Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, November 21, 2023 (part 15 of 17)

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.
3891
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 3893
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.
3899
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 3901
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?
3904
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.

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. 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?
3906
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

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.
3909
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. 3910
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
3911
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 48 of 58 ends

3912
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 49 of 58 ends

3913
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 50 of 58 ends

3914
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
3915
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 52 of 58 ends

3916
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 53 of 58 ends

3917
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 54 of 58 ends

3918
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)
3919
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
3920
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 57 of 58 ends

3921
Addendum to Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for The Ontario Plan 2050 File No.: PGPA23-001 and PZC23-003

Page 58 of 58 ends

3922
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 1 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 on August 16, 2022. 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 involve adjusting land use designations for specific properties shown on Exhibit A to align with the long-term goals, principles, and policies of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) that are designed to fulfill Ontario's Vision; and
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 LU-03 3923
(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 Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; 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, 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, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution Nos. PC23-084 and PC23-085, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on November 21, 2023, the City Council approved 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 November 21 2023, the City Council 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 City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:
3924
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body 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 The Ontario Plan 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) The 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.
(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 EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the 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 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 3925
(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, that shows any of the following:
(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.
(1) 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 decision-making body for the Project, the City Council 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 City Council, 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; and SECTION 4. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of The Ontario Plan as follows:
3926
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.

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
(a) ; 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
3927
(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. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby 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 City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.

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
3928

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)
3929
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 3930
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Medium Density Residential 3931
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – High Density Residential Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Downtown Mixed Use 3932
Existing Policy Plan Land Use Designation – Business Park Proposed Policy Plan Land Use Designation – East Holt Mixed Use 3933
EXHIBIT B: Future Buildout Table (Exhibit LU-03) Revision 3934
3935
3936
3937
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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, City of Ontario ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Zone Change application, File No. PZC-23-003, as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Zoning Map amendment includes the following:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the Planning Department held an in-person community meeting attended by 5 community members; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved Resolution No. PC23-084, recommending the City Council approve a Resolution adopting an Addendum to the Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002. The Addendum finds that the proposed project introduces no new significant environmental impacts.

Furthermore, all mitigation measures previously adopted with the Certified Environmental Impact Report are incorporated into the Project by reference; and WHEREAS, the City's "Local 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; and
3938
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport ("ONT"), 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, 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, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution Nos. PC23-084 and PC23-086, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on November 21, 2023, the City Council approved a resolution adopting an Addendum to a previous Certified EIR 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 significance; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, the City Council 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 Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Ontario, as follows:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the previous Certified EIR and supporting documentation, the City Council finds as follows:
3939
(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002.
(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 recommended bodies; 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 EIR, and all mitigation measures previously adopted by the Certified EIR, are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the 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 Certified EIR 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:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
3940
(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.
(1) 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 decision-making body for the Project, the City Council 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 CITY COUNCIL, 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; and SECTION 4. Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Section 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(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.

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.
3941
 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.
 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 zone 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.
3942
(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 size, shape, 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 5. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Application.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 9. Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. 3943
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _________ 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
3944

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 Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held November 21, 2023 and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 20___ by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
3945
Exhibit A: File No. PZC-23-003 Proposed Zone 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. 3946
Existing Zone: BP (Business Park) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-6 (East Holt Mixed Use) Zoning District. 3947
Existing Zone: OL (Low Intensity Office) Zoning District.

Proposed Zone: MU-1 (Downtown Mixed Use) Zoning District. 3948
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Jeanie Irene T Aguilo
Staff Member Presenting:

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

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 23
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSPA21-005)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
November 21, 2023
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider and adopt:

A. A Resolution adopting the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) for the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
B. A Resolution approving File No. PSPA21-005, an Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (File No. PSPA21-005), to include: [1] the annexation of 113.2 gross acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and establish Planning Area 32 (Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac), Planning Area 33 (Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac), and Planning Area 34 (School); [2] change the land use designation for Planning Area 30 from Conventional Large Lot (3-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac) and Planning Area 31 from Conventional Medium Lot (4-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac); [3] establish development standards for 7 new residential product types; and [4] various changes to the Specific Plan land use map, land use table, development standards, exhibits, and text modification to reflect the proposed annexation and land use changes.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Maintain the Current High Level of Public Safety
Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Pursue City's Goals and Objectives by Working with Other Governmental Agencies Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment. Any potential long-term fiscal impacts and anticipated expenditures to 3949
the City would be offset by development impact fees and property tax revenues from the future development. Additionally, future development projects approved on the subject properties will be conditioned to form/join a services Community Facilities District to offset increased costs associated with police, fire, and other public services.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: On April 21, 2015, the City Council approved an Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (File No. PSPA14-002) and an Addendum to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) to increase the residential unit count by 99 dwelling units, for a total unit count of 2,392 dwelling units within the Specific Plan area. The Amendment included updates to the development standards, exhibits, and text changes to reflect the proposed annexation and overall compliance with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan (“Policy Plan”).

On June 15, 2021, the City Council approved an Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (File No. PSPA14-002) and an Addendum to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) to increase the overall density from 4.8 to 4.9 dwelling units per gross acre and establish a new residential product type (Motorcourt Cluster D – 8-Plex). The proposed change increased the number of units within Planning Area 27 (Cluster Homes – 7-14 du/ac) from 47 to 73 dwelling units, for a total unit count of 2,418 dwelling units.

On August 16, 2022, the City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Update Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) in conjunction with The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) (File No. PGPA20-002) General Plan update. The TOP 2050 and SEIR included the following land use changes within the Subarea 29 Specific Plan boundary (see Figure 2: TOP Official Land Use Plan Comparison (TOP 2010/TOP 2050):

Planning Area 30 – Changing 8.3 acres of land from Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac) to Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac), Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac), and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac);
Planning Area 31 – Changing 10.7 acres of land from Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac) to Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to

25.0 du/ac);
Proposed Planning Area 32 (Annexation Area) – Changing 15.4 acres of land from Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac) and Public School to Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) and Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac); Proposed Planning Area 33 (Annexation Area) – Changing 49.6 acres of land from LowMedium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) to Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac);
Proposed Planning Area 34 (Annexation Area) – Changing 20 acres of land from Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac) to Public School.

On August 23, 2021, SL Ontario Development Company, LLC, submitted an Amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan for the annexation of 113.2 gross acres of land to bring the Specific Plan into compliance with TOP Policy Plan (General Plan) land uses. The Amendment to Subarea 29 would establish Planning Area 32 (Mixed Use Residential (5-25 DU/AC), Planning Area 33 (Mixed Use residential (5-25 DU/AC), and Planning Area 34 (School). In addition, the Amendment would covert 3950
Subarea 29 Planning Area 30 from Conventional Large Lot (3-6 DU/AC) to Mixed Use Residential (5- 25 DU/AC) and Planning Area 31 from Conventional Medium Lot (4-6 DU/AC) to Mixed Use Residential (5-25 DU/AC), and establish development standards for 7 new product types within the residential land use designation.

AMENDMENT: The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) includes the following:
1) Annexation. The Amendment includes the annexation of 113.2 gross acres of land located on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and establishment of Planning Area 32 (Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac), Planning Area 33 (Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac), and Planning Area 34 (School). Planning Areas 32 and 33 will encompass 93.2 acres while Planning Area 34 will encompass 20 acres.

Planning Area 32 – Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac), totaling 43.6 gross acres of land (42.5 net acres), is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and will allow 671 dwelling units at a density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre.

Planning Area 33 – Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac) totals 49.6 gross acres of land (47.6 net acres) is located at the southwest corner of Mill Creek Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and will allow 644 dwelling units at a density of 13.5 dwelling units per acre.

Planning Area 34 is located at the northeast corner of Haven and Merrill Avenue and will include 20 gross acres of land (19 net acres) for the development of a future middle school.

This school would serve the 6th through 8th grade school needs in the Mountain View School District.
2 ) TOP Policy Plan Land Use Map Consistency. To achieve consistency with the TOP 2050 Official Land Use Plan (Figure LU-01) and bring the Specific Plan into compliance, the SPA proposes to change the land use designation for Planning Area 30 from Conventional Large Lot (3-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac) and Planning Area 31 from Conventional Medium Lot (4-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac).

Planning Area 30 – Planning Area 30 will total 21.8 gross acres of land (21.1 net acres), and is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Planning Area 22 to the west, the SCE Easement to the east, and Parkview Street to the south. The SPA is proposed to change this area from Conventional Medium Lot (4-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac) and will allow 180 dwelling units at a density of 8.5 dwelling units per acre; and Planning Area 31 – Planning Area 31 will total 16.1 gross acres of land (15.5 net acres), and is bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, the SCE Easement to the west, Haven Avenue to the east, and Parkview Street to the south. The SPA proposes to change this area from Conventional Large Lot (3-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/ac) and will allow 172 dwelling units at a density of 11.1 dwelling units per acre.

Overall, there will be a net increase of 1,470 dwelling units allowed within the Specific Plan Area going from 2,418 units to 3,888 total units.
3 ) Residential Product Types. The Subarea 29 Specific Plan provides a variety of residential housing types oriented towards park and open space amenities designed to promote walkability 3951
and interaction among residents. The establishment of the proposed Mixed Residential land use designation requires the need for additional product types that promote higher density, more choice in floorplans, and more attainable options for a greater range of residents. To provide more diverse housing types and to meet the current market conditions for the next phases of development, the SPA proposes to introduce seven additional product types that include a combination of single-family detached homes and multi-family triplex and townhomes. 4 ) Document Changes. The SPA includes various changes to the land use map, land use table, development standards, exhibits, and text modification to reflect the proposed annexation and land use changes. All changes and additions to the Specific Plan (exhibits, tables, and development standards, and design guidelines) are contained within the revised Specific Plan document and all deletions and strikethroughs are highlighted in red.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) was prepared for this Project in accordance with CEQA requirements. Through the Notice of Preparation and scoping meeting discussion, the following areas of potential impact were identified and addressed:

Aesthetics;
Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
Air Quality;
Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources;
Energy;
Geology and Soils;
Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality;
Land Use and Planning;
Mineral Resources;
Noise;
Population and Housing;
Public Services;
Recreation;
Transportation;
Tribal Cultural Resources;
Utilities and Service Systems; and
Wildfire.

The Subarea 29 Specific Plan (2023 Amendment) SEIR evaluates each of these areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of impact. With the implementation of the various mitigation measures, many of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Of the 20 areas considered by the EIR, all but three of the impact areas were mitigated to a level of less than significant. The threeremaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas include:
3952
1) Agriculture.

Loss of Prime Farmland. The southwest portion of existing Planning Area 30 includes land mapped as Prime Farmland. The loss of approximately 4.7 acres Prime Farmland is considered a significant impact, consistent with the loss of Prime Farmland associated with the development of the adopted Subarea 29 Specific Plan, which includes Planning Area 30. In the 2006 EIR, the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with the 2006 EIR, mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels remain infeasible. Although the proposed conversion of agricultural land in the City is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region and is anticipated in TOP 2050, development of Planning Area 30 and the associated off-site improvement area would result in the loss of Prime Farmland consistent with the determination identified in the 2006 EIR and TOP 2010 EIR.
2) Air Quality.

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Conflict. The Project’s operational-source emissions would exceed the regional thresholds of significance for volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone (O3); thus, Project operational activities would contribute a substantial volume of pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) that could delay the attainment of Federal and State ozone standards.

Consequently, the Project is conservatively assumed to generate operational-source emissions not reflected within the current 2022 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SoCAB. As such, the Project is considered to have the potential to conflict with the 2022 AQMP. Project impacts due to a conflict with the 2022 AQMP would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulatively Considerable Increase in Criteria Pollutant During Operation. The proposed Project would not be consistent with the applicable air quality plan. After the application of mandatory regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures, maximum daily emissions from Project operations would exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for NOx, VOC, and CO, and cannot be effectively reduced to a level below the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Because NOX and VOC are O3 precursors, this could also result in additional violations of the State and Federal O3 standards. O3 is a nonattainment pollutant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures beyond those identified in SEIR Section 5.3, Air Quality that would reduce the Project’s NOX, VOC, and CO emissions to a less than significant level. Therefore, the Project’s operational air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable and the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, which is a significant and unavoidable impact.
3) Noise.

Off-site Traffic Noise Impacts (Project and Cumulative Impact). The Project would result in increased traffic noise levels along Eucalyptus Avenue, west of Hamner Avenue, which would exceed the City’s established threshold of significance (allowable increase of 5 dBA) under the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year 2025 traffic scenarios. The use of rubberized open graded asphalt hot mix can provide the noise attenuation needed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, however, the City of Ontario pavement standards require the use of rubberized gap graded asphalt, which 3953
would not result a sufficient noise reduction. Since the City does not allow for the use of rubberized open graded asphalt, the mitigation is not considered feasible and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable under the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year 2025 traffic scenarios; the Opening Year 2025 traffic scenario considers cumulative traffic.

The City of Ontario circulated the Draft SEIR on July 17, 2023, through August 31, 2023, for public review. At the end of the public review period, two (2) comments were received. Areas of concern include air quality and general site-specific conditions for future development within the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Road Right-of-Way. Refer to the Final Environmental Impact Report, Response to Comments.

While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the Staff believes that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan as further described below:

The Project will provide adequate school sites to serve Subarea 29 and adjoining Subareas; The Project will maximize housing opportunities to assist in meeting City of Ontario regional housing allocation requirements.

The Project will create a high-quality residential development that responds well to market demand and meets a range of housing types and affordability; The Project will include infrastructure improvements that will provide utilities, safe and efficient access/circulation routes for residents; and
The Project establishes clearly defined “edges” and “entries” that contribute to a district neighborhood identity.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. Furthermore, to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 which specifies responsible agencies/departments, monitoring frequency, timing and method of verification and possible sanctions for non-compliance with mitigation measures.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject applications and voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the City Council adopt the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) for the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the Specific Plan Amendment.
3954
Exhibit A: PROPOSED SUBAREA 29 LAND USE PLAN
3955
Exhibit B: PROPOSED SUBAREA 29 LAND USE SUMMARY
3956
RESOLUTION NO.________

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

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (FILE NO. PSPA21-005)

FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2004011009), AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING THE PROJECT. THE
SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN IS BOUNDED BY EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

TO THE NORTH, THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL TO THE WEST,

THE COUNTY LINE CHANNEL AND BELLEGRAVE AVENUE TO THE

SOUTH, AND MILL CREEK AVENUE TO THE EAST, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0218-331-12, 0218-331-14, 0218-331-18, 0218-331-30, 0218-331-31, AND 0218-331-52.

WHEREAS, SL ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA21-005, for which a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) has been prepared, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"), to include the annexation of 113.2 gross acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue and establish Planning Area 32 (Mixed Residential (11.1-25 du/ac), Planning Area 33 (Mixed Residential (11.1- 25 du/ac), and Planning Area 34 (School); change the land use designation for Planning Area 30 from Conventional Large Lot (3-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) and Planning Area 31 from Conventional Medium Lot (4-6 du/ac) to Mixed Residential (11.1-25 du/ac) to bring the Specific Plan into compliance with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) land use plan; establish development standards for seven new product types within the residential land use designations; and various changes to the Specific Plan land use map, land use table, development standards, exhibits, and text modification to reflect the proposed annexation and land use changes; and WHEREAS, the Application applies to the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan boundary that is comprised of 539.7 gross acres of land generally bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, County Line Channel and Bellegrave Avenue to the south, Haven Avenue to the east, and the Cucamonga Creek Channel to the west. The Project site gently slopes from north to south, the majority of the specific plan is developed with residential homes, Celebration Park, Park View Elementary School, and various pocket parks west of the SCE Easement. The areas east of the SCE Easement are vacant and were previously used for dairy and agricultural uses. The existing 255-foot-wide SCE Easement (8.5 acres) runs diagonally north/south along the eastern portion of the specific plan from Haven Avenue to Bellegrave Avenue and is developed with 180-foot-tall transmission towers (115kV) and community trails; and
WHEREAS, the Application also applies to the proposed annexation area and is comprised of 113.2 gross acres of land bounded by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Mill Creek Boulevard to the east, and Bellegrave Avenue to 3957

Page 2 of 126 ends

the south. The natural vegetation and soil conditions that once occurred throughout the annexation area have been significantly altered through agricultural activities and the site is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the portion of the properties to the north are located within Parkside Specific Plan and developed with new residential subdivisions. The remaining properties to the north are within the Grand Park Specific Plan are vacant, dairy and agriculture uses. The properties to the south are residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City of Eastvale. The properties to the east, opposite of Mill Creek Road, are within the Esperanza Specific Plan and are currently being developed with residential uses. The properties to the west are located within the Cucamonga Creek Channel and Colony Commerce Center – East Specific Plan and are developed with industrial uses; and WHEREAS, the Project SEIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for File No. PSPA21-005, the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Subarea 29 (Hettinga) Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) in association with the Subarea 29 Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) and certified the 2006 EIR in October 2006 (2006 EIR); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (“TOP EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) in association with the 2009 General Plan Update (“GPA”) and certified the TOP EIR on January 26, 2010; and WHERAS, the City certified the Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Supplemental EIR,” State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update, in association of the General Plan Update, File No. PGPA20- 002, and certified the Supplemental EIR on August 16, 2022; and WHEREAS, the 2006 EIR, TOP 2010 EIR, and TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR are Program EIRs from which later specific plan EIRs, such as the SEIR for this Project, are tiered; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the approving authority for the proposed approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15063, the City evaluated the Project to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the 2006 EIR should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment in the following areas: Aesthetics; Agriculture/Forestry 3958

Page 3 of 126 ends

Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards/Hazardous Materials; Hydrology/Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Noise; Population/Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation; Tribal Cultural Resources; Utilities and Service Systems; Wildlife; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Draft SEIR for which the public review period extended from December 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City received three comment letters from multiple agencies on the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines §15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on December 9, 2021, and no public agencies or individuals attended the scoping meeting; and WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR determined that incorporation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures and Project-level mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services and recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agricultural resources, air quality, noise; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on July 17, 2023; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period, beginning July 17, 2023 and concluding August 31, 2023. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated along with the Draft SEIR and was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice; and WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was distributed to the Planning Commission, and City departments; and
3959

Page 4 of 126 ends

WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Draft SEIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15086; and WHEREAS, the City received two written comment letters on the Draft SEIR, both of which the City responded to in the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC §21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final SEIR on October 18, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final SEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Final SEIR was fully studied and concluded said hearing on that date. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No. PC23-082, recommending City Council certification of the Project Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, no written public comments were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and
WHEREAS, November 9, 2023, the City released the Final SEIR, which consists of the Draft SEIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft SEIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft SEIR, and written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the “SEIR” consists of the Final SEIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft SEIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final SEIR); and
WHEREAS, the City provided a Notice of Public Hearing and/or Intent to Certify a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Public Hearing, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area; and WHEREAS, all potential significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the SEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the 3960

Page 5 of 126 ends

Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s Local Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon all oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the SEIR which the City finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV, B hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and set forth herein and in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A, are described in Section IV, C hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant and which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, D hereof; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the SEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, E hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section IV, F hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth-inducing impacts and significant and irreversible environmental changes resulting from the proposed Project identified in the SEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV, G hereof; and WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15093, because some environmental impacts identified in the SEIR as potentially significant cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore, render those impacts “acceptable.” The City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section V hereof; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the SEIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings on the Project; and
3961

Page 6 of 126 ends

WHEREAS, the SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making recommendations on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City, or any additional information submitted to the City, have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing on the Project and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all other 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 I. RECITALS
The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by reference as findings of fact.

SECTION II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the SEIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the SEIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft SEIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the SEIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION III. PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
A. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum:
 The NOP, NOA, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project.
 The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR for the proposed Project.  All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR.
3962

Page 7 of 126 ends

 All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft SEIR.  All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed public hearings for the proposed Project.
 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
 The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Final SEIR.  All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR.
 The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto.  Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
 Any documents expressly cited in these Findings.
 Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by PRC §21167.6(e).

B. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION 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. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with PRC §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(e).

C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The adopted Subarea 29 Specific Plan allows for the development of 2,418 dwelling units, commercial uses (12.1 net acres/87,000 square feet [sf]), neighborhood parks (13.9 net acres), a recreation center (3.1 gross acres), and two schools (elementary and middle schools) within 31 existing PAs. With the exception of the planned uses in PA 2 (commercial), and PAs 30 and 31 (197 residential units), the previously approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan uses are constructed/occupied or under construction. Approved units in PA 1, PA 27, PA 28, and PA 29 (734 units) are under construction. The Park View Elementary School opened in August 2022. A change to the allowed number and type of residential units in PAs 30 and 31 is part of the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

The City of Ontario adopted The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) in August 2022. TOP 2050 is intended to guide the City’s development and conservation for the next 30 years 3963

Page 8 of 126 ends

through 2050. Relevant to the Final SEIR for the proposed Project, proposed TOP 2050 anticipated the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, including the increase to 3,888 units in the Specific Plan Area, as amended (an overall increase of 1,470 units).

The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the recently approved TOP 2050 land use designations.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment applies a new “Mixed Residential” land use designation to existing PAs 30 and 31 and new PAs 32 and 33 and adds approximately

93.2 residential acres to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan. This “Mixed Residential” land use designation and proposed revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines permit a variety of housing types that promote higher density and more choice in floorplans. “Mixed Residential” has been created to provide more attainable options for a greater range of residents as well as options for different household compositions. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment includes a new 20 net-acre middle school in proposed PA 34, located at the southeast corner of Haven and Eucalyptus Avenue. The objectives that have been established for the Project are consistent with those presented in the 2006 EIR, that are applicable to the Project, including:

1. Develop a project consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch.

2. Develop a specific plan that incorporates General Plan land use principles; standards and distribution of land uses relative to residential, open space, recreation, and public uses.

3. Provide adequate school sites to serve Subarea 29 and adjoining Subareas.

4. Maximize housing opportunities to assist in meeting City of Ontario regional housing allocation requirements.

5. Provide neighborhoods which are identifiable from each other, with public and private amenities, linked by a network of pedestrian trails.

6. Create a community with a sense of place, walkability, and livability. Include pedestrian and bicycle trails to link neighborhoods and districts; short blocks to promote ease of access and neighborhood activity; use variable setbacks and reduced garage emphasis; and curb-separated landscaped parkways.

7. Create small neighborhoods with a wide range of lot sizes and street frontages among the various neighborhoods (not within neighborhoods).

8. Establish clearly defined “edges” and “entries” that contribute to a district neighborhood identity.

9. Develop a project that responds well to market demand and meets a range of housing types and affordability.

10.Develop a project with good regional access.

11.Minimize the use of walls as sound barriers along arterials and high traffic roadways through the use of landscaped setbacks and structures designed to attenuate sound, or a combination thereof, to promote visual quality and sound attenuation.
3964

Page 9 of 126 ends

SECTION IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.], §15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Ontario, in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Project, evaluated in the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR for the Project.

The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines §15091, and which are as follows:

A. INTRODUCTION
PRC §21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Pursuant to §21081 of the PRC, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, §21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that “substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy §21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided 3965

Page 10 of 126 ends

completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, §15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1.).

The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15364.) Project objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” (Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828-829.). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” (Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“Native Plant”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, §21081(a)(3) [“economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation measures and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. (Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576). In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287)
3966

Page 11 of 126 ends

B. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING

MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that for the following environmental issues there would be no Project impact, or the Project impacts are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures, as identified in the Draft SEIR.

1. AESTHETICS
a. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.1-8)
Explanation: The Project does not involve any development within or adjacent to any scenic resources that define a scenic vista. The views available from existing roadways that extend north-south (Haven Avenue and Mill Creek Avenue), and generally east-west (Eucalyptus Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue) adjacent to the Amendment Area would largely be retained. The proposed development would obstruct some distant views currently available across the Amendment area; however, new east-west and north-south roadways would be constructed adjacent to and within the Amendment Area, and the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor extending through PAs 30 and 31 would be retained. These linear corridors would also provide opportunities for views of distant mountains from vantage points with the Amendment Area. Additionally, the Subarea 29 Specific Plan development regulations include setbacks, landscaping, screening, and other design measures to screen undesirable aspects of site development from the major roadways within the development area.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources and would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista.
b. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.1-9)
Explanation: There are no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located within the Amendment Area, and the Amendment Area is not within or in proximity to a State designated scenic highway. The closest eligible or designated state scenic highway is SR-91, which is approximately seven miles to the south. Due to distance and intervening topography, the Amendment Area would not be visible from SR-91. Accordingly, the Project would not damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
3967

Page 12 of 126 ends

c. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.1-10 - 5.1-14) Explanation: Heavy equipment would be used during Project construction and would be visible from vantage points adjacent to the Amendment Area. Construction activities do not inherently or substantially degrade an area’s visual quality and would be temporary in nature; all construction equipment would be removed from the Amendment Area following completion of Project-related construction activities.

Furthermore, there are no City zoning requirements or other regulations governing scenic quality that specifically address construction activities.

With implementation of the Project pursuant to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, the visual character of the Amendment Area would change; however, the Project would not conflict with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project is consistent with the goals and policies in TOP 2050 Community Design Element.

The proposed amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan involves including the proposed Expansion Area as part of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Area, and future development within the proposed Amendment Area (existing PAs 30 and 31 and the Expansion Area), would be implemented in accordance with proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment. The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan includes Residential Design Guidelines to guide development of the residential neighborhoods in the Amendment Area in a manner consistent with the General Plan and Ontario Municipal Code (OMC).

Following the approval of the proposed amendment to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, all development proposals for individual residential neighborhoods within the Amendment Area would be subject to the Development Plan Review process pursuant to Section 4.02.025 of the City’s Development Code. The City would review the proposed site plans, building design/architecture, landscape plans, etc. for consistency with the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and/or Development Code, as applicable. With adherence to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and Development Code regulations, future development within the Amendment Area would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality resulting in a less than significant impact.
3968

Page 13 of 126 ends

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Williamson Contract
Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.2-11 - 5.2-12)
Explanation: PAs 30 and 31 are within the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan Area and are zoned Specific Plan (Subarea 29 Specific Plan). As with the adopted Subarea 29 Specific Plan, development of PAs 30 and 31 as part of the Project would result in no conflicts with existing zoning and no impacts would occur. Notwithstanding, MM Ag 1 and MM Ag 2 from the 2006 EIR remain applicable to development in PAs 30 and 31 to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses.

PAs 30 and 31 are not subject to an existing Williamson Act Contract; therefore, no conflicts with a Williamson Act Contract would occur.

Currently, the proposed Expansion Area is zoned Specific Plan with an AG Overlay, which accommodates the continuation of agricultural uses within the City, on an interim basis, until such time that the Overlay District is developed consistent with the goals and policies of TOP. According to Development Code Section 6.01.035(C)(1), AG (Agricultural) Overlay District, the Specific Plan zoning with an AG Overlay District requires that each project address the appropriate transition of the area from agricultural uses and include provisions for buffering the proposed uses to protect agricultural and urban uses. As with the uses within the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan Area, development within the Expansion Area would be required to comply with provisions in Development Code Section

6.01.035(C)(1), which address separation requirements for new development, and include a minimum 100-foot separation between these uses and existing dairies/feed lots, as required by 2006 EIR MM Ag 1. Further, in order to minimize conflicts between the proposed residential uses within the Expansion Area and agricultural land uses, and as required by 2006 EIR Ag 2, residential units would be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed uses within the Expansion Area would not conflict with the existing AG Overlay District zoning. The Expansion Area is not subject to an existing Williamson Act Contract; therefore, no conflicts with a Williamson Act Contract would occur. Notwithstanding, MM Ag 1 and MM Ag 2 from the 2006 EIR apply to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Ag 1 In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, each Specific Plan developed for properties within the NMC 3969

Page 14 of 126 ends

must comply with the Agricultural Overlay District requirements for urban development in proximity to existing agricultural operations.

The proposed project shall establish a minimum 100-foot separation between active agricultural operations and new, non-agricultural development, or an equivalent easement that is approved by the City of Ontario.

MM Ag 2 In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, all residential units in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, approved by the City Attorney, regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses.
b. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC §12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC §4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code §51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.2-12)
Explanation: There are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City.

Thus, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. c. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.2-12)
Explanation: There is no forest land located within the Amendment Area; therefore, the Project would not result in loss or conversion of timberland to non-forest uses.
d. Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land
Threshold: Would the project 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 nonforest use? Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.2-13 - 5.2-14)
Explanation: The areas to the west, south and east of the Amendment Area are developed or under construction, including areas mapped as Prime Farmland; therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of these areas to non-agricultural uses. There are existing agricultural uses north of the Amendment Area; however, these areas are mapped as “Other Land” consistent with the Amendment Area (not Farmland) and are also zoned Specific Plan pursuant to adopted 3970

Page 15 of 126 ends

specific plans, or Specific Plan with an AG Overlay District. The conversion of Farmland and agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses is consistent with City’s TOP policies and Development Code regulations.

The Project would not involve the installation of any roadways, or infrastructure beyond that necessary to serve the proposed uses and would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses, beyond the direct conversion of Farmland within the Amendment Area as discussed previously. The Project does not include any other components that would change the existing environment, due to location or nature, that would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, there would be no impact related to the conversion of off-site Farmland and agricultural uses in proximity to the Amendment Area to nonagricultural uses.

The City does not have any land designated as forest land.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

3. AIR QUALITY
e. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.3-39 - 5.3-40) Explanation: The Project does not include any uses identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as being associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Projectgenerated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. The proposed Project also would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances.

Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
3971

Page 16 of 126 ends

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Riparian Habitat or Sensitive Natural Communities
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.4-22).

Explanation: The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans. Vegetation communities and land cover type include disturbed/developed, agricultural – row crops, dairy farm, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, tamarisk thickets, and tree tobacco stands. Therefore, no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur, consistent with the conclusion of the 2006 EIR.
b. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.4-22).

Explanation: The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain any federally protected wetlands; therefore, no impacts would occur. c. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.4-24)
Explanation: Development Code Section 6.05.020 (updated in 2020) was established to further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of healthy heritage trees. The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain any heritage trees; therefore, the preservation or protection of existing trees is not required for the Project. The City does not have any other ordinances or local policies related to the protection of biological resources that are applicable to the Project. No impact would occur.
d. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 3972

Page 17 of 126 ends

Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.4-25)
Explanation: The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas are not within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Additionally, the City’s General Plan does not identify an adopted conservation plan. Thus, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.5-11)
Explanation: There are no historic resources, defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, present with the Amendment Area; therefore, no historic resources would be impacted.
b. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.5-13 - 5.5-14) Explanation: Although remote, there is a potential that Project-related ground disturbance activities have the potential to unearth previously undiscovered human remains. This impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements which are outlined in 2006 EIR MM Cultural 2 and incorporated into the Project. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, as outlined in 2006 EIR MM Cultural 2, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of Native American ancestry, that may result from development of the Project would be less than significant. 2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Cultural 2 If human remains are uncovered at any time, all activities in the area of the find shall be halted by the developer or its contractor and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately pursuant to CA Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CA PRC Section 5097.98. If the Coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall proceed as directed in Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
3973

Page 18 of 126 ends

6. ENERGY
a. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.6-7 - 5.6-10) Explanation: The Project’s construction process is estimated to occur over approximately 48 months and would consume electrical energy and fuel. Project-related construction would represent a “single-event” electric energy and fuel demand and would not require on‐going or permanent commitment of energy or diesel fuel resources for this purpose. The equipment used for Project construction would conform to California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations and California emissions standards. There are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies).

Project construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Construction impacts would be less than significant.

Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by passenger car and truck vehicles accessing the Amendment Area) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). Trip generation and vehicle miles traveled VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other single-family and attached residential and middle school uses of similar scale and configuration. As such, Project operations would not result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other residential/commercial land uses. Additionally, enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Additionally, the Project would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption.

Project building operations activities would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Energy efficiency/energy conservation attributes of the Project would be complemented by increasingly stringent state and federal regulatory actions addressing vehicle fuel economies and vehicle emissions standards; and enhanced 3974

Page 19 of 126 ends

building/utilities energy efficiencies mandated under California building codes. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and State regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadways systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The Project would also comply with the current version of the Title 24 Energy Code and CALGreen standards.

Impacts would be less than significant. Notwithstanding, in accordance with 2006 EIR MM Util 5, and through compliance with current energy regulations that are more stringent when the 2006 EIR was prepared, the Project is designed to include sustainable systems for use of water and energy. Project operational energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Util 5 To reduce the quantity of energy used and to conserve water resources, the project developer and City of Ontario should work to include sustainable systems for use of water and energy within the project design.
b. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.6-10 - 5.6-13) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any of the State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Fault Rupture, Seismic Ground Shaking, Liquefaction and Unstable Soils, Landslides
Threshold: Would the project 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? 3975

Page 20 of 126 ends

iv) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-11 - 5.7-12) Explanation: Earthquake Fault Rupture: The Amendment Area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault to the Amendment Area is the Chino fault approximately 6.5 miles to the southwest. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture. No impact would occur.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking: As a mandatory condition of Project approval, future buildings to be developed would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and the City Building Code, which is based on the CBC with local amendments.

The CBC and City Building Code provide standards that must be met to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures, and have been specifically tailored for California earthquake conditions. In addition, the CBC and the City Building Code (OMC Section 8-1.01) require development projects to prepare geologic engineering reports to identify site-specific geologic and seismic conditions and implement the site-specific recommendations contained therein to preclude adverse effects involving unstable soils and strong seismic ground-shaking. With mandatory compliance with building code standards and site-specific design and construction measures, implementation of the Project would not directly or indirectly expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including loss, injury or death, involving seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

Notwithstanding this less than significant impact, the requirement for preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigation is included as 2006 EIR MM Geo 4.

Seismic Related Ground Failure: Groundwater is recorded at a depth of 120 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, soil liquefaction is unlikely, and is not a design concern for the Project. The Project Geotechnical Report estimates that the total seismic settlement within the Amendment Area may be assumed as 2.5 inches and the differential settlement as 1.25 inches over a length of 30 feet. The City would require development projects within the Amendment area to be constructed in accordance with the latest applicable seismic safety guidelines, including the standard requirements of the CBC and the City’s Building Code, to minimize potential liquefaction and seismic settlement hazards. This impact would be less than significant.
3976

Page 21 of 126 ends

Landslides: The Amendment Area is relatively flat and is not in proximity to any natural or manmade steep slopes. Further, any slopes created during construction within the Amendment Area would be properly designed and constructed pursuant to the recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical studies required by the OCM. As such, there is no impact related to seismically induced landslides within the Amendment Area.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Geo 4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, a project-specific geotechnical investigation for the site must be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. All recommendations contained within the geotechnical investigation must be incorporated during project design and construction. Examples of recommendations include, but are not limited to, specific seismic design parameters and subgrade preparation parameters specifying the amount of overexcavation and re-compaction of specific soils in building pad and pavement areas.
b. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-13 - 5.7-14) Explanation: Implementation of the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with local and state regulations addressing erosion during construction (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permit, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan [SWPPP], and OMC (refer to 2006 EIR MM Geo 1, which outlines the City’s permit requirements). Following completion of development, implementation of a water quality management plan (WQMP) during operation is required, which would preclude substantial long-term erosion impacts.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Geo 1 To reduce impacts associated with erosion due to high winds, prior to construction, all tentative tracts and other construction activities will apply for and adhere to the permit given by the City of Ontario and enforced by the Building Official found in Title 6, Chapter 12, sections 6-12.01 – 6-12.07. The permit lasts for one (1) year, therefore all construction lasting for a period of more than one calendar year from the date of issue will reapply for the permit and pay appropriate annual fees. At a minimum, the permit prohibits the disturbance of the surface or subsurface of more than one (1) acre of land without meeting permit requirements which can include such things as the application of soil stabilizers and limitations on grading activities during wind events.
3977

Page 22 of 126 ends

c. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-17 - 5.7-18)
Explanation: The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project would construct an on-site sewer system that would connect to the existing sewer system in the surrounding roadways.

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Transport, Use or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.9-16 - 5.9-17) Explanation: Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would be operated within the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas during construction. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, and to control erosion.

During operation, the proposed residential and school uses would not utilize, store, or generate hazardous materials or waste in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the public. With mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction or operation. b. Emission or Handling of Hazardous Materials Near a School Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.9-20) Explanation: Park View Elementary School within the Specific Plan Area is located at 4860 S Celebration Avenue, approximately 0.3 mile west of the Amendment Area. The Project includes a proposed middle school in PA 34. The proposed residential and school uses have the potential to involve the transport and use of hazardous substances, materials, and/or wastes to-and-from the Amendment Area during construction and long-term operation. However, the Project would not utilize, 3978

Page 23 of 126 ends

store, or generate hazardous materials or waste in quantities that may pose a significant hazard to the public. Additionally, construction and operational activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would preclude substantial public safety hazards associated with emissions, handling of, or the routine transport of hazardous substances, materials and/or wastes to-and-from the Amendment Area. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Location on a Hazardous Materials Site
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.9-20) Explanation: Based on review of the Cortese List, the Amendment Area is not located on any list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, the search completed by EDR to support the 2022 Phase I ESA identified the Amendment Area being listed on various databases. With the exception of the HIST CORTESE database, none of these listings themselves indicate a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products.

The HIST CORTESE data base identified one UST site within the Amendment Area (Koolhaus Dairy at 14717 Haven Avenue); this case has been closed by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District.

Therefore, the Amendment Area is not located on a listed hazardous materials site that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, resulting in a less than significant impact. d. Airport Noise
Threshold: 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.9-22) Explanation: The Amendment Area is approximately 2.4 miles northeast of the Chino Airport. The western portion of the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan is located within the Chino Airport Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone); however, the Amendment Area is not within a designated safety zone. The Amendment Area is more than four miles south of the Ontario International Airport (ONT). As with other areas in the Specific Plan Area, the Amendment Area is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (AIA). The Amendment Area is located outside of the Safety, Noise Impact and Airspace 3979

Page 24 of 126 ends

Protection Zones identified in the ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, implementation of the proposed residential and school uses within the Amendment Area would not pose a safety hazard to people residing or working within the Amendment Area, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Additionally, the Specific Plan Area and the Amendment Area are not located with the noise contours for the ONT or Chino Airport.

Therefore, the Project would not expose people working or living within the Amendment Area to excess noise levels from airport operations, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Notwithstanding the less than significant impacts related to airportrelated safety hazards and excessive noise, as required by 2006 EIR MM Haz 9, future buyers within the Amendment Area would be notified of proximity of the property to the Chino Airport and the ONT. 2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Haz 9 To disclose to the buyer or lessee of subdivided lands within the Subarea 29 project of the proximity of this site to the Chino Airport and the Ontario International Airport as required by AB 2776, the City shall disclose, and ensure that the developer makes disclosures, as required by law, to all future buyers.
e. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.9-23) Explanation: The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities. During construction and long-term operation, adequate emergency vehicle access is required to be provided. The Project involves the construction of roadway improvements along site-adjacent roadways, which would be constructed in compliance with the City’s roadway standards and would enhance emergency access. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. f. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.9-24)
Explanation: There are no areas within the City mapped within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ); the nearest VHFHSZ to the Amendment Area is approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast. 3980

Page 25 of 126 ends

Additionally, the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) designates the majority of the Ontario Ranch, which includes the Amendment Area, as Non-Wildland/Non-Urban. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.10-13 - 5.10-16) Explanation: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Adherence to applicable NPDES permits and other regulatory requirements addressing water quality, and compliance with operational WQMPs is required as part of the Project’s implementation to address construction- and operationalrelated water quality and ensure that water quality impacts are less than significant (refer to 2006 EIR MM Hydro 1 through MM Hydro 3 and MM Hydro 6).

Groundwater was not encountered during the drilling of soil borings, which extended to depths of approximately 51.5 feet bgs. Therefore, excavation activities associated with the Project, including grading, are not anticipated to encounter significant amounts of groundwater.

Nonetheless, the Project would comply with regulatory requirements, including the Construction General Permit, and surface water that may percolate into the soil would not adversely affect groundwater on or off site.

Therefore, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during long-term operation. Impacts would be less than significant.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Hydro 1 In order to ensure that construction activities associated with the Subarea 29 Specific Plan will not cause a violation of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements and to assure no substantial degradation of water quality occurs, and to implement the intent of mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the NMC, developments within the project area shall comply with all applicable provisions of the State’s General Permit for Construction Activities (Order No. 99-08-DWQ, or most recent version) during all phases of construction. A copy of evidence 3981

Page 26 of 126 ends

of the receipt of a Waste Discharge Identification Number from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be filed with the City Engineer along with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) maps and BMPs. The City Engineer shall review and approve the provisions of the SWPPP prior to implementation of any SWPPP provision or starting any construction activity.

MM Hydro 2 In order to ensure that development within the Specific Plan will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements, and to assure no substantial degradation of water quality occurs, the project will complete a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the MS4 permit (Order No. 2002-0012) adopted by the City of Ontario and the Trash Mandate adopted by the SARWQCB. The project shall incorporate Site Design BMPs and Source Control BMPs, and potentially Treatment Control BMPs. Table III-7-F and G of the 2006 EIR, which are included in Technical Appendix I2 of this SEIR, provide guidelines and BMPs that shall be incorporated as appropriate into project design (on construction drawings) and/or project specifications and implemented in the field to reduce the expected pollutants from various types of development. Prior to acceptance of the WQMP, the City shall assure that maintenance responsibilities of BMPs approved for the project are identified and enforceable. Table III-7-G correlates each BMP to the pollutants of concern which it removes/reduces and/or meets the design objectives for the BMP.

MM Hydro 3 To assure that development within the Specific Plan will not cause a violation of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements, including San Bernardino County’s MS4 permit issued by the SARWQCB, and to assure that no substantial degradation to water quality occurs after construction, any loading docks present within the academic or retail areas designated in the Specific Plan will be designed with devices to trap oil and grease, such that these pollutants are not discharged from the site in storm water or nonstorm water discharges.

MM Hydro 6 In order to reduce pollutants in post construction run-off and to implement mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the NMC, the individual project owners and operators (e.g., homeowner associations, retail center owners, school district, parks department, etc.) shall ensure that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed of by those conducting facility maintenance in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. According to Title 6, Chapter 6, Section 6 of the City’s code, the City Engineer shall monitor and enforce this provision. 3982

Page 27 of 126 ends

b. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.10-16 - 5.10-17) Explanation: The Project does not propose the installation or use of groundwater wells and would result in the closure and removal of existing groundwater wells within the Amendment Area. The closure and removal of the existing groundwater wells would be in accordance with the California Department of Water Resources Health Guidelines and the City of Ontario Guidelines.

The Project would be served by domestic water provided by the City; direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed by the Project. According to the Project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA), the City’s water demand is accommodated through potable and non-potable water supplies managed by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). OMUC manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin for domestic demands do not exceed the safe yield for the basin, consistent with and in support of implementation of the Chino Basin Watermaster’s OBMP.

Groundwater which may be consumed by the Project and the City would be recharged pursuant to the established policies and programs.

The Amendment Area is not a designated groundwater recharge area. The Project does not propose or require facilities or operations that would otherwise adversely affect designated recharge areas.

The potential for the Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less than significant. Nonetheless, as with the Approved Project, the Project would incorporate MM Hydro 5 to conserve water and ensure that groundwater recharge is not impeded.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measure:

MM Hydro 5 In order to conserve water and to mitigate for any potential unforeseen adverse impacts to a reduction in ground water recharge, the following measure has been recommended by the Chino Basin Water Conservation District. Landscaping within individual development projects will retain and percolate both applied irrigation water and storm water in vegetated areas of parking lots and other areas, where appropriate; “depressed” planted areas bordered by 3983

Page 28 of 126 ends

shrubbery screens will be implemented rather than “mounded” grass and shrubbery planted screens.
c. Erosion, Siltation, Flooding, and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface run-off in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
iii) Create or contribute run-off water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.10-18 - 5.10-21) Explanation: The 2006 EIR analyzed the development of PAs 30 and 31 and its impact on the existing drainage pattern, and the storm drain infrastructure required to accommodate storm water runoff from these sites has been installed. With the exception of the 48-inch RCP in Eucalyptus Avenue, which would be installed as part of the Project with the development of PA 33, and on-site storm drains within the Amendment Area to convey the on-site flows to the proposed Master Planned lines, the backbone storm drain infrastructure required to serve the Amendment Area has been installed.

The Project would not result in on- or off-site flooding and would not result in exceeding the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage system. Impacts would be less than significant. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impact, as required, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District would review the storm drain system during final design (refer to 2006 EIR MM Hydro 4).

As discussed above, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site during both construction and operation or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

The Amendment Area is not within a 100-year flood hazard area; therefore, the Project would not redirect or impede flood flows.

Mitigation Measure:

MM Hydro 4 In order to reduce the risk of flooding and to implement mitigation measures included in the GPA for the NMC Final Environmental Impact Report, prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Ontario shall coordinate with the San Bernardino County Flood 3984

Page 29 of 126 ends

Control District to ensure that the project meets County flood control requirements.
d. Flood Hazard
Threshold: Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.10-24) Explanation: The Pacific Ocean is located over 40 miles southwest of the Amendment Area and there is no potential for the Amendment Area to be impacted by a tsunami. Additionally, the Amendment Area is not subject to flooding due to a seiche as seiches occur on enclosed or partially enclosed bodies of water. The Amendment Area is not within a flood hazard area; therefore, the Project is not subject to inundation due to storm related flooding.

According to Figure S-04, Dam Inundation Zones, of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Safety Element, the Amendment is within the potential inundation zone for the San Antonio Dam. The Expansion Area is located approximately 13.0 miles southeast of the San Antonio Dam.

The probability of dam failure is very low, and the City has never been impacted by a major dam failure. As identified in the TOP 2050 Final SEIR, because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City has emergency notification procedures, impacts of release of pollutants due to dam inundation are considered less than significant. The Project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation and this impact would be less than significant.
e. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.10-25) Explanation: The Amendment Area is within the Santa Ana River Basin; thus, Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP.

Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino Groundwater Basin as a “low-priority” and adjudicated basin; therefore, the Chino Groundwater Basin is not subject to the requirements of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Additionally, Section 10720.8(a) of the SGMA exempts adjudicated basins (including the Chino Groundwater Basin specifically) from the SGMA’s requirement to prepare a groundwater 3985

Page 30 of 126 ends

sustainability plan. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.11-6)
Explanation: The Amendment Area includes dairy farming and agriculture uses, and farm structures that supported previous agricultural activities.

The entire area has been previously disturbed. Agricultural lands are located north of the Amendment Area (north of Eucalyptus Avenue) and are planned to be developed with residential uses per the Grand Park Specific Plan, and the area to the east (east of Mill Creek Avenue) is currently being developed with residential uses per the Esperanza Specific Plan. The area south of the Amendment Area is developed with existing residential uses in the City of Eastvale.

Residential uses in the Specific Plan Area are currently under construction to the west of the proposed Expansion Area and south of existing PAs 30 and 31. The Project would expand the existing Specific Plan Area, similar to existing and planned surrounding uses, and would not involve the construction of any new utility infrastructure or roadways that would physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
b. Conflict
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.11-7 - 5.11-) Explanation: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal goals. The Project implements land uses anticipated by TOP 2050 and would not conflict with TOP 2050 policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, or policies that address scenic quality and circulation.

PAs 30 and 31 are zoned as Specific Plan (SP) District (Subarea 29 Specific Plan), and the proposed Expansion Area (PAs 32, 33, and 34) are zoned as SP (Specific Plan) with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay.

Consistent with this zoning, the Project involves an amendment to the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan, which would add the Expansion Area to the Specific Plan and establishes the Development Standards and Design Guidelines for the Expansion Area. With the approval of the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan 3986

Page 31 of 126 ends

amendment, the AG Overlay District would be removed and remaining agricultural activities would transition to residential and school uses; this transition is anticipated by the AG Overlay District.

The Project would not conflict with the requirements of the Ontario Development Code, including Zoning regulations.

The proposed residential and school uses are consistent with uses currently allowed by the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and would be implemented in accordance with the Development Standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, as amended with the Project. Therefore, should the proposed SPA be approved, the Project would not conflict with the Subarea 29 Specific Plan requirements.

11. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.12-3)
Explanation: The Amendment Area has no known identified mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is within an area classified as MRZ-3 where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. The nearest MRZ-2 area is approximately 2.6 miles north-northeast of the Amendment Area. Due to distance, the implementation of the Project would not impact the identified MRZ-2 resources. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State.
b. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the project 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 plans?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.12-4)
Explanation: TOP Policy Plan designates land with the Amendment Area for residential, school, and open space uses. TOP Policy Plan does not identify the Amendment Area as a mineral resource recovery site.

Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

12. NOISE
a. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3987

Page 32 of 126 ends

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.13-17 – 5.17-18) Explanation: Construction vibration velocities are estimated to range between

0.01 and 0.11 peak particle velocity (PPV). Based on the maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV, the typical Project construction vibration levels would fall below the building damage thresholds at all sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, vibration impacts related to Project construction would be less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site.

The operational activities associated with the proposed residential and school uses would not include or require equipment, facilities or activities that would result in perceptible ground-borne vibration.

Accordingly, Project operation would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Airport Noise
Threshold: 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.13-19) Explanation: The Amendment Area is located outside the ONT and Chino Airport noise contours. Therefore, people residing or working within the Amendment Area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations. This impact would be less than significant.

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Project 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 roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.14-5 - 5.14-8) Explanation: Project construction activities would require contractors and laborers; however, general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool and would not result in substantial population growth because the construction workers would commute from their respective homes. The Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the City during construction, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Project would result in an increase of 1,470 units in the Specific Plan area. Based on the population generation rate of approximately

4.0 persons per dwelling unit, it is estimated that the Project would 3988

Page 33 of 126 ends

generate approximately 5,876 new residents. The development of new housing units would assist the City in meeting State-mandated fair share housing production targets for above moderate housing as outlined in SCAG’s RHNA (8,599 units). The proposed increase in units within the Amendment Area is consistent with TOP 2050 and would not result in an increase in housing or population beyond that anticipated with buildout of TOP 2050. Although the increase in population, housing, and employment under TOP 2050 would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City, TOP 2050 would improve the job-housing balance when compared to the previous TOP; therefore, the TOP 2050 EIR concluded that implementation of the TOP, which includes the Project, would be consistent with Connect SoCal, and the increase in housing and population would be less than significant. The increase in housing and population resulting from the Project would be consistent with TOP 2050, would not result in substantial unplanned population growth beyond that anticipated in the region, would assist the City in meeting its RHNA requirements and reducing the jobs-housing ratio. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed school within PA 34 is estimated to generate up to 56 employment opportunities; however, the school use was anticipated in the previous and current TOP. Implementation of the school would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area.

The utility infrastructure improvements included as part of the Project would be sized to accommodate the Project and would not include additional capacity to accommodate future development off site. As such, the Project’s proposed infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to result in indirect substantial unplanned population growth.

Implementation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, resulting in a less than significant impact.
b. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.14-8)
Explanation: The existing uses within the Amendment Area, including the singlefamily residence within PA 30, have been vacated; therefore, the Project would not result in the displacement of housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
3989

Page 34 of 126 ends

14. PUBLIC SERVICES and RECREATION
a. Fire, Police, Schools, Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the project 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?
v) Other Public Facilities
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.15-10 - 5.15-13) Explanation: Fire Protection Services: Increased demands for fire protection services would result from implementation of the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment. The increase in units/population, development of a new middle school, and associated increased demand for fire protection services, is anticipated in the recently approved TOP 2050 and associated development impact fee program update. Therefore, the City has already planned for the increased demand as part of its facilities planning. The Project Applicant would be required to pay the applicable development impact fees, which would contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. Additionally, Fire Station No. 9 in the Parkside Specific Plan Area has been constructed and would serve the Specific Plan Area, as anticipated in the 2006 EIR. The Project would also be required to comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), as adopted by the Ontario Municipal Code (Section 4-4.01). With adherence to existing regulations, the Project would not require the construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact. Notwithstanding the Project’s less than significant impacts related to fire protection services, 2006 EIR MM Serv 1 through MM Serv 6 would be incorporated into the Project to reduce the Project’s fire hazards.

Police Protection Services: The Project would increase existing demands for police protection services. The increase in units/population, development of a new middle school, and associated increased demand for police services is anticipated in the recently approved TOP 2050 and the associated development impact fee program update. Therefore, the City has already planned 3990

Page 35 of 126 ends

for the increased demand as part of its facilities planning. The Ontario Police Department (OPD) would ultimately determine the timing and number of new officers hired as part of its standard staffing practices. The Project Applicant would be required to pay applicable development impact fees (EIR MM Serv 8), which would contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment.

The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded police facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact.

School Services: The Project would result in a net increase of 1,470 units and has the potential to place a greater demand on the existing public school system by generating additional students to be served by the Mountain View School District (MVSD) and Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD). Park View Elementary School, which is within the existing Specific Plan Area, opened in August 2022, and would accommodate the new elementary school students generated by the Project. Additionally, the Project involves construction of a new middle school within proposed PA 34 with an anticipated capacity of 1,200 students. The proposed middle school would be part of the MVSD and would serve grades 6-8.

Development of the proposed middle school is part of the Project and is evaluated throughout the SEIR under appropriate issue areas. In compliance with the 2015 School Mitigation Agreement, further required site-specific evaluation of the school site would be conducted by the MVSD prior to purchase of the site and development of the middle school.

The Project Applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of the required 2015 School Mitigation Agreement (refer to 2006 EIR MM Serv 9), which addresses elementary and middle school facilities within the MVSD. Additionally, the Project Applicant would pay school impact fees to the CJUHSD. Compliance with the 2015 School Mitigation Agreement with the MVSD and payment of school impact fees to the CJUHSD constitutes complete mitigation for Project-related impacts to school services. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded school facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Library Facilities: The Project would result in an increase in the City’s residential population; thus, the Project has the potential to increase the demand for other public facilities, including library services. As with development pursuant the adopted Subarea 29 Specific Plan, the Project would be required to pay library development impact fees to contribute its fair share of costs for acquiring, designing, constructing, improving, providing, and maintaining, the library facilities. The increase in units/population within the Amendment Area and associated increased demand for library services is 3991

Page 36 of 126 ends

anticipated in the recently approved TOP 2050 and the associated development impact fee program update. Therefore, the City has already planned for the increased demand as part of its facilities planning. The Project would not require the construction of new or expanded library facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Serv 1 To reduce fire hazards, wood-shingled and shake-shingled roofs are prohibited.

MM Serv 2 To reduce fire hazards, fire hydrant locations and water main sizes shall meet standards established by the City Fire Department and reviewed and implemented by the Engineering Department.

MM Serv 3 To reduce fire hazards when water is provided to the site, adequate fire flow pressure shall be provided for residential areas and nonresidential projects in accordance with currently adopted standards.

MM Serv 4 To reduce fire hazards, adequate water supply shall be provided as approved by the Fire Department prior to the framing stages of construction.

MM Serv 5 To reduce fire hazards, houses located on cul-de-sacs longer than 300 feet shall be constructed with residential fire sprinklers.

MM Serv 6 To reduce fire hazards, access roadways designed in accordance with Fire Department standard to within 150’ of all structures, shall be provided prior to the framing stages of construction. This access is to be maintained in an unobstructed manner throughout construction.

MM Serv 8 The developer shall pay library, police, and fire service development impact fees.

MM Serv 9 The developer shall pay school fees or otherwise, in lieu of fees, meet project obligations to schools, as approved by Mountain View and Chaffey Joint Union High School Districts.
b. Parks, and Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Would the project 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:
iv) Parks?
3992

Page 37 of 126 ends

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? Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.15-14 - 5.15-15) Explanation: The Project would develop additional residential uses, which would result in a population requiring parkland. Based on a future population projection of 5,143 residents for purposes of determining parkland requirements, the Project’s future residents would require approximately 25.7 acres of parkland consisting of 15.4 acres of public parks and 10.3 acres of private on-site local parks. In accordance with Ontario Development Code Chapter 6.080.30, the Project proposes to meet this standard though a combination of payment of in-lieu park fees to meet the public park requirement, and construction of parkland within the Amendment Area to meet the private local park requirement (identified in 2006 EIR MM Serv 10).

With adherence to the City’s requirements for the provision of parkland, no additional new or expanded park facilities would be required beyond those included as part of the Project and evaluated in the SEIR, and there would not be an accelerated physical deterioration of local or regional parks. The Project would not result in substantial physical environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of parkland or recreational facilities beyond that addressed in the SEIR. This impact would be less than significant.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measure:

MM Serv 10 Park development impact fees, Quimby fees, and/or developed parkland shall be provided to the City commensurate with the requirements of the General Plan.

15. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
a. Transportation Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.16-16 - 5.16-21) Explanation: Implementation of the Project, which includes roadway improvements, and features to encourage non-vehicular travel and use of transit, would not conflict with the goals of SCAG’s Connect SoCal, or any TOP 2050 Mobility Element policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not conflict with OMC truck 3993

Page 38 of 126 ends

route requirements. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant. Notwithstanding this less than significant impact, the Project would incorporate 2006 EIR MM Trans 1 through MM Trans 4a, and MM Trans 7, which require compliance with standard City requirements.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Trans 1 Construction of full width of internal roadways and ½ width adjacent roadways not implemented as specified in the Design
Considerations of the project such that they shall comply with City of Ontario standards.

MM Trans 2 Sight distance at the project entrance roadways should be reviewed with respect to the City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

MM Trans 3 Signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

MM Trans 4a Intersection, median opening, and traffic signal spacing shall be in accordance with the City of Ontario Engineering Department Traffic and Transportation Division, Traffic and Transportation Guidelines New Model Colony Access Guidelines.

MM Trans 7 The project shall participate in the cost of offsite improvements through the payment of “fair-share” development impact fees. These fees should be collected and utilized as needed by the City of Ontario to maintain acceptable levels of service.
b. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Addressing VMT Impacts Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.16-21 - 5.16-23) Explanation: The Origin/Destination (O/D) vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population (VMT/SP) for the Amendment Area (PAs 30 through 34; 23.85 VMT/SP) and for the total Specific Plan Area with implementation of the Project (26.4 VMT/SP) is lower than the Citywide threshold (29.42 VMT/SP) resulting in a less than significant VMT impact.
c. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp.5.16-23 - 5.16-25) 3994

Page 39 of 126 ends

Explanation: The Project would not involve the construction of incompatible uses and would involve the construction of roadways within and adjacent to the Amendment Area. As required, roadway improvements and driveways would be constructed in conformance with City design standards for roadways, sight distance, etc. (as identified in 2006 EIR MM Trans 1 through Trans 4a,. The Project would not substantially increase hazards resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Trans 1 through MM Trans 4a shall apply.
d. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.16-25) Explanation: The City LHMP identifies interstates as emergency evacuation routes for the City. As identified in TOP 2050 EIR (Figure 5.17-5, Evacuation Routes), the nearest evacuation routes to the Amendment Area are Edison Avenue to the north, and Bellegrave Avenue, which forms the southern boundary of the Amendment Area. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Further, the Project involves the completion of roadways adjacent to and within the Amendment Area, which would enhance and not impede emergency access. The Project would not
substantially impede emergency response in the local area.

16. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Change in the Significance of Tribal Cultural Resources Listed or Eligible for Listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource…and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.17-6)
Explanation: Based on the records search conducted for the Project and review of existing literature related to cultural and historic resources within the Amendment area and surrounding areas, no tribal cultural resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources were identified. Further, there were no tribal cultural resources eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources identified during the required Native American consultation process. Accordingly, no impact would occur. 3995

Page 40 of 126 ends

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.18-15 - 5.18-17) Explanation: Backbone infrastructure required to serve the uses allowed by the approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan, including residential development in PAs 30 and 31, has been installed pursuant to applicable master plans. Additionally, the utility infrastructure to be installed as part of the Project would be installed in compliance with requirements of the respective utility providers, as identified in 2006 EIR MM Util 1, MM Util 3, MM Util 4.

Construction activities associated with installation of new utility infrastructure would be within the physical impact area identified for the Project and evaluated throughout the SEIR. The installation of utility lines has the potential to cause construction-related environmental effects (e.g., short-term air pollutant emissions, noise, impacts to biological, cultural, and paleontological resources, and traffic movement disruptions), which are an inherent part of the Project’s construction process. In instances where the Project’s construction phase would result in specific, significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are provided. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation measures beyond those identified throughout other sections of the SEIR would not be required.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Util 1 All water and sewer pipelines within and adjacent to the project boundaries shall be constructed based on the NMC Infrastructure Master Plans and to the satisfaction of the City.

MM Util 3 Off-site water lines, tanks, interconnectors, and other facilities required in the Water Master Plan to provide water to the site shall be in place and operational prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in the development of these off-site facilities.

MM Util 4 Prior to obtaining grading permit(s), the project proponent shall coordinate with the applicable natural gas, electrical, and telephone utility providers for the project site to ensure that all existing underground and overhead lines are not damaged during project construction.
3996

Page 41 of 126 ends

b. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.18-17 - 5.18-21) Explanation: The Project is within the service area of the OMUC, which has the ability to provide adequate water service to its customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A Project-specific Water Supply Assessment was prepared and concluded that the Project’s water demands fall within the level of demand considered in the OMUC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Specifically, the Project would result in a net increase of 292 acre feet per year (AFY) in total water demand. Impacts would be less than significant. Notwithstanding this less than significant impact, in accordance with 2006 EIR MM Util 5, water conserving features would be incorporated into the Project.

Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Util 5 shall apply.
c. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.18-22) Explanation: The Amendment Area is within the wastewater treatment service area for Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Wastewater generated by the Project would be treated at recycling plant RP-5.

The Project would generate 270,650 gpd (0.27 MGD) average dry weather flow of wastewater requiring treatment, which represents approximately 3.5 percent of the excess treatment capacity at RP-5 (7.8 MGD). Therefore, RP-5 has sufficient existing excess capacity to treat wastewater generated by the Project. No new treatment facilities would be required as a result of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Solid Waste Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.18-23 – 5.18-24) 3997

Page 42 of 126 ends

Explanation: There is adequate capacity available at the Badlands Landfill and El Sobrante Landfill to accept the Project’s solid waste during both construction and long-term operation. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure to handle the solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant.

Collectively, the residential population and employees would generate approximately 27.1 tons per day of non-recyclable solid waste requiring disposal in a landfill. Non-recyclable waste generated by the Project would be disposed of at the Badlands Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The Project’s collective estimated solid waste generation represents approximately 0.4 percent of the combined remaining daily capacities of these landfills. The Project’s long-term solid waste generation is not in excess of State or local disposal standards, or in excess of the local infrastructure capacity to handle the waste disposal. Thus, waste generated by the Project’s operation is not anticipated to cause the landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume.
e. Solid Waste Compliance
Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.18-23 – 5.18-24) Explanation: Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal, are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. Future residents within the Amendment Area, and school operations, would comply applicable statues and regulations related to the management and reduction of solid waste and pertaining to waste disposal, reduction, and recycling. Adherence to the mandatory solid waste management requirements, as required by the City, would reduce the amount of solid waste generated during construction and operation of the proposed uses, and ultimately diverted to landfills, which in turn would aid in the extension of the life of affected disposal sites.

Therefore, impacts related to solid waste statutes and regulations would be less than significant.

18. WILDFIRE
a. Response Plans, Pollutant Concentrations, Infrastructure Risks, and Runoff Risks
Threshold: Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
3998

Page 43 of 126 ends

Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Would the Project 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?
Would the Project 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? Finding: No impact. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.19-4)
Explanation: Based on CalFire’s FHSZ Viewer and the City’s LHMP, the Amendment Area and surrounding areas are not within an SRA or within lands classified as being within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts related to wildfires or exacerbate wildfire hazards.

C. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT

CAN BE REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the SEIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

1. AESTHETICS
a. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.1-15 - 5.1-16)
Explanation: Nighttime lighting would likely be used within the construction areas to provide security for construction equipment and construction materials. This type of temporary security lighting is often unshielded and may shine onto adjacent properties and roadways. Even though construction staging areas would be located as far as possible from existing residential uses, such security lighting may cause a significant impact in the form of a nuisance to the residents, resulting in a potentially significant impact prior to mitigation. MM 5.1-1 requires that construction staging areas be located as far as possible from existing residential uses to minimize light intrusion, and also requires that any temporary nighttime lighting that is installed be 3999

Page 44 of 126 ends

downward facing and hooded or shielded to prevent security lighting from spilling outside the staging area or from directly broadcasting security lighting into the sky or onto existing residential properties.

With implementation of MM 5.1-1, potential lighting impacts during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Adherence to the lighting design requirements outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and Ontario Development Code would ensure that the proposed lighting would not create a new source of substantial light or glare during operation which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Exterior building materials that are expected be used for the residential uses are: stucco; exposed masonry walls; stone, brick, adobe, brick veneers (accent materials); horizontal plank siding; and, board and batten siding. No highly reflective glazing would be used.

These low- and non-reflective building materials would not result in substantial glare impacts within the Amendment Area or surrounding areas, and notably at the street level. Adherence to the Residential Design Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, which require finishes that reduce reflection and glare, would ensure that these materials would not result in substantial light or glare that adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area resulting in a less than significant impact.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:

MM 5.1-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Property Owner/Developer shall provide evidence to the City that the contractor specifications require temporary nighttime lighting installed during construction for security or any other purpose shall be downward-facing and hooded or shielded to prevent light from spilling outside the staging area and from directly broadcasting security light into the sky or onto adjacent residential properties.

Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City during inspections of the construction site.

2. AIR QUALITY
a. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions - Construction Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (for Project construction). (Draft SEIR, p. 5.3-30) Explanation: Construction activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, and are expected from demolition, site preparation, grading, building 4000

Page 45 of 126 ends

construction, paving, and architectural coating. Emissions resulting from the Project construction would exceed the criteria pollutant threshold established by the SCAQMD for emissions of NOx during construction activities in 2023, and emissions of VOC in 2025. VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone; thus, the Project would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment. Accordingly, prior to incorporation of mitigation the Project’s construction-related emissions in 2023 and 2025 would represent a significant impact for which mitigation would be required. After implementation of 2006 EIR MM Air 1, MM Air 2, and MM Air 3, and TOP 2050 EIR MM 3-1, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. As such, with mitigation, the Project’s construction-source emissions would be less than significant. 2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Air 1 During construction, mobile construction equipment will be properly maintained at an offsite location, which includes proper tuning and timing of engines. Equipment maintenance records and equipment design specification data sheets shall be kept on-site during construction.

MM Air 2 During construction of the proposed improvements, all contractors will be advised not to idle construction equipment on site for more than ten minutes.

MM Air 3 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.

TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measures:

MM 3-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology for
assessing air quality impacts. If construction-related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Building Department shall require feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions. Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and shall include:
 Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
4001

Page 46 of 126 ends

o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
 Use construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
 Ensure construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
 Limit nonessential idling of construction equipment shall be limited to no more than five consecutive minutes.
 Use Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces shall be used whenever possible.

The identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.
b. Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (for Project construction). (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.3-34 -

5.3-39)
Explanation: The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Amendment Area has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24- hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is represented by location R4 which represents the existing residence at 4677 Sagewood Lane, approximately 22 feet west of the Amendment Area. As there are no industrial/commercial receptors located at a closer distance than the nearest residential home, the same residence located at 4677 Sagewood Lane (location R4) was used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO.

With implementation of mitigation measures from the 2006 EIR (MMs Air 1, Air 2, and Air 3), and TOP 2050 EIR MM 3-1, emissions during 4002

Page 47 of 126 ends

the peak construction activity would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LST). As such, the Project’s localized impacts during construction activity would be less than significant with mitigation.

Emissions during the peak operational activity would not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds. The Project would not exceed any of the operational LSTs and localized impacts during operational activity would be less than significant.

At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project construction-source DPM emissions is estimated at 3.69 in one million, which is less than the SCAQMD’s significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be <0.01, which would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled receptors would experience lower concentrations of DPM during Project construction, all other receptors in the vicinity of the Project would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein. As such, the Project would not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to adjacent land uses as a result of Project construction activity, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” resulting in a less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Air 1 through MM Air 3 and TOP EIR MM 3-1 shall apply.

3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. Impacts to Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment (for impacts to sensitive wildlife). (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.4-19 - 5.4-21)
Explanation: Sensitive Vegetation Communities: The Project’s potential impacts to vegetation communities and land cover types due to
implementation of the Project include the entire Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas, totaling 171.4 acres. The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain any 4003

Page 48 of 126 ends

sensitive vegetation communities and no sensitive communities were reported within two miles of the Amendment Area.

Direct impacts to disturbed/developed, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, tamarisk thickets, tree tobacco stands, and agricultural vegetation/land cover types are considered less than significant because these habitats/land covers are common in the surrounding vicinity and do not represent sensitive plant communities.

Special Status Plants: None of the 36 special status plant species with the potential to occur in the area are anticipated to occur within the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas. Based on the habitat found onsite, high levels of disturbance, low habitat quality, and the lack of detection of any special status plants during the biological survey, the Project would not impact any special status plant species. No impacts to special status plant species would occur.

Special Status Wildlife: Three sensitive wildlife species were observed within the Amendment Area during the field survey. Two additional species have a high or low to moderate potential to occur on the site. Cooper’s hawk is considered to have moderate to high potential to occur within the Amendment Area during the nesting bird season and in a foraging capacity. Foraging habitat exists within the Amendment Area as open fields with perching opportunities in the tamarisk trees. The species was observed within the western portion of the Amendment Area. The tamarisk trees may provide potential nesting bird habitat; however, this species prefers other mature trees including large pines and Eucalyptus trees, which are not present.

Project activities may have an impact if performed during the nesting bird season. 2006 EIR MM Bio 2 requires that the City’s open space mitigation fees to mitigate the loss of nesting and migratory bird habitat be paid. 2006 EIR MM Bio 3 requires that construction and removal of trees occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 to January 31 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors), and refers to actions required by 2006 EIR MM Bio 4 if nesting birds are located. 2006 EIR MM Bio 4 requires that a pre-construction field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Code are present in the construction zone or within a buffer of 500 feet and identifies actions to take if nesting birds are located. With implementation of the 2006 EIR MMs, impacts would be less than significant.

Burrowing owl was not detected during the biological field visit and burrowing owl focused survey conducted in September 2021, or the focused surveys conducted in 2022. However, the species has a high potential to occur as it has been observed previously, and the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas contain burrows 4004

Page 49 of 126 ends

suitable for burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl foraging habitat. Impacts to the burrowing owls are considered potentially significant. MM Bio 1 from the 2006 EIR requires pre-construction survey be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine the presence of burrowing owl. With implementation of mitigation from the 2006 EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Bell’s sage sparrow was observed foraging during the biological survey. However, the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas lack suitable nesting habitat for the species, which is primarily chaparral and sage scrub vegetation communities. Similarly, the grasshopper sparrow has a low to moderate potential to occur for foraging, however, the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas lack suitable nesting habitat for the species. The loss of 171.4 acres of foraging habitat for these two species would not decrease populations below self-sustaining levels given the availability of habitat remaining in the region. Foraging individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitat during construction activities; therefore, there would be no direct mortality on these species. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit was observed within the Amendment Area. Although the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas are very disturbed, these areas could provide foraging habitat for this species. The loss of 171.3 acres of habitat for this species would result in an incremental loss of habitat, which is considered a less than significant impact per CEQA because it would not decrease jackrabbit populations in the region below selfsustaining levels given the availability of remaining habitat.

Individuals are expected to move to adjacent habitat during construction activities; therefore, there would be no direct mortality on the species. Therefore, no mitigation would be required.

The remaining species listed in Appendix C of SEIR Technical Appendix C1 are not expected to occur within the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas due to the lack of suitable habitat.

Therefore, there would be no impact on these species and no mitigation would be required.

Impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be less significant with mitigation.

Project Impacts to Critical Habitat: The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not fall within any Critical Habitat. Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not result in impacts to any Critical Habitat
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Bio 1 There may be a probability of owl colonization within the project site considering the presence of foraging habitat and previous records of 4005

Page 50 of 126 ends

presence. To ensure that no direct loss of individuals occurs, mitigation shall be completed prior to initiation of on-site grading activities for each development phase. A pre- construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist.

The survey will be conducted 30 days prior to construction activities including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site should be resurveyed for owls.

If owls are determined to be present within the construction footprint, they will be captured and relocated. If non-breeding owls must be moved away from the disturbance area, passive relocation techniques will be used. The pre-construction survey and any relocation activity will be conducted in accordance with the CDFG Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 1995. According to CDFG guidelines, mitigation actions will be conducted from September 1 to January 31, which is prior to the nesting season. However, burrowing owl nesting activity is variable, and as such the time frame will be adjusted accordingly. Should eggs or fledglings be discovered in any owl burrow, the burrow cannot be disturbed (pursuant to CDFG guidelines) until the young have hatched and fledged (matured to a stage that they can leave the nest on their own).

Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by the Department of Fish and Game verifies through non-invasive methods that either: a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or b) the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If a biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the burrowing owl nest during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young.

Passive relocation can be used to exclude owls from their burrows (outside the breeding season or once the young are able to leave the nest and fly) by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. These one-way doors allow the owl to exit the burrow, but not enter it. These doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow. Artificial burrows should be provided nearby. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of burrows before excavating burrows in the impact area. Burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible pipe should be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow.

MM Bio 2 To mitigate for potential impacts to loss of nesting and foraging habitat, the project proponent shall be required to pay City of Ontario open space mitigation fees. Fees collected will be used “to acquire 4006

Page 51 of 126 ends

and restore mitigation lands to offset impacts to species now living in the New Model Colony and impacts to existing open space,” according to the City of Ontario Development Impacts Fee Calculation Report and the Settlement and general Release Agreement. Development is currently required to pay $4,320 per acre. Therefore, the proposed project will pay approximately $1,080,000 for open space acquisition based upon the current fee.

MM Bio 3 While project impacts to individual raptor species were considered to be not significant, the following mitigation measure will also be incorporated in order to eliminate or reduce any potential impacts to raptors and/or migratory birds. Construction and/or removal of windrow trees will occur outside of the nesting season (the nesting season for songbirds is February 1st through August 31st, and the nesting season for raptors is January 15th to August 31st). If tree removal activities must occur during the breeding season, the mitigation measure in MM Bio 4 shall be implemented.

MM Bio 4 If project construction activities involving heavy equipment and/or windrow tree removal are to occur during the nesting/breeding season (between February 1st and August 31st for songbirds; and between January 15th and to August 31st for raptors) of potentially occurring sensitive bird species, a pre-construction field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of species protected by MBTA or CDFG are present in the construction zone or within a buffer of 500 feet. Pre- construction nesting/breeding surveys shall be conducted in all CDFG jurisdictional areas and within windrow trees. If no active nests are found during the survey, construction activities may proceed.

If active nests are located during the pre-construction surveys, no grading, heavy equipment or tree removal activities shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive bird nests (non-listed), and 100 feet of most common songbird nests. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biological monitor to minimize impacts.
b. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.4-23)
Explanation: Wildlife Movement: The Project has the potential to support local wildlife dispersal and foraging; however, due to the disturbed nature 4007

Page 52 of 126 ends

of the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas, and the degraded habitats, the loss of foraging habitat and/or effect on local wildlife movement would be less than significant. No long-term or significant effects to wildlife movement would result. Additionally, no native resident or migratory fish species or native wildlife nursery sites are located within the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas.

Nesting Birds/Raptor Foraging Habitat: Due to the potential for onsite bird nesting and marginal foraging habitat for raptors including tamarisk and residential trees, Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds resulting in a potentially significant impact.

The Project would incorporate 2006 EIR MM Bio 2 to mitigate the loss of nesting and foraging habitat. Additionally, the Project would incorporate 2006 EIR MM Bio 3 and MM Bio 4, which require that tree removal activities occur outside or the nesting/breeding season or preconstruction nesting bird/raptor surveys be conducted and identify actions to take if nesting birds/raptors are located.

Incorporation of mitigation from the 2006 EIR would ensure potential impacts to nesting birds are less than significant.

Bat Foraging Habitat: The potential for bat roosting is low within the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas, while the existing vegetation may represent suitable foraging habitat. However, the impact on foraging habitat would be less than significant given the availability of habitat remaining in the region.

Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Bio 2 through MM Bio 4 shall apply.

4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.5-12)
Explanation: As identified in the 2006 EIR, two archaeological isolates—basalt flakes—were discovered within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Area, which includes existing PAs 30 and 31; however, these isolates were not considered significant resources. No additional archaeological resources were identified through the records search or field survey conducted for the Amendment Area during preparation of the Cultural Resources Study. Therefore, construction activities associated with the Project would not adversely affect any existing known significant archaeological resources.
4008

Page 53 of 126 ends

Due to the current condition of the Amendment Area, which has been disturbed, any buried resources discovered in the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas during construction would likely lack integrity, and no unique resources are expected to be discovered.

However, there is a remote potential for archaeological resources to be present beneath the surface. If any archaeological resources are unearthed during construction that meet the definition of an archaeological resource cited in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and are disturbed/damaged by Project construction activities, impacts to archaeological resources would be potentially significant. 2006 EIR MM Cultural 1 is incorporated into the Project and requires that a qualified archaeologist determine the significance of resources unearthed during ground-disturbing activities. If the resource is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures would be implemented to ensure impacts on archaeological resources remain less than significant. 2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Cultural 1 Should any cultural and/or archaeological resources be accidentally discovered during construction, construction activities shall be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented.

5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a. Liquefaction and Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-15 - 5.7-16)
Explanation: Landslides: The Amendment Area is relatively flat and is not in proximity to natural or manmade steep slopes. As such, the Project would not be located in an area susceptible to landslides. No impact would occur.

Lateral Spreading/Liquefaction: The Amendment Area is within an area where groundwater is recorded at a depth of 120 feet below the surface. Therefore, due to the absence of groundwater in the upper 50 feet at the Amendment Area, soil liquefaction and lateral spreading is unlikely. Impacts would be less than significant. 4009

Page 54 of 126 ends

Earthwork Shrinkage and Subsidence: It is estimated that shrinkage factor for soil removed and replaced as compacted fill within the Amendment Area is 10-15 percent, and the subsidence factor is 0.1 foot. The degree to which fill soils are compacted and variations in the in-situ density of existing soils would influence earth volume changes. Therefore, some adjustments in grades near the completion of grading could be required to balance the earthwork.

The Project would comply with the ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the site-specific geotechnical investigations required by the OMC and 2006 EIR MM Geo 4. Further, 2006 EIR MM Geo 3 requires that site materials be continuously tested and excavated to a minimum of four feet where soils generally become denser, and that actual removal depths be determined during grading when subsurface conditions are exposed.

Therefore, with implementation of 2006 EIR MMs, potential impacts related to earthwork shrinkage and soil subsidence would be less than significant.

Organic Soils: In accordance with 2006 EIR MM Geo 2, the sitespecific geotechnical investigations would include an analysis of the organic matter content of soils within PAs 30 through 34. The Project Geotechnical Report recommends that soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength properties be placed in areas designated by the geotechnical consultant or shall be mixed with other soils providing satisfactory fill material. If the organic matter content of the soils is greater than 2 percent when mixed with subsurface soils and/or imported fill, then manure would be removed from the site prior to grading operations. With implementation of 2006 EIR MM Geo 2 and compliance with the site-specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the site-specific geotechnical investigations required by the OCM and 2006 EIR MM Geo 4, potential impacts related to organic soils would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts related to unstable soils than those disclosed in the 2006 EIR.

Corrosive Soils: Concrete within PAs 30 and 31 would have a negligible exposure to water-soluble sulfate in the soil; however, the underlying soils are extremely corrosive to ferrous metals. The soil conditions are similar within the Expansion Area. Protection of buried pipes utilizing coatings on all underground pipes; clean backfills and a cathodic protection system can be effective in controlling corrosion.

With compliance with the site-specific recommendations contained in the site-specific geotechnical investigations required by the OMC and 2006 EIR MM Geo 4, potential impacts related to corrosive soils would be less than significant.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Geo 4 shall apply.
4010

Page 55 of 126 ends

MM Geo 2 To properly assess and address the suitability of on-site soils to be used as fill, a geotechnical evaluation shall be performed by a qualified professional prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract map or site plan for a given phase of development. This evaluation will include an analysis of the organic matter content of soils on the site.

If the organic matter content of the soils is greater than 2 percent when mixed with subsurface soils and/or imported fill, then manure will be removed from the site prior to grading operations.

MM Geo 3 Site materials should be continuously tested and excavated to a minimum of 4 feet where soils generally become denser. Actual removal depths will be determined during grading when subsurface conditions are exposed.
b. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.7-17)
Explanation: The Amendment Area includes soils with very low to medium expansion potential. As required by 2006 EIR MM Geo 3, soils would be subject to additional testing and the expansion potential would be verified. With incorporation of recommendations from the Geotechnical Investigation (refer to 2006 EIR MM Geo 4), impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. With implementation of the 2006 EIR MMs, potential impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:
2006 EIR MM Geo 3 and MM Geo 4 shall apply.
c. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-18 - 5.7-19)
Explanation: The Amendment Area does not contain any known unique geologic features and no paleontological resources or localities were observed during the pedestrian survey conducted during preparation of the site-specific Cultural Resources Study. However, the Amendment Area is underlain by Pleistocene deposits that have yielded fossil localities near the Amendment Area. Therefore, due to the Amendment Area’s proximity to recorded fossil localities, the 4011

Page 56 of 126 ends

Project’s soil deposits have the potential to yield paleontological resources. As such, the Project’s construction activities have the potential to unearth paleontological resources, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
2006 EIR MM Cultural 3 requires the preparation of a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP), which outlines actions to take to ensure protection of paleontological resources that may exist in the underlying soils. The required Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan for the Park Place Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (2015 PRMTP), was prepared for the existing Specific Plan Area, including PA 30 and 31, and has been implemented during grading activities, including monitoring by a qualified paleontologist. No paleontological resources have been encountered during construction activities completed to date within the existing Specific Plan Area.

Grading activities within the PAs 30 and 31 would be subject to the requirements outlined in the 2015 PRMTP for the existing Specific Plan Area, and grading activities within the Expansion Area would be subject to a similar PRMTP to be prepared in accordance with 2006 EIR MM Cultural 3. The PRMTP would include requirements for paleontological monitoring during ground disturbing activities at depths greater than 5 feet and would identify actions to be taken in the event paleontological resources are encountered. With implementation of the PRMTP, as required by 2006 EIR MM Cultural 3, impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Cultural 3 Since grading plans have not yet been prepared to establish how deep excavation is needed, prior to the issuance of grading permits, and as recommended in the Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment for this site, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the City. Following City approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRMTP shall include the following measures:
a. Identification of those locations within the project site where paleontological resources are likely to be uncovered during grading.
b. A monitoring program specifying the procedures for the monitoring of grading activities by a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee.
4012

Page 57 of 126 ends

c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall temporarily divert earth- moving activities around the fossil site until the remains have been evaluated for significance and, if appropriate, have been recovered; and the paleontologist or qualified designee allows earth-moving activities to proceed through the site. If potentially significant resources are encountered, a letter of notification shall be provided in a timely manner to the City, in addition to the report (described below) that is filed at completion of grading. d. If a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee is not present when fossil remains are uncovered by earth- moving activities, these activities shall be stopped, and a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall be called to the site immediately to evaluate the significance of the fossil remains.
e. At a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee’s discretion and to reduce any construction delay, a construction worker shall assist in removing fossiliferous rock samples to an adjacent location for temporary stockpiling pending eventual transport to a laboratory facility for processing.
f. A qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall collect all significant identifiable fossil remains. All fossil sites shall be plotted on a topographic map of the project site.
g. If the qualified paleontologist or qualified designee determines that insufficient fossil remains have been found after fifty percent of earthmoving activities have been completed,
monitoring can be reduced or discontinued.
h. Any significant fossil remains recovered in the field as a result of monitoring or by processing rock samples shall be prepared, identified, catalogued, curated, and accessioned into the fossil collections of the San Bernardino County Museum, or another museum repository complying with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines. Accompanying specimen and site data, notes, maps, and photographs also shall be archived at the repository.
i. Within 6 months following completion of the above tasks, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee shall prepare a final report summarizing the results of the mitigation program and presenting an inventory and describing the scientific significance of any fossil remains accessioned into the museum repository. The report shall be submitted to the City Planning Department and the museum repository. The report shall comply with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standard guidelines for assessing and mitigating impacts on paleontological resources.
4013

Page 58 of 126 ends

6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
a. Emissions Generation and Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.8-15 - 5.8-17)
Explanation: Because the Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Update addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP Update fulfills the description of mitigation for impacts related to GHG impacts found in the State CEQA Guidelines. As required by Project-specific MM 8-1, future residential development within the Amendment Area would implement Screening Table Measures providing for the required points pursuant to the City Screening Tables. As such, the Project would be consistent with the GHG Development Review Process requirement to achieve the requisite amount of points and thus the Project is considered to have a less than significant individual and cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measure:

MM 8-1 Project development proposals shall implement Screening Table Measures that achieve the requisite points per the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the requisite points are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Alternatively, the Project shall demonstrate that annual GHG emissions would not exceed the target thresholds or other alternative compliance mechanisms in the CCAP or subsequent updates.
4014

Page 59 of 126 ends

7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release Of Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.9-18 - 5.9-19)
Explanation: Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs): Existing and prior uses within the Amendment Area have resulted in RECs that have the potential to expose workers on site, the public, and/or the environment to a substantial hazard. As required by 2006 EIR MM Haz 1 and MM Haz 6, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and methane gas testing have been conducted for the Amendment Area. Recommendations from the Phase I ESAs would be implemented consistent with 2006 EIR MM Haz 1.

In compliance with 2006 EIR MM Haz 3, any septic tanks present would be properly removed and disposed, and water wells to be abandoned would be destroyed following City requirements, which would ensure that potential impacts are less than significant. The investigations conducted for the Amendment Area also concluded that subsurface methane gas levels and pesticide use are not expected to pose a hazard to future site occupants; however, soil with organic contents greater than 2 percent should not be placed as structural fill.

Although previous methane gas surveys have concluded that the methane levels do not pose a hazard, pursuant to 2006 EIR MM Haz 6, current methane gas assessments will be conducted for PAs 30 through 33 and recommendations identified as a result of these assessment, if any, would be implemented. With adherence to 2006 EIR MM Haz 1 and MM Haz 6, the implementation of proposed residential and school uses would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Although not identified as a REC, the SCE corridor with high power transmission lines passes between PAs 30 and 31, which was evaluated in the 2006 EIR. As identified in the 2006 EIR, this would not pose a hazard to future residential uses within these PAs.

Building Materials: Due to the age of the buildings within PAs 30 and 31 (constructed before 1976) asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint are present and could be released during 4015

Page 60 of 126 ends

demolition activities. As required by 2006 EIR MM Haz 5, prior to demolition, asbestos and lead-based paint would be removed in accordance with regulatory requirements prior to demolition. With implementation of 2006 EIR MM Haz 5, impacts associated with the potential release of hazardous building materials during demolition activities would be less than significant impact.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Haz 1 To the extent not previously prepared and to properly assess and address potential hazardous materials, including pesticide residue, within the specific plan area, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be performed by a registered environmental assessor (REA) prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract map, site plan or other discretionary approval for a given phase of development. If potential hazardous materials or conditions are identified in the Phase I report, the recommendations of the ESA shall be implemented. Such recommendations could include surficial sampling and chemical analysis within agricultural areas or where soil staining was observed. The Phase I ESA shall be provided to the City of Ontario and shall be included in any CEQA analysis prepared in connection with the consideration of the discretionary approval for development.

MM Haz 3 All septic tanks on the project site will be properly removed and disposed of prior to site development. All water wells on the project site which are proposed to be abandoned will be properly destroyed prior to site development in accordance with City requirements.

These activities will occur subject to City of Ontario Building Safety requirements.

MM Haz 3 is applicable to PAs 30 and 31 only with respect to septic tanks; there are no septic tanks within PAs 32 through 34. With respect to water wells, MM Haz 3 is applicable to PAs 30, 33, and potentially 34; there are no wells within PAs 31 and 32.

MM Haz 4 If, while performing any excavation as part of project construction, material that is believed to be hazardous waste is discovered, as defined in Section 25117 of the California Health & Safety Code, the developer shall contact the City of Ontario Fire Department and the County of San Bernardino Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Excavation shall be stopped until the material has been tested and the presence of hazardous waste has been confirmed. If no hazardous waste is present, excavation may continue. If hazardous waste is determined to be present, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control shall be contacted, and the material shall be removed and disposed of pursuant to applicable provisions of California law.
4016

Page 61 of 126 ends

MM Haz 5 Prior to demolition, all onsite buildings and remaining foundations that were built before 1976 shall be evaluated for the presence of asbestos and lead-based paint and those materials shall be removed according to applicable regulations and guidelines established by the South Coast Management District, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

MM Haz 5 is applicable to PAs 30 and 31 only; there are no structures within PAs 32 through 34.

MM Haz 6 A methane gas assessment shall be prepared by a licensed professional with expertise in soil gas assessments for subdivisions proposed on former dairies, poultry ranches, hog ranches, livestock feed operations and similar facilities to determine the presence of methane gas within the project boundary. The methane gas assessment shall identify monitoring and mitigation strategies and approaches. All mitigation measures/plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario.

Such an “assessment” may take two steps. A preliminary
assessment should be done prior to grading to determine exactly where dairies have existed in the past so that the post grading assessment/mitigation measures can be focused on the portions of the specific plan area that have included dairies. The second step may include actual testing of graded pads no sooner than 30 days after construction to determine if methane is detected above 5,000 ppm. If so, the types of mitigation measures described below in MM Haz 7, or those approved by the City, shall be implemented in the areas exceeding this limit.

MM Haz 7 To reduce the risk of ground cracking, manure shall be removed from the site, such that the organic matter content of on-site soils shall not exceed 2 percent (a 2 percent total organic content is allowed, of which no more than 1 percent can be manure) in the building foundation areas when mixed with underlying clean soils and imported fill.

8. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource…and that is 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.
4017

Page 62 of 126 ends

Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.17-7 – 5.17-8)
Explanation: The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation was the only tribe to request consultation. Through this consultation, which involved a consultation meeting held on April 13, 2022, the City and Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation agreed that no tribal cultural resources are known to exist with this Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas. With implementation of Project-level MM 5.17-1 and MM 5.17-2, listed below, potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. MM 5.17-1 allows a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation be present during ground-disturbing activity, and MM 5.17-2 identifies requirements for the preservation in place treatment of tribal cultural resources, and archaeological data recovery excavations if preservation is place is not feasible.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:

MM 5.17-1 Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activity at the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas (Project site), the Project Applicant shall request a Native American Monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation – the tribe that consulted on this project pursuant to Assembly Bill A52 – SB18 (the “Tribe” or the “Consulting Tribe”). If a monitoring contract is declined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, a qualified tribal monitor shall be retained. A copy of the executed monitoring contract shall be submitted to the City of Ontario Planning and Building Department prior to the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity. The Tribal monitor will only be present on site during the construction phases that involve ground-disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Tribe as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when all grounddisturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Tribal Monitor have indicated that all upcoming ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Upon discovery of any Tribal Cultural Resources, construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. All Tribal Cultural Resources unearthed by project activities shall be evaluated by the qualified 4018

Page 63 of 126 ends

archaeologist and Tribal monitor approved by the Consulting Tribe.

If the resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized at the Project Site, all ground disturbance shall immediately cease, and the county coroner shall be notified per Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). Work may continue on other parts of the Project Site while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[f]). If a non-Native American resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and PRC Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

MM 5.17-2 Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes.

D. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT

CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measures identified in the SEIR and in these Findings, the following environmental impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

1. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
a. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
4019

Page 64 of 126 ends

Finding: Significant and unavoidable (Project and Cumulative). (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.2-9 - 5.2-10)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

Explanation: The southwest portion of PA 30 and the associated off-site impact area, which are part of the adopted Specific Plan area, are currently classified as Prime Farmland by the California department of Conservation (DOC). The Project would result in the removal of approximately 4.7 acres of Prime Farmland within PA 30 and the associated offsite improvement area. The direct and cumulative loss of Prime Farmland associated with the development of the adopted Subarea 29 Specific Plan, which includes PA 30, is a significant impact previously evaluated in the 2006 EIR and the TOP 2010 EIR.

The 2006 EIR concluded that project and cumulative impacts associated with the loss of agricultural resources and Prime Farmland would be significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted. This is consistent with the TOP 2010 EIR determination that Citywide agricultural impacts were significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that TOP 2050 SEIR determined that the implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the direct conversion of Farmland than what was identified in TOP 2010 EIR. Consistent with the 2006 EIR, mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, including city-wide farmland preservation, remain infeasible. In summary, it was concluded that if a portion of the Specific Plan area was maintained in agriculture, in the long-term it would become economically unviable, and environmental factors and regulations are also causing the decline in the viability of agriculture within the Chino Basin (i.e., stricter air quality and water quality regulations). With the decline in the long-term economic viability of agriculture in the Chino Basin, if this approach were taken in Ontario Ranch, easements for all prime Farmland soils lost (about 2,952 acres) would have to be acquired elsewhere. Therefore, cumulatively, it was found not feasible to preserve or mitigate agricultural uses in the Specific Plan area. In addition, preserving agriculture within Ontario Ranch would impede the City of Ontario from achieving General Plan goals and objectives for housing. As such, the Project’s impact on Prime Farmland within PA 30 remains significant and unavoidable.

The proposed Expansion Area (proposed new PAs 32 through 34) does not contain any land mapped by the DOC as Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance).

The proposed Expansion Area is identified as “Other Land” by the 4020

Page 65 of 126 ends

DOC. Additionally, the Expansion area consists of Class IV and III soils, which have limitations relative to agricultural production.

Therefore, the implementation of the Project within the proposed Expansion Area would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural uses and no impacts would occur. Implementation of development in the proposed Expansion Area would not result in any new or more severe impacts on agricultural resources than previously disclosed in the 2006 EIR, TOP 2010 EIR or TOP 2050 SEIR.

Mitigation Measures: No feasible mitigation.

2. AIR QUALITY
a. Implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable (Project and Cumulative). (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.3-27 - 5.3-29)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

Explanation: The Project would not result in the exceedance of growth assumptions within the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). However, as discussed below, the Project has the potential to result in or cause National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) violations because operational-source emissions would exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO. The primary emissions sources are consumer products (VOC) and mobile source emissions (NOX and CO). The Project would implement TOP 2050 SEIR MM AQ-1 and 2006 EIR MM Air 4;
however, these measures would not reduce emissions to below the SCAQMD regional thresholds for these pollutants. Additional Project-level mitigation measures are not available to further reduce the operational air quality emissions from the proposed residential, school and park uses. As such, the Project is considered to have the potential to conflict with the AQMP and a potentially significant impact would occur.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Air 4 Local transit agencies shall be contacted to determine bus routing in the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and the project shall provide bus passenger benches and shelters at these project access points.

TOP EIR Mitigation Measures
4021

Page 66 of 126 ends

MM AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phase-related air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in
assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD– adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce long-term emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
 For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
 Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in
appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy
generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
 Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485).
 Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).  Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuelefficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
 Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
 Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., 4022

Page 67 of 126 ends

dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).

Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.
b. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard? Finding: Significant and unavoidable (for operational Project and cumulative air quality impacts. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.3-30 - 5.3-34)
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

Explanation: Operational activities associated with the Project (residential, school and park uses) would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. A majority of the VOC emissions are derived from consumer products. Consumer products cannot be regulated by the City of Ontario. CARB is primarily responsible for controlling pollution from consumer products. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future residents and building users via mitigation; thus, the Project’s operational VOC emissions are considered significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation measure exists that would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. The use of Energy Star-certified appliances as required by TOP 2050 SEIR MM AQ-1 would reduce a negligible amount of emissions from area source air quality emissions that may occur onsite. Additionally, a majority of the operational-source NOX and CO emissions would be generated by Project mobile sources (traffic). Although the Project would be required to implement 2006 EIR MM Air 4, no other mitigation measures related to vehicular emissions are available that are within the City of Ontario’s jurisdictional authority and that are feasible for the City of Ontario to enforce and have a proportional nexus to the Project’s level of impact. VOC and NOX are precursors for ozone; thus, the Project would result in a cumulatively-considerable net increase of criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment. Therefore, because the Project’s operational-source VOC, NOX, and CO emissions would exceed the applicable
SCAQMD regional thresholds, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable direct and cumulatively-considerable impacts to air quality during long-term operations.

Mitigation Measures:
4023

Page 68 of 126 ends

Ontario City CouncilNovember 21, 2023

Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023