise impacts to a level deemed less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new impacts beyond those identified in the TOP 2050 SEIR resulting from Project implementation.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial 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: On July 7, 2021, the NOP for the TOP 2050 SEIR was circulated, establishing the baseline environmental conditions. During that assessment, the population growth for the entire City was included in the baseline conditions and analyzed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. The Project will not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth beyond what was previously analyzed in the TOP 2050 SEIR.
3808
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 36 of 58 ends

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: The Project area is located in a developed area that is currently served by the Ontario Fire Department. The Project will not necessitate the construction of new facilities, alterations to existing facilities, or a decline in service levels that might trigger the need for new facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Page 37 of 58 ends

facilities, alterations to existing facilities, or a decline in service levels that might trigger the need for new facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion of Effects: On July 7, 2021, the NOP for the TOP 2050 SEIR was circulated, thereby establishing the baseline environmental conditions. During that assessment, the potential increases in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities associated with the site were included in the baseline conditions. As a result, the Project will not 3810
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 38 of 58 ends

generate new demands for other recreational facilities beyond those previously analyzed in the TOP SEIR.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited?
Discussion of Effects: When the TOP 2050 SEIR was prepared, the impacts associated with land use were incorporated into the baseline conditions. As such, the Project is proposed to align with the TOP. The Project will not introduce any new traffic impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the TOP SEIR.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion of Effects: The Project is situated in an area that is predominantly developed, with all street improvements already in place. It will not pose conflicts with any applicable congestion management program or adversely affect the level of service standards on adjacent arterials, given that the number of trips to be generated is minimal compared to the existing capacity within the congestion management program. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.

Page 39 of 58 ends

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Discussion of Effects: The implementation of the Project would not alter air traffic patterns.

As a result, these impacts are deemed less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Page 40 of 58 ends

Discussion of Effects: The Project does not conflict with any transportation policies, plans or programs. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

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)? Discussion of Effects: None of the subject sites within the Project area are listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. Changing the zoning on these sites will not result in greater impacts than those previously identified in the Certified TOP EIR. However, in accordance with TOP SEIR Mitigation Measure 5-4, for projects requiring a General Plan amendment and defined cultural resource mitigation under CEQA for potential tribal resources, the project applicant must notify the designated tribe(s) before issuing grading permits. The applicant will collaborate with the City of Ontario and tribal representatives to establish mitigation measures covering tribal monitors' roles during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities, scheduling, compensation terms, and the treatment and final disposition of cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario has the authority to determine project conditions within its jurisdiction. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed Project will not impact Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) or Native American artifacts related to TCRs, and no additional mitigation measures are recommended.

Mitigation: No new mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary. b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Discussion of Effects: None of the subject sites in the Project area are in the California Register of Historic Resources. No impacts are anticipated through Project implementation.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
3813
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 41 of 58 ends

Discussion of Effects: The Project itself will not require the construction or use of a sewer or septic tank, and as such, no mitigation measures are necessary. No impacts are anticipated resulting from Project implementation.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary. No impacts are anticipated through Project implementation. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion of Effects: The Project in itself will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. However, future roadway construction may impact and alter existing storm water drainage systems. Nevertheless, adequate Policies (ER-1.5, ER-1.6 and ER-1.7) have already been adopted by the City that would reduce stormwater impacts to lessthan-significant levels, with no additional mitigation required.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is served by the City of Ontario water system. There is currently sufficient water supply available to the City of Ontario to serve this Project as per the findings of TOP 2050 SEIR. No impacts are anticipated.

Page 42 of 58 ends

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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?
Discussion of Effects: No intensification of uses would occur that could result in increased demand for sewer facilities other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP 2050 SEIR. Therefore, the Project will not increase demands on wastewater. No impacts would result.

No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Page 43 of 58 ends

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No new mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary. 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? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation: No new mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary. d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located in or near a state responsibility area nor is it located in or near lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not have the potential to reduce wildlife habitat and threaten a wildlife species; therefore, no environmental impacts resulting from the Project are anticipated.

Page 44 of 58 ends

22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion of Effects: The proposed Project does not have the potential to reduce wildlife habitat and threaten a wildlife species. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Page 45 of 58 ends

c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) Discussion of Effects: When the TOP 2050 SEIR was prepared, the impacts associated with the Project area were included in the baseline conditions. Here, the Project is being proposed to be consistent with the established land use pursuant to the TOP. The Project will not result in any new cumulatively considerable impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in the TOP SEIR.

Therefore, the Project will not result in adverse impacts.

EARLIER ANALYZES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.

Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):

1. Earlier analyzes used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
(a) The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (b) The Ontario Plan
(c) The Ontario Land Use Plan
(d) The Ontario Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (e) The Ontario Plan CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.

2. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.

Most of the checklist items were analyzed in the TOP 2050 SEIR, the Project does not permit the introduction of any new uses that were not part of the Project description in TOP 2050 SEIR.

Therefore, the Project will not result in any new impacts beyond what was previously analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR.
3818
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 46 of 58 ends

MITIGATION MEASURES
(For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
The Mitigation Measures contained in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR adequately mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project. These mitigation measures are contained in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program.

No additional mitigation beyond that previously imposed is required. 3819
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 47 of 58 ends

Exhibit A: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
3820
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 48 of 58 ends

3821
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 49 of 58 ends

3822
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 50 of 58 ends

3823
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 51 of 58 ends

Exhibit B: FUTURE BUILDOUT
3824
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 52 of 58 ends

3825
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 53 of 58 ends

3826
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 54 of 58 ends

3827
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 55 of 58 ends

Exhibit C: PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION TABLE (LU-02)
3828
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 56 of 58 ends

Exhibit D: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
3829
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 57 of 58 ends

3830
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 58 of 58 ends

3831
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-085

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PGPA23-001, AN AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY PLAN (GENERAL PLAN) COMPONENT OF THE ONTARIO PLAN TO: [1] MODIFY THE LAND USE PLAN (EXHIBIT LU-01) AND EXHIBIT LU-03 (FUTURE BUILDOUT) CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR

3.8 ACRES OF LAND FROM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE - DOWNTOWN, [2] MODIFY THE LAND USE PLAN (EXHIBIT LU-01) AND EXHIBIT LU-03 (FUTURE BUILDOUT) CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 9.3 ACRES OF LAND, FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, [3] MODIFY THE LAND USE PLAN (EXHIBIT LU-01) AND EXHIBIT LU-03 (FUTURE BUILDOUT) CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4.7 ACRES OF LAND

FROM HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, [4] MODIFY THE LAND USE PLAN (EXHIBIT LU-01) AND EXHIBIT LU-03 (FUTURE BUILDOUT) CHANGING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 9.8 ACRES OF LAND FROM BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE – EAST HOLT, AND [5] MODIFY THE TEXT IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION SUMMARY TABLE (EXHIBIT LU-02) TO ALLOW

CIVIC USES WITHIN THE MIXED-USE DOWNTOWN LAND USE
DESIGNATION. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—
APN: 0110-072-25, 0110-081-06, 0110-081-07, 1008-551-01, 1008-551- 07, 1008-551-11, 1008-551-12, 1008-551-13, 1008-561-06, 1010-491-02, 1010-491-03, 1010-491-16, 1048-344-03, 1048-353-04, 1048-353-05, 1048-353-09, 1048-353-13, 1048-353-14, 1048-576-01, 1048-576-02, 1048-604-13, 1048-604-14, AND 1048-604-15. (SEE ATTACHMENTS 1 AND 2) (PART OF CYCLE 4 FOR THE 2023 CALENDAR YEAR)
WHEREAS, City of Ontario has filed an Application for the approval of a General Plan Amendment, File No. PGPA23-001, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of The Ontario Plan in January 2010. Since the adoption of The Ontario Plan, the City has evaluated Exhibits LU-01: Official Land Use Plan and LU-03: Future Buildout further and is proposing modifications; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes to Exhibit LU-01 Official Land Use Plan include changes to land use designations of certain properties shown on Exhibit A to align the land use designations of these properties with the City's continuous endeavors to facilitate and improve future development and land use patterns as outlined in The Ontario Plan; and
3832
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, Policy Plan Exhibit LU-03 (Future Buildout) specifies the expected buildout for the City of Ontario, incorporating the adopted land use designations. The proposed changes to Exhibit LU-01 (Official Land Use Plan) will require that Exhibit LU03 (Future Buildout) is modified to be consistent with Exhibit LU-01 (Official Land Use Plan), as depicted on Exhibit B, attached; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario conducted an Open House on October 5, 2023, to gain input from impacted property owners; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Resolution adopting an Addendum to the Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) adopted by City Council on August 16, 2022, for File No. PGPA20-002. The Addendum finds that the proposed project introduces no new significant environmental impacts, and all previously adopted mitigation measures were incorporated into the Project by reference; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body 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:
3833
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364 ("Certified EIR"), which was certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and (2) The 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 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 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 EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR 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 EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR 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 EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
3834
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; 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 (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.

The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

SECTION 4: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan as follows:

Policy Plan (General Plan)
3835
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 5 ends

Land Use Element:
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be; and
(2) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City; and (3) The Land Use Element is a mandatory element allowed four general plan amendments per calendar year and this general plan amendment is the first amendment to the Land Use Element of the 2023 calendar year consistent with Government Code Section 65358; and
(4) The proposed General Plan Amendment action modifying land use designations for 4.7 acres from High-Density Residential to Medium-Density Residential, located north of Holt Boulevard, west of San Antonio Avenue, and east of Boulder Avenue (Exhibit A-3), is not consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan component of The Ontario Plan. The property is listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and inconsistent with the number of dwelling units or density specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory; therefore, a General Plan Amendment to remove the subject property from the Housing Element Sites Inventory is required. Removal of the subject property from the inventory will not impact the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") obligations, as there are an adequate number of sites in the inventory to meet the RHNA obligation; and
3836
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 6 ends

(5) During the amendment of the general plan, opportunities for the involvement of citizens, California Native American Indian tribes (Government Code Section 65352.3.), public agencies, public utility companies, and civic, education, and other community groups, through public hearings or other means were implemented consistent with Government Code Section 65351.

SECTION 5: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the proposed General Plan Amendment, as depicted in Attachment 1 (Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision) and Attachment 2 (Future Buildout Table (Exhibit LU-03) Revision) of this Resolution.

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3837
3838
3839
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 9 ends

ATTACHMENT 1: Policy Plan Land Use Plan (Exhibit LU-01) Revision Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Low Density Residential 3840
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 10 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential 3841
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 11 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Downtown Mixed Use 3842
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 12 ends

Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Business Park Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – East Holt Mixed Use 3843
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 13 ends

ATTACHMENT 2: Future Buildout Table (Exhibit LU-03) Revision 3844
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 14 ends

3845
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 15 ends

3846
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PGPA23-001
October 24, 2023

Page 16 ends

3847
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-086

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE FILE NO. PZC-23-003, A ZONE CHANGE REQUEST TO
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP: [1] REZONING 3.8 ACRES OF LAND FROM HDR-45 (HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO MU-1
(DOWNTOWN MIXED USE), [2] REZONING OF 9.8 ACRES OF LAND FROM BP (BUSINESS PARK) TO MU-6 (EAST HOLT MIXED USE), AND [3] REZONING 5.75 ACRES OF LAND FROM OL (LOW-INTENSITY
OFFICE) TO MU-1 (DOWNTOWN MIXED USE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0110-072-25, 0110-081-06, 0110-081- 07, 1048-344-03, 1048-353-04, 1048-353-05, 1048-353-09, 1048-353-13, 1048-353-14, 1048-541-15, 1048-576-01, AND 1048-576-02.

WHEREAS, The Zoning Map amendment includes the following:

1. Rezoning 3.8 acres of land from HDR-45 (High-Density Residential) to MU1 (Downtown Mixed Use).

2. Rezoning 9.8 acres of land from BP (Business Park) to MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use).

3. Rezoning 5.75 acres of land from OL (Low-Intensity Office) to MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use); and
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Planning Department held an in-person community meeting attended by 5 community members; and
WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ONT ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
3848
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution recommending the City Council approve the use of an Addendum to TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, which indicated that all potential environmental impacts from the Project were less than significant or could be mitigated to a level of less than significance; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified SEIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified SEIR and supporting documentation, the Planning Commission recommends City Council find as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the City of Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and
3849
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 3 ends

(2) The 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 assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) The 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
(5) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts; and (6) The proposed project will introduce no new significant environmental impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Certified SEIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2: Subsequent or Supplemental 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 Certified SEIR 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; or
(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 previously identified significant effects; or (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
3850
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 4 ends

(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 (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are 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 TOP.

SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as "ONT"), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ALUCP.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
3851
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 5 ends

(1) The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan as follows:

Land Use Element:
 Goal LU1: A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
 LU-1.6: 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.

Compliance: The proposed Zone Change will reflect the existing uses of the properties or closely coordinates with land use designations in the surrounding area and provides opportunities for choice in living environments.
 Goal LU2: Compatibility between a wide range of uses.  LU-2.1: Land Use Decisions. We minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties when considering land use and zoning requests.

Compliance: The proposed Zone Change reflects the existing uses of the properties or closely coordinates with land use designations in the surrounding area and will not create adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
 Goal LU5: Integrated airport systems and facilities that minimize negative impacts to the community and maximize economic benefits.  LU-5.7: ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. We comply with state law that requires general plans, specific plans and all new development be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for any public use airport.

Compliance: The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Ontario Airport ALUCP.

Safety Element — Noise Hazards:
 Goal S4: An environment where noise does not adversely affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.
3852
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 6 ends

 S-4.6: Airport Noise Compatibility. We utilize information from Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans to prevent the construction of new noise sensitive land uses within airport noise impact zones.

Compliance: The City is proposing zone changes across the City, as illustrated in Exhibit A, to align with the TOP Vision. Furthermore, these zoning adjustments are an integral component of the City's continuous endeavors to influence and improve future development and land use patterns as outlined in The Ontario Plan. (2) The proposed Zone Change would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed zoning changes are compatible with the existing zoning and land uses in the surrounding area. In addition, Land Use Policies LU-2.3, LU-2.4, LU-2.5, and LU-2.6 would reduce the amount of conflict between contradicting land uses.
(3) The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The implementation of the Project would not lead to physical improvements that could potentially divide an established community. Moreover, the Land Use Policies LU-2.3, LU-2.4, LU-2.5, and LU-2.6 would serve to minimize conflicts between conflicting land uses. As a result, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
(4) The subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel sizes, shapes, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The proposed zone changes are aimed at facilitating the systematic development of the Project sites. This will be achieved by rezoning parcels that constitute the Project sites, rendering it physically conducive for any anticipated future development and associated permitted land uses.

SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application, as detailed in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 7: 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 8: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3853
3854
3855
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 9 ends

Exhibit A: File No. PZC23-003 Proposed Zone Change
Existing Zone: HDR-45 (High Density Residential—25.1 to 45.0 DU/Acre) Zoning District Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District. 3856
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 10 ends

Existing Zone: BP (Business Park) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use) Zoning District. 3857
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PZC23-003
October 24, 2023

Page 11 ends

Existing Zone: OL (Low Intensity Office) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District. 3858
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN
2050 CERTIFIED SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364), FOR WHICH AN

INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR
FILE NOS. PGPA23-001 AND PZC-23-003.

WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) (State Clearinghouse No.2021070364), adopted an update to The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (general plan) and the Preferred Land Use Plan, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario prepared and approved for attachment to the Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, an addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for File Nos. PGPA23-001 and PZC-23-003, (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum"), all 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 and identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified SEIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
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, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-084, recommending that the City Council approve the use of an Addendum and conclude that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and further recommending that the City Council take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
3859
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making authority for the General Plan Amendment (File No.

PGPA23-001) and Zone Change (File No. PZC-23-003) application; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or 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, 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the City Council 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 City Council, the City Council 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) adopted by 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 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 City Council; and
3860
(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 SEIR Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council 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 (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. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby 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 APPROVES the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. 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. 3861
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
3862

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2023- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023, by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
3863
ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050)
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
3864
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Supplemental Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title/File Nos.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

3. Contact Person: Robert Morales, Assistant Planner, Phone: (909) 395-2432

4. Project Sponsor: City of Ontario, 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036

Figure 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
Project Site
3865
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 2 of 58 ends

Figure 2: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
3866
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 3 of 58 ends

3867
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 4 of 58 ends

3868
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 5 of 58 ends

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Various

7. Zoning Designation: Various

9. Project Setting: As illustrated in Figure 1, the Project site is located is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the Project and project implementation will not require revisions to TOP 2050 SEIR. TOP 2050 SEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP; focusing on changes to land use associated with the final buildout of the Official Land Use Plan. TOP 2050 SEIR assumes the same overall development at buildout as shown below.
3869
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 6 of 58 ends

CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a 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 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).)
3870
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 7 of 58 ends

No changes or additions to TOP SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City Council hereby adopts this Addendum to TOP SEIR.
3871
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 8 of 58 ends

11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None

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
3872
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 9 of 58 ends

Signature: Date: October 24, 2023
Printed Name: Robert Morales, Assistant Planner For: City of Ontario

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 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 3873
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 10 of 58 ends

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.

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.

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3874
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 11 of 58 ends

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3875
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 12 of 58 ends

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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3876
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 13 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3877
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 14 of 58 ends

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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3878
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 15 of 58 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

16. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3879
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 16 of 58 ends

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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
3880
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 17 of 58 ends

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey County 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. 3881
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 18 of 58 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

Development Code of the City’s Municipal Code, requires that individual development projects 3882
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 19 of 58 ends

Page 20 of 58 ends

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
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: No land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). Neither TOP nor the City’s Zoning provide designations for forest land. The TOP 2050 SEIR provides that compliance with TOP Environmental Resources Element will avoid significant impacts to loss of farmland. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in conversion of forest land to non-forest 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? 3884
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 21 of 58 ends

Page 22 of 58 ends

Page 23 of 58 ends

In addition, Title 9, Division 4.02.050. Historic Preservation -Certificate of Appropriates and Demolition of Historic Resources of the City of Ontario Municipal Code protects sensitive historical resources of local interest. No new impacts beyond those identified in TOP 2050 SEIR would result from Project implementation.
3887
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 24 of 58 ends

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: TOP 2050 SEIR (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. While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at these sites due to their urbanized nature, standard conditions will be imposed on future development that in the event of unanticipated archeological discoveries, construction activities will not continue or will 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.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: The Project would have no impact relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources as there is no construction or operations proposed on the Project. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. 3888
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 25 of 58 ends

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion of Effects: 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). The Land Use Plan (Figure LU-6) of the Policy Plan (General Plan) SEIR (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 ten miles from the project site. The proximity of the site to the active faults will result in ground shaking during moderate to severe seismic events. All construction will be in compliance with the California Building Code, the Ontario Municipal Code, The Ontario Plan and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Page 26 of 58 ends

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Discussion of Effects: The Project will not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil because of the scope of the Project. Grading increases the potential for erosion by removing protective vegetation, changing natural drainage patterns, and constructing slopes. Compliance with the California Building Code 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 NPDES program, the Environmental Resource Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) strategies, Uniform Building Code, and the Ontario Municipal code would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Page 27 of 58 ends

Ontario City CouncilNovember 21, 2023

Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023