Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023

2006 EIR MM Air 4 and TOP EIR MM AQ-1 shall apply.

3. NOISE
a. Increase in Noise Levels in Excess of Noise Standards Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Significant and unavoidable (Project and cumulative offsite traffic noise). (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.13-11 - 5.13-16)
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: Construction Noise Level Impacts: The Project’s construction noise levels would not exceed the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold at all receiver locations. Therefore, noise impacts related to Project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Notwithstanding, 2006 EIR MM Noi 1, which requires adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance relative to days/hours of construction, and 2006 EIR MM Noi 2, which requires construction staging areas not be located within 150 feet of existing sensitive receptors and construction equipment be fitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers, are incorporated into the Project. Construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Level Impacts: The proposed residential development within the Amendment Area would not include any specific type of operational noise levels beyond the typical noise sources associated with similar residential land uses in the area, such as people and children, parking lot activity, garage doors, small air conditioners, and trash collection.

To ensure the proposed mechanical ventilation complies with the City’s Noise Ordinance requirements (OMC Section 5-29.04), Project-specific MM 5.13-1 requires best engineering practices be used in the placement of noise generating equipment when developing site plans for future land uses containing HVAC units such that noise levels at the property line comply with City standards.

Development plans shall be accompanied by an acoustical analysis demonstrating compliance with City standards for approval prior to issuance of building permits. With adherence to the City’s Noise 4024

Ordinance, which would be ensured with incorporation of MM 5.13- 1, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts: The Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 53.1 to 72.1 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Under Existing with Project conditions exterior noise levels are calculated to range between 55.0 to 72.1 dBA CNEL. The Project’s off-site noise level increases are calculated to range between 0.0 to 8.0 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Therefore, based on the significance criteria, the land uses adjacent to the following study area roadway segments would experience significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels: Eucalyptus Ave west of Hamner Ave (Segment 46) (noise level increase from 55.3 to 63.3 dBA CNEL).

Due to the nature of the noise source (traffic noise), mitigation options are limited to barriers to shield receivers and roadway modification, such as lowering speed limits and alternate roadways surfaces. Barriers already exist along Segment 46 or are not considered feasible due to property access requirements of existing noise sensitive land uses. The speed modeled for Segment 46 is already considered low and reducing the speed to 25 mph would reduce noise level by 3 dBA and would not reduce the impact to less than significant levels (i.e., -4 dBA). Rubberized open graded asphalt hot mix can provide noise attenuation of approximately 4 dBA for automobile traffic noise levels. Thus, rubberized open graded asphalt could reduce the increase in noise levels to less than 5 dBA CNEL along Segment 46. However, the City of Ontario pavement standards require the use of rubberized gap graded asphalt, which would result in an approximate 1 dBA CNEL reduction. Since the City does not allow for the use of rubberized open graded asphalt, the mitigation is not considered feasible. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the off-site traffic noise impacts along Eucalyptus Ave west of Hamner Ave (Segment 46) to less than significant, and this noise level increase would be significant and unavoidable.

Opening Year 2025 without Project exterior noise levels are calculated to range between 54.1 to 73.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. The Opening Year 2025 with Project noise levels are expected to range between 57.1 to 73.4 dBA CNEL. The Project’s off-site noise level increases are calculated to range between 0.0 to

7.1 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, the land uses adjacent to Eucalyptus Ave west of Hamner Ave (Segment 46) (noise level increase from 56.4 to 63.5 dBA), would also experience significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated 4025

Project-related traffic noise levels. There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less than significant level; therefore, the Project’s traffic noise levels under the Opening Year 2025 with Project conditions would be significant and unavoidable.

The Future Year 2040 without Project exterior noise levels are calculated to range between 57.3 to 72.8 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features. The Future Year 2040 with Project conditions noise levels are calculated to range between range from 57.9 to 73.1 dBA CNEL. The Project off-site traffic noise level changes are calculated to range from 0.0 to 1.7 dBA CNEL. The decreases in traffic noise shown in the future year condition are due to new roadways being constructed over time, allowing for a redistribution of traffic within the City. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases. Therefore, the Project’s traffic noise levels under the Future Year 2040 with Project conditions would be less than significant without mitigation.

On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts: The City’s general building code requirements require new developments to meet the noise standards outlined in the CBC. Notably, the CBC requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room for residential uses. 2006 EIR MM Noi 7 requires that architectural plans be submitted to the City of Ontario for an acoustical plan check prior to the issuance of building permits to assure that the proper windows and/or doors are upgraded for sound reduction and proper ventilation systems are incorporated in order to meet the interior noise level requirement.
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures:

MM Noi 1 The construction activities of the proposed project shall comply with the City of Ontario Noise Ordinance Section 5-29.09(a) that prohibits construction activities on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

MM Noi 2 Construction staging areas shall not be located within 150 feet of existing sensitive receptors and construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers.

MM Noi 7 Architectural plans shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for an acoustical plan check prior to the issuance of building permits to assure that the proper windows and/or doors are upgraded for sound reduction and proper ventilation systems are incorporated in order to meet the interior noise level requirement.

Project-Specific Mitigation Measures:
4026

MM 5.13-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential development, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare an acoustical study(ies) of proposed plans, which shall identify all noise-generating areas and associated equipment, predict noise levels at property lines from all identified areas, and noise attenuation features required to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), as necessary, to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 5-29.04.

E. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

1. AESTHETICS
Cumulative development in the vicinity of Amendment Area would be within Ontario Ranch and subject to the requirements of individual Specific Plans required for development in this area. Haven Avenue, which is a major north-south street with views of the San Gabriel Mountains, extends north-south between PAs 30 and 31 and the proposed Expansion Area. Consistent with TOP Policy CD1-5, the public views available from Haven Avenue would largely be retained, and the Project’s potential impacts to scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains would be less than significant. Similarly, the views of distant mountains from other streets adjacent to the Amendment Area (Mill Creek Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Bellegrave Avenue), would also be retained. The cumulative development that would be in the same viewshed as the Project from vantage points along the adjacent roadways, including Haven Avenue, would also maintain distant mountain views, as required by the City. Further, as with the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, the City requires that Specific Plans establish requirements to ensure that view corridors are free of visual clutter and include street trees. Therefore, cumulative development also would not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista, and the Project would not contribute to cumulatively significant aesthetic impact related to scenic vistas.

The Amendment Area and nearby cumulative projects within the same viewshed are not within a State scenic highway corridor and do not contain any scenic resources.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impacts on scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway.

The Project and cumulative projects in the same viewshed are within areas zoned Specific Plan, and future development would be required to adhere to the respective development standards and design guidelines outlined in the respective specific plans, which address architecture, landscaping, walls/fences, and other elements of the physical environment. Additionally, the cumulative projects would be required to adhere to established development standards addressing scenic quality as outlined in TOP and OMC, resulting in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact related to scenic quality.

Cumulative development projects with the potential to generate light and glare would be required to comply with regulations established to reduce light and glare impacts from new development, including the City’s Development Code and respective regulations, and would also result in less than significant light and glare impacts. Therefore, the Project 4027

would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant aesthetic impact related to light and glare. (SEIR, pp. 5.1-16 - 5.1-17)

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
This cumulative impact analysis for agriculture and forestry resources considered development of the Amendment Area in conjunction with other development projects and planned development pursuant to the City’s adopted TOP Policy Plan. The Project would contribute to the loss of Prime Farmland in the City, consistent with the determination identified in the 2006 EIR and TOP 2010 EIR. Important Farmland in the City has continually declined and all of the Prime Farmland in the southern area of Ontario is planned for development as identified in TOP 2050. Continued conversion of Prime Farmland to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City. Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region, and the City (including PA 30), the Project would result in a significant direct and cumulatively considerable impact related to the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses, consistent with the conclusion of the TOP 2010 EIR and 2006 EIR.

The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use nor contribute to a cumulative impact to agriculturally zoned properties. The Project site and adjacent sites are not under a Williamson Act contract and therefore, would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to Williamson Act lands. 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 specific plans, or Specific Plan with an AG Overlay District. These lands are already planned to be converted to non-agricultural uses and the Project would not cause a cumulative impact related to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, or other changes in the environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural uses.

There are no forest lands, timberlands, or Timberland Production zones within the Project site or in the City, nor are any lands in the City under active production as forest land.

Therefore, cumulatively significant impacts to forest land would not occur and the Project not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to the loss of these lands. (SEIR, pp. 5.2-14 - 5.2-15)

3. AIR QUALITY
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development within the SoCAB.

The CAAQS designate the SoCAB as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 while the NAAQS designates the SoCAB as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5. SCAQMD has published a report on how to address cumulative impacts from air pollution: White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution. In summary, projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for Project-specific impacts also would not cause a cumulatively-considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the SoCAB is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact. Alternatively, individual Project-related construction 4028

and operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Project-specific impacts would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Project implementation would have the potential to conflict with SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP because the Project would contribute to existing regional air quality violations. Based on SCAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds, the Project’s conflict with the AQMP is determined to be a significant cumulatively-considerable impact.

Project construction criteria air pollutant emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds with implementation of 2006 EIR and TOP 2050 EIR mitigation measures; however, SCAQMD regional thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO emissions would be exceeded during Project operation even with mitigation. Therefore, the Project’s operational VOC, NOX, and CO emissions would be cumulatively considerable resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

All Project-related construction- and operational localized air pollutant emissions would be less than significant; therefore, impacts are not considered cumulatively considerable.

Additionally, the Project would not result a human health risk, or result in the formation of or contribute to a CO “hot spot.” As such, impacts are not considered cumulativelyconsiderable.

There are no Project components that would expose a substantial number of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors. Because the Project’s construction and operation would not create substantial and objectionable odors, odors from the Amendment Area would not commingle with odors from nearby development projects or agricultural/dairy farm activities to expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial, offensive odors.

Accordingly, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to odors. (SEIR, pp. 5.3-40 - 5.3-41)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This cumulative impact analysis for biological resources considers development of the Amendment Area in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project as well as buildout of development anticipated by TOP. This area consists of a variety of land uses that include agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

The undeveloped areas may include sensitive habitats, which may contain special-status plants, migratory birds, and jurisdictional water. However, as discussed above, the Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not have special-status plants or jurisdictional areas; therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to these biological resources.

The Amendment Area and off-site improvement areas do not contain sensitive vegetation communities, or support habitat for special status plant species. However, these areas have suitable habitat for burrowing owl, Cooper’s hawk, and the Bell’s sage sparrow. 2006 EIR MM Bio 1 through MM Bio 4 have been incorporated into the Project to reduce impacts to special status wildlife species to less than significant levels. Notably, the Project Applicant would pay the required City of Ontario open space mitigation fee to address potential cumulative impacts associated with loss of habitat (refer to 2006 EIR MM Bio 2). Additionally, each cumulative development project in the City would also be required to evaluate potential impacts to special status biological resources, identify project-specific mitigation measures, and pay the City’s open space fee, if applicable. 4029

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute to a substantial adverse cumulatively considerable impact to special-status species.

The Project site does not contain any sensitive or critical habitat or State or federally protected wetlands and is not within a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on these biological resources.

The Project would result in the removal of vegetation that has the potential to support nesting avian species and raptor species. A wide range of habitat and vegetation types have the potential to support nesting avian and raptor species; therefore, it is likely that other development projects within the cumulative study area also may impact nesting avian and raptor species. However, the Project – like all other development activities in the cumulative study area – would be required to comply with State and federal law to preclude impacts to nesting avian and raptor species. Further, the Project’s impacts would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant with implementation of 2006 EIR MM Bio 3 and MM Bio 4. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on these biological resources.

The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City’s requirements to protect heritage trees, as there are no heritage trees within the Amendment Area or off-site improvement area. Other development projects in the cumulative study area would be required to comply with applicable local policies and/or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources as a standard condition of review/approval. Because the Project and cumulative development would be prohibited from violating applicable, local policies or ordinances related to the protection of biological resources, a cumulatively considerable impact would not occur.

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.4-25 - 5.4-26)

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
The potential for implementation of the Project to contribute to cumulative impacts to historical resources was analyzed in conjunction with other projects located in areas that were once similarly influenced by the historical agricultural industry of the City and the region. Record searches and field surveys indicate the absence of significant historic cultural resource sites and resources on and abutting the Project site; therefore, implementation of the Project would not contribute towards a cumulative impact to significant historical sites and/or resources.

Direct impacts to cultural resources are site-specific and would not result in significant cumulative impacts; however, the Project, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City could lead to accelerated degradation of previously unknown archaeological resource sites. Each development proposal received by the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Project. If there is a potential for significant impacts on cultural resources, an investigation will be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, including requirements such as those identified 4030

in this section. Based on the information presented in the required site-specific cultural resource studies, construction activities associated with the Project would not impact any known prehistoric archaeological resources; however, there is a remote potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources during construction of the Project, and other development project sites in the City. Therefore, without mitigation, the Project would result in a potentially cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to archaeological resources, if such resources are unearthed during Project construction. With implementation of 2006 EIR MM Cultural 1, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant. The City requires incorporation of similar measures in each development Project. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to archaeological resources.

Mandatory compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., as identified in 2006 EIR MM Cultural 2, would assure that, as with the Project, future development projects within the City treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.5-14 - 5.5-15)

6. ENERGY
Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservation goals within California.

Other cumulative developments within the region would be required to demonstrate that the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would not occur.

Additionally, other cumulative developments would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the Project, including compliance with the Title 24 Energy Code, CALGreen, and TOP CCAP, which would ensure that cumulative development does not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. The Project and other cumulative developments also inherently would be consistent with the IEPR, State of California Energy Plan, AB 1493 (Pavley), and SB 350, as discussed herein. As such, there is a less than significant cumulative impact related to energy. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.6- 14)

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Except for erosion hazards, potential hazardous effects related to geologic and soil conditions are unique to the Amendment Area, and inherently restricted to the specific property proposed for development. That is, issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the subject property, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur on other, off-site properties. Further, the Project and any future development projects would be required to comply with applicable State and local requirements, such as the City’s Building Code, and grading requirements outlined in the OMC. As with the Project, future development would be required to have site-specific geotechnical investigations prepared to identify the geologic and seismic characteristics on a site and to provide recommendations for engineering design and construction to ensure the structural 4031

integrity of proposed development; these recommendations would be incorporated into Project design. Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation would prevent hazards associated with unstable soils, landslide potential, lateral spreading, liquefaction, soil collapse, expansive soil, and other geologic issues. Because of the site-specific nature of these potential hazards and the measures to address them, there would be no direct or indirect connection to similar potential issues or cumulative effects to or from other properties.

Regulatory requirements mandate that the Project incorporate design measures during construction and long-term operation to ensure that significant erosion impacts do not occur. Other development projects in the vicinity of the Amendment Area would be required to comply with the same regulatory requirements as the Project to preclude substantial adverse water and wind erosion impacts. Because the Project and cumulative development projects would be subject to similar mandatory regulatory requirements to control erosion hazards during construction and long-term operation, cumulative impacts associated with wind and water erosion hazards would be less than significant.

Because the soils present on the Project site have paleontological sensitivity and because this geologic layer is present throughout the City and southern California, there is a potential to impact paleontological resources. The Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts to paleontological resources is similar to that of other projects located in the region that are underlain by Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial soils. However, each development proposal received by the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the Project. If there is a potential for significant impacts on paleontological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, including requirements such as those identified in this subsection (refer to 2006 EIR MM Cultural 3). With implementation of mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Project’s contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant, with mitigation. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.7-19 - 5.7-20)

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The assessment of GHG emissions is inherently cumulative because climate change is a global phenomenon. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant global climate change-related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. Accordingly, the analysis provided in Section 5.8.4 of the SEIR reflects a cumulative impact analysis of the effects related to the Project’s GHG emissions, which concludes that the Project would not conflict with an applicable GHGreduction plans, policies, or regulations and would not generate cumulativelyconsiderable GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment because the Project is consistent with the City’s CCAP. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.8-18)

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Project’s construction and operation would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper use, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Such uses also would be subject to additional review and permitting requirements by the Ontario Fire Department. Similarly, any other 4032

developments in the area proposing the construction of uses with the potential for use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials also would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, and such uses would be subject to additional review and permits from their local oversight agency. Additionally, based on the laboratory testing results, there are no concentrations of chemicals detected that exceed established regulatory standards for residential or school uses or that would otherwise pose a hazard to the public, and potential impacts associated with former uses on site would be less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Therefore, the potential for release of toxic substances or hazardous materials into the environment, either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials, would be less than significant for the Project and cumulative development. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to hazardous materials.

The Amendment Area is located within 0.3-mile of an existing school, and the Project includes a middle school site. However, due to the nature of the Project (residential and school uses), there would not be any hazardous emissions, and the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste would not involve the type or quantity that would pose a significant hazard to school children, resulting in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant hazards/hazardous materials impact on any public or private schools located within onequarter mile of the Amendment Area.

The Amendment Area is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would pose a hazard to the public; therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant hazardous materials impact associated with a listed hazardous materials site.

The Amendment Area is within the AIA for ONT but is not within a safety zone for the ONT or Chino Airport. The Amendment Area is not within the noise contours for ONT or the Chino Airport Additionally, the Project construction and operations would not exceed established height restrictions requiring FAA notification pursuant to FAR Part 77 and would not obstruct airport operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with airport hazards.

The Amendment Area does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. Further, the Project would involve implementation of roadway and site access improvements, including along Bellegrave Avenue south of the Amendment Area, which is an evacuation route, and would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan area. Similarly, cumulative development in proximity to the Amendment Area would be required to adhere to emergency access requirements. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The Amendment does not contain wildlands and is not within or near a VHFHZ. There is no potential for the Project to expose people or structure, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Cumulative developed proposed within VHFHSZs would be required to meet minimum fire fuel modification 4033

and/or clearing requirements in addition to meeting the standards of the various fire codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance. With adherence to applicable requirements, cumulative development within VHFHSZs would not increase hazards from wildland fires and hazards to adjacent properties. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with wildland fires. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.9-24 - 5.9-25)

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the Santa Ana River Basin and Chino Groundwater Basin. Project construction and the construction of other projects in the cumulative study area would have the potential to contribute waterborne pollution, including erosion and siltation, to the Santa Ana River Basin. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities under the State’s General Construction NPDES Permit. To obtain coverage, an effective site-specific SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-site pollutants and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface waters. In addition, the Project Applicant and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region.

Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River Basin, including the proposed Project, would not contribute substantially to water quality impairments during construction.

Operational activities with the Amendment Area would be required to comply with sitespecific WQMPs to minimize the amount of waterborne pollution, including erosion and sediment, discharged from the site. Other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement site-specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations.

Additionally, with implementation of the 2006 EIR MMs Hydro 1 through 3 and 6 in conjunction with the MCW, the Project would not contribute to water quality impacts.

Moreover, because the Project’s proposed uses were anticipated by TOP 2050, the water quality effects due to the development of the Amendment Area were analyzed in TOP 2050 SEIR, which determined that the implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in cumulatively considerable water quality impacts. Accordingly, operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively-considerable water quality effects.

The Project does not include the installation or use of groundwater wells on site; the Project would abandon and remove the existing groundwater wells on site. Although the Project would increase impervious surface coverage within the Amendment Area as compared to existing conditions, the Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge for the Chino Groundwater Basin. Additionally, preparation and implementation of WQMPs would ensure that runoff from the Amendment Area does not contain substantial pollutants that could impair surface or groundwater quality. Other developments within the cumulative study area would also be required to implement operational WQMPs and would be required to demonstrate that overall runoff does not substantially change in terms of peak volumes or total volumes of runoff. Therefore, the 4034

Project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to groundwater supply, recharge, and quality.

Construction of the Project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulation and applicable regional and local master drainage plans to mitigate flood hazards on and off site. Compliance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Additionally, future development proposals within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review any approval by the responsible City/County Engineer to demonstrate that substantial on- or off-site flood hazards would not occur. Increased storm water runoff from the Expansion Area would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain infrastructure. Additionally, storm water runoff from existing PAs 30 and 31 would adhere to the runoff yields identified in the 2012 Ontario MPD. Because the Project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a substantial cumulative impact related to flood hazards would not occur.

The Amendment Area is not within a special flood hazard area. Accordingly, development on the Project site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows and a cumulatively-considerable impact would not occur.

The Project would have no impacts related to the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation resulting from flooding, seiche, or tsunami and would have less than significant impacts related to the release of pollutants due to dam failure. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with pollutant release due to inundation.

The Project would not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. As such, the Project would not conflict with such plans on a cumulative basis; no significant cumulative impacts from the Project related to conflicts with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plan would occur. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.10-25 - 5.10-27)

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in addition to other development in the City in accordance with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan (General) and City zoning. The TOP 2050 SEIR concluded that with adherence to TOP 2050 development pursuant to the TOP 2050 would not result in cumulative impacts related to land use.

The Project would involve development of residential and school uses consistent with that anticipated by the City in TOP 2050 and would not divide an established community.

Therefore, the Project would not cause or cumulatively contribute to the division of an established community.
4035

The land use character and overall density of the Project are consistent with that anticipated by the TOP 2050 Policy Plan, and would be compatible with surrounding uses, including existing and planned uses with the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan Area.

Cumulative development projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations by the City (including Policy/General Plan policies and Ontario Development Code regulations), in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the state Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Through these requirements, future development would be consistent with adopted goals and polices, would be in compliance with applicable regulations, and would be compatible with existing land uses. Even if the cumulative impact of these projects would be significant, the Project’s contribution to such cumulative land use impacts is less than significant and is thus not cumulatively considerable because (1) the proposed development would not change the type or amount of development anticipated by the TOP 2050 General Plan/Policy; and, (2) the Project does not conflict with adopted goals and policies as identified through the analysis presented in the SEIR. (Draft SEIR, pp.

5.11-21 – 5.11-22)

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
The area considered for cumulative impacts to mineral resources is the P-C regions overlapping the City and extending into other counties within the Greater Los Angeles Sand and Gravel Resources Area: the Claremont-Upland P-C region extends into Los Angeles County; the Orange County-Temescal Region extends into Orange County and Western Riverside County, and the San Bernardino P-C region encompasses San Bernardino and most western Riverside County. Other projects in the referenced areas would likely be proposed within MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 areas. Development of such projects could cause loss of availability of known mineral resources valuable to the region. Other projects would be subject to independent CEQA review, including analysis of impacts to MRZ areas and mining sites. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would be required to reduce any significant impacts identified. The Project would not impact mineral resources of statewide, regional, or local value. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

13. NOISE
The cumulative noise impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with development anticipated by TOP 2050 and cumulative development projects identified in the Transportation Study included in SEIR Technical Appendix M.

Project construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant. As it is unlikely that any other cumulative developments would be under construction in proximity to the Project concurrent with Project construction, cumulatively-considerable constructionrelated noise impacts would be less than significant.

With respect to noise associated with Project operations, the Project’s operational noise from on-site residential and school uses would be less than significant. There are no cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Amendment Area that would result in significant operational noise impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
4036

The Project’s traffic noise contributions along study area roadways would not exceed applicable significance thresholds with the exception of one roadway segment (Eucalyptus Avenue west of Hamner Avenue) under the Existing Plus Project and Opening Year 2025 condition. There is no feasible mitigation to address this impact; therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative trafficrelated noise impact.

The Project-related vibration impacts would be less than significant during Project construction. As it is unlikely that other sources of vibration would occur in the vicinity of the Amendment Area concurrent with Project construction activities, impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration. As with the Project, cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Amendment Area would consist primarily of residential and other uses that would not generate perceptible groundborne vibration during operation. Therefore, Project impacts due to vibration during operation would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The Project would not involve the construction, operation, or use of any public airports or public use airports. There are no conditions associated with implementation of the Project that would contribute airport noise or exposure of additional people to unacceptable level of airport noise. Accordingly, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to impacts associated with noise from a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. (Draft SEIR, p. 5.13-19 - 5.13-20)

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Buildout of the Amendment Area is anticipated to generate housing and non-residential uses consistent with TOP 2050. The associated increases in population (estimated 5,876 residents) and employment opportunities (estimated 56 jobs) in the City would not result in substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The anticipated employment opportunities associated with the proposed school use would not be such that individuals would move to the City or the region creating unplanned indirect increases in population.

Additionally, the Project would not result in an extension of infrastructure that would result in unplanned induced or cumulatively considerable development. Since the Project impact is less than significant, the Project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact related to population or housing.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Based on their inherent purpose, the provision of public services takes into consideration a larger service area than just individual project boundaries. Public services to the Amendment Area are provided by OFD, OPD, MVSD, CJUHSD, Ontario Public Library, and the City’s Recreation Department. The implementation of the Project would result in a net increase of 1,470 units to the Specific Plan Area, which would generate an increase in the residential population in the City, consistent with that anticipated in the TOP 2050 EIR, and an associated increase in the demand for public services. The Project’s residential component would generate new residents, based on the population generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, and 56 new employment opportunities, which would increase existing demands for public services.
4037

Fire Protection, Police, and Library Services: Future development in the City - based on buildout of TOP 2050 and including other proposed development projects such as the Project - is expected to increase demand for fire protection, police and library services within the City and would contribute to the need to expand facilities and operate such services. Each development project in the City would be required to pay applicable development fees as charged by the City’s Building Department or collected by the Building Department on the behalf of other departments or governmental agencies for fire protection facilities. By maintaining a consistent level of service through expansion or facility improvements, the service providers would be able to ensure that their performance objectives are consistently met. As increases in demand would be incremental over time, the City would continue to regularly monitor resources to ensure that adequate facilities, staffing, and equipment are available to serve existing and future development and population increases.

Additionally, new development in the City, including development assumed for buildout of TOP 2050, would be required to comply with all applicable codes, ordinances and regulatory requirements, including the current edition of the CFC, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, and water availability, among other measures. Future development in the City, would also have to comply with applicable fire safety and fire access requirements to prevent fire incidents; to facilitate emergency response; and to reduce the demand for fire protection services. Individual projects would be reviewed by the OFD to determine the specific fire requirements applicable to the development and to ensure compliance with these requirements. This further ensures an adequate level of service for fire protection and emergency services to residents in the OFD service area.

Therefore, the Project’s increased demand for fire protection, police and library services would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to these services.

School Services: Cumulative development in the MVSD and CJUHSD service area would generate an increase in student population in MVSD and CJUHSD schools. As school districts’ enrollments expand, administrators must seek short-term and long-term remedies to accommodate those additional students. In recognition of these conditions, the State Legislature provided authority for school districts to assess impact fees for both residential and nonresidential development projects. Those fees, as authorized under Section 65995 of the California Government Code, are collected by municipalities at the time building permits are issued and conveyed to the affected school district in accordance with a defined fee structure. The Legislature has declared that the payment of these fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development, per Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Since all development implemented pursuant to the Project and other development proposed in the City and surrounding areas must pay its appropriate school impact fees, each project would mitigate the impacts associated with its activities. Additionally, Project Applicants in Ontario Ranch that are party to the 2015 School Mitigation Agreement would be required to adhere to the mitigation requirements established in that Agreement. Further, the Project includes a middle-school site (PA 34) with a capacity of 1,200 students. Therefore, the Project’s increased demand for school services would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to schools. 4038

Parks and Recreational Facilities: Future residential development in the City would contribute to the cumulative need for more recreational open space and park facilities generated by the increase in residents. Buildout of TOP 2050 would generate a need for a total of approximately 539 acres of parkland. Currently there are approximately 481.4 acres of existing and planned parkland in the City; therefore, additional parkland is required to serve cumulative development.

The City has several regulations in place to address funding from new residential development for additional parkland and park improvements. Pursuant to the Quimby Act, Ontario Development Code Chapter 6.08.030 requires the dedication of land, payment of an in-lieu fee, or a combination of both for the provision of parks and recreational facilities for new residential developments. Through adherence to requirements for provision of parkland and/or payment of development impact fees, residential developments in the City would provide parks and recreational facilities to meet their demands.

Since individual development projects would mitigate their incremental impact on parks and recreational facilities, the Project’s increased demand for park and recreational facilities would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to park and recreational facilities.

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

Cumulative development projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, including but not limited to the Connect SoCal (SCAG RTP/SCS) and TOP 2050, as applicable. Even if cumulative development projects are in conflict, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable because the Project does not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.

With respect to VMT impacts, the City of Ontario has adopted the following threshold of significance related to cumulative VMT impacts for land use plans:
 A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT/SP within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions.

Since the Project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, there is no difference between the Future No Project and Future With Project conditions and therefore there is no forecast change in daily VMT within the City under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative VMT impact would be less than significant.

The Project Applicant would develop the Amendment Area with uses consistent with the TOP 2050 land use designations. The Project would have less than significant impacts related to hazards from design or incompatible uses during construction and operation, and with respect to emergency access, with adherence to applicable requirements.

Cumulative projects would also be required to comply with applicable regulations related to the use of designated truck routes for construction, roadway and access design, and emergency access, which are in place to ensure impacts are less than significant.

Additionally, cumulative development in the area would continue the transition from agricultural to urban uses, reducing the potential conflict between farming equipment and 4039

vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts for these issues, when considered with the cumulative projects that are planned, proposed, or under construction in the vicinity of the Amendment Area. (Draft SEIR, p. 5-16.26)

17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Amendment Area is located within a Native American traditional use area that stretches across San Bernardino County. Other development projects within this traditional use area would have a similar potential as the Project to adversely affect tribal cultural resources. The City conducted Native American consultation with potentially culturally affiliated tribes, as required by AB 52 and SB 18. As a result of this consultation effort, no tribal cultural resources were identified within the Amendment Area or off-site improvement areas. However, it is possible that buried prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources could be present within the area. The Project includes mitigation measures to ensure proper identification, treatment, and preservation of tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these measures would reduce the potential for the Project’s adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources. Each future Project considered for approval by the City would be required to do its own consultation and include mitigation measures to protect resources if they are uncovered during grading activities. Neither the Project nor other cumulative developments are expected to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources provided site-specific surveys are conducted and required measures to protect the tribal cultural resources are implemented. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources.

18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis for utilities and infrastructure systems for water systems and supply, sewer systems, storm drains, and solid waste services is the City. The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis for dry utilities is the service area for the respective service providers (SCE, SoCalGas, Frontier, Charter/Spectrum and Ontario City Fiber). The cumulative impact area for wastewater treatment impacts is the service area for RP-5.

As with the Project, individual cumulative development projects would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utility infrastructure, and others) to serve the projects. However, the infrastructure needed for the Project would be limited to previously planned Master Plan utility infrastructure, and relatively small distribution and collection lines, which would occur within the Project’s identified construction impact area. No new or expanded offsite infrastructure is required to be implemented as part of the Project, beyond the utility infrastructure to be constructed adjacent to the Amendment Area. The Project’s proposed utility infrastructure would serve the Project and would not facilitate additional development in the area beyond that already anticipated by the respective Master Plans.

The environmental impacts associated with construction of utility infrastructure to be installed as part of the Project have been addressed throughout the SEIR and would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project and all new development would have to coordinate with service providers to obtain services, and connections to existing utility lines would be made in accordance with the applicable requirements of the utility provider 4040

and the City, as applicable. Further, the payment of service fees to the respective service providers is expected to ensure adequate services to individual developments. The Project in conjunction with cumulative development would not result in significant impacts related to the construction and installation of utility infrastructure and would not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure.

The analysis in the Project’s WSA, which is based on the City’s 2020 UWMP, demonstrates that with implementation of the Project and other cumulative developments, the City would have adequate water supplies through the year 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Therefore, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact, and the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with water supply.

Under long-term, cumulative conditions, IEUA anticipates future increases in the demand for wastewater treatment services as the population within their service area grows. The Project would not result in the need for expanded wastewater treatment facilities, as RP5 has sufficient existing capacity to handle wastewater generated by the Project and other cumulative development. Any proposed changes to capacity of the IEUA or any facility maintained by IEUA are reviewed throughout the year by IEUA. For all new development within the EMWD service area, connection and service fees are allocated to assist in the financing of any future collection and disposal facilities and any future new/modified water and sewer treatment plant facilities. Therefore, IEUA would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity for wastewater generation by the Project and cumulative developments in its service area and there would be less than significant cumulative impact. The wastewater generated by the Project would not exceed the capacity of the RP-5 and the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with wastewater treatment.

The solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent a nominal portion of the daily disposal capacity at the landfills serving the City. These landfills have sufficient daily capacity to handle solid waste during the Project construction and operation and the Project and would not directly result in the need for expanded solid waste disposal facilities. Further, the Project would adhere to applicable local and State regulations during both construction and long-term operations. Other cumulative development would also be required to comply with such regulations. Solid waste management regulations are more stringent now compared to when the 2006 EIR was prepared. Therefore, notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable impact conclusion reached in the 2006 EIR, TOP 2050 SEIR concluded the buildout of TOP 2050, which includes the development anticipated by the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment would result in less than significant cumulative impacts related to solid waste (landfill capacity and no conflict with solid waste management regulations). Consistent with the conclusion of the TOP 2050 SEIR, the Project combined with cumulative projects would not have a cumulative impact, and the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste disposal and compliance with regulations addressing the reduction of solid waste generation and disposal. (Draft SEIR, pp. 5.18-25 – 5.18-26).
4041

19. WILDFIRE
The Amendment Area is not within an SRA and is not within lands classified as VHFHSZ and no wildfire impacts would occur with implementation of the Project. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative wildfire impacts.

F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR analysis. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project. Rather, an EIR must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that are potentially feasible; an EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. In addition, an EIR should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Therefore, this section sets forth the potential alternatives to the Project analyzed in the EIR and evaluates them in light of the objectives of the Project, as required by CEQA.

Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines on alternatives (Sections 15126.6[b]– 15126.6[f]) are summarized below.
 “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (Section 15126.6[b]).  “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact” (Section 15126.6[e][1]).
 “The ‘no project’ analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, and at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (Section 15126.6[e][2]).
 “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and 4042

whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6[f]).
 For alternative locations, “only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]).
 “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative” (Section 15126.6[f][3]).

1. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING POTENTIALLY FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES The potentially significant impacts of the Project can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the exception of agricultural resources (site-specific and cumulative impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses), air quality (conflict with the AQMP and operational impacts), and noise (traffic-related noise along a roadway segment under Existing plus Project and Opening Year 2025 conditions).

The alternatives to the Project must include a no-project alternative and a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project if those reasonable alternatives would attain most of the Project objectives while substantially lessening the potentially significant Project impacts. The range of alternatives discussed in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason,” which the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) defines as:
. . . set[ting] forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking.

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)[1]) are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the Project proponent could reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, and whose implementation is remote or speculative.

The Project alternatives are evaluated to determine the extent to which they attain the basic Project objectives, while significantly lessening any significant effects of the Project.

2. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead 4043

agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following is a discussion of the alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the SEIR.
 Alternative Site. The Project Applicant does not own any other land in the Ontario Ranch area that is not already entitled and identified as a growth area in TOP 2050 that would serve as an Alternative Site and accommodate the Project. Further, significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the Project likely would not be avoided with development at an alternative site.  Farmland Impact Avoidance Alternative. A Farmland Avoidance Alternative would involve avoiding the loss of Farmland in existing PA 30 of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan. Development of PA 30 would occur under the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan, and the loss of Farmland within the previously approved Specific Plan Area was already evaluated in the 2006 EIR. The proposed increase in units in PA 30 as proposed by the Project would not change the physical impacts that would occur with development pursuant to the existing Specific Plan as evaluated in the 2006 EIR. As determined in the 2006 EIR, an alternative that avoids the loss of Farmland does not require further evaluation due to: a) the lack of long-term viability for commercial agriculture within the Chino Basin and Ontario Ranch; and, b) the lack of such an alternative’s ability to meet General Plan policies, land plan, and goals for development of the Ontario Ranch.

Thus, the Alternative Site and Farmland Impact Avoidance Alternatives have been rejected from further consideration for the Project consistent with the conclusion of the 2006 EIR. (Draft SEIR, pp. 7-5 - 7-6)

3. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS
Based on the CEQA requirements, and the Project objectives listed in Section III.C, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives. The two build alternatives have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and may avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 7.0 of the SEIR.  No Project/No Development Alternative
 Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative
 Reduced Density Alternative
a. No Project/No Development Alternative
Description: Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Amendment Area (PAs 30 through PA 34) would remain in its current condition. Existing uses within PAs 30 and 31 include dairy farming and agriculture uses, and farm structures that supported previous agricultural activities; no agricultural activities currently occur, and the structures have been vacated. The entire 4044

area was disturbed, and the vegetation communities are limited to agricultural and ruderal. The southwest corner of the Expansion Area includes a disturbed lot formerly occupied by a trucking company. The western portion of the Expansion Area is used for agriculture production and the eastern portion of the Expansion Area is disturbed and undeveloped. (Draft SEIR, p. 7-7)
Impacts: Aesthetics
The Amendment Area does not contain any unique aesthetic resources, nor does it serve as a prominent scenic vista. The No Project/No Development Alternative does not involve any development or change in the current condition of the Amendment Area; therefore, there would be no change to the visual quality or character of the Amendment Area, or surrounding areas. With adherence to Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and Project-specific mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant under the Project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impact.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no construction or development in the Amendment Area would occur; and the Amendment Area would remain in its current condition, including existing agricultural operations in the Expansion Area. There are no forestry resources within the Amendment Area; therefore, under both the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project, impacts to forestry resources would not occur. Existing Prime Farmland in PA 30 would not be converted to non-agricultural uses under the No Project/No Development Alternative.

Therefore, the significant and unavoidable and cumulative impacts of the Project related to agricultural resources would not occur with this Alternative.

Air Quality
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any construction activities (including grading). Therefore, construction-related air quality emissions resulting from the Project would not occur. However, the Project’s air quality impacts during construction were determined to be less than significant with implementation of 2006 EIR and TOP EIR mitigation measures. Because no development would occur within the Amendment Area, operational activities, and associated trip generation, would not occur. SCAQMD thresholds for long-term operational emissions would not be exceeded and there would not be a conflict with the AQMP.

Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant long-term and cumulative unavoidable operational air quality impacts that would occur with implementation of the Project.

Biological Resources
4045

No grading or development would occur under this Alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds that may be present. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid on- and off-site disturbances. The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts to biological resources.

Cultural Resources
No historic resources are present within the Amendment Area; thus, no impacts to historic resources would occur with the Project or the No Project/No Development Alternative. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any excavation or grading activities.

Therefore, the potential to discover previously unidentified archaeological resources is eliminated. With incorporation of the applicable 2006 EIR mitigation measures, the impacts from the Project would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the less than significant impacts to cultural resources resulting from implementation of the Project.

Energy
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Amendment Area in its existing condition and would not demand any energy beyond the de minimis amount needed for routine maintenance activities and continued agricultural activities (row crops) in a portion of the Expansion Area. In the absence of construction activities and operation of the proposed uses, the No Project/No Development Alternative would require no new demand for near-term or long-term energy or fuel use within the Amendment Area. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s near- and long-term energy use and would avoid the Project’s less than significant energy impacts.

Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Amendment Area in its existing condition, which would include periodic ground disturbances related to periodic onsite maintenance activities and agricultural operations. These activities have the potential to result in water and/or wind erosion of exposed soils that would not occur with the Project.

No new development would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. Therefore, there would be no potential for additional workers, building and structures to experience seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Amendment Area. This Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to geology and soils but would have greater impacts associated with potential for erosion.
4046

Regarding paleontological resources, this Alternative would not result in impacts to paleontological resources since no grading would occur.

Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the less than significant impacts to paleontological resources resulting from implementation of the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no development would occur within the Amendment Area. Therefore, there would be no new sources of near-term or long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the No Project/No Development Alternative, and this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts associated with GHG emissions.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. The agricultural uses would remain onsite, and the other portions of the Project site would remain vacant and disturbed. The Project would have a less than significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials with incorporation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures incorporated. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, existing hydrology patterns and characteristics of the Amendment Area and water quality conditions would remain unchanged. The Project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which would increase the amount of storm water runoff from the Amendment Area and potentially increase the amount of urban pollutants entering the storm water compared to existing conditions. However, the Project impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of applicable 2006 EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulatory requirements. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the storm water leaving the Amendment Area would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants, as occurs under existing conditions. Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have fewer hydrology and water quality impacts compared to the Project. However, the impacts from the Project would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not divide an established community and would not result in any new development that would indirectly result in environmental impacts due to a conflict with an existing land use plan. Accordingly, selection of the No Project/No Development 4047

Alternative would result in no impacts to land use and planning; however, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant.

Mineral Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Project site in its existing condition. The Project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Therefore, under both the No Project/No Development Alternative and the Project, there would be no impacts to mineral resources.

Noise
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any grading or construction activities. Therefore, noise and vibration effects associated with construction activities would not occur under this Alternative. However, the construction-related noise impacts from the Project would be less than significant after implementation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures. The increase in long-term, traffic-related, and operational noise levels associated with the Project, including the significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact along one roadway segment would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative.

Population and Housing
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Amendment Area would remain in its current condition and would not increase the population or employment in the City. Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to population and housing.

Public Services and Recreation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Amendment Area would remain in its current condition. There would be no increase in demand for fire, police, school, or park/recreation services and the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact on public services or recreation facilities. Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to the increased demand for public services and recreation and would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts associated with construction of onsite recreational facilities.

Transportation
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not change the existing circulation conditions because no new development would occur and circulation improvements anticipated by TOP 2050 that would be constructed as part of the Project would not be implemented (including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements). No long-term (operational) vehicle trips would be generated under the No Project/No Development Alternative. The Project would have less than significant impacts related to consistency with plans and programs addressing circulation, VMT, potential hazards, and emergency access. Therefore, the 4048

No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to transportation.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the Amendment Area in its existing condition, with ongoing maintenance and agricultural activities. No grading would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative and there would be no potential impacts to subsurface tribal cultural resources that may exist. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid new disturbances and would avoid the potential for Project construction activities to damage buried tribal cultural resources, although Project impacts are less than significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not place any new demands on local and regional utilities and service systems because no new development would occur. Under this Alternative, no new utilities would be constructed, and no physical impacts would result. Accordingly, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s less than significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Wildfire
The Amendment Area is not within or near a SRA, does not have lands classified as a VHFHSZ, is not near a VHFHSZ, and developed areas or vacant lots being used primarily for agricultural purposes provide a buffer between the Amendment Area and VHFHSZs. As such, the Project would not result in impacts related to wildfires or exacerbate wildfire hazards.

Under both the Project and No Project/No Development Alternative no impacts would occur.

Ability to Reduce Project Impacts
The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the Project on agricultural resources (site-specific and cumulative impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses), air quality (conflict with the AQMP and operational impacts), and noise (traffic-related noise along a roadway segment under Existing plus Project and Opening Year 2025 conditions). Additionally, because no development would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, less than significant impacts resulting from the Project for the following environmental topics would be avoided: aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
4049

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve any development in the Amendment Area. This alternative would not attain any of the Project Objectives, including goals and policies relevant related to the development of housing in the Ontario Ranch, including the Amendment Area, to assist the City in meeting its RHNA requirements and to implement TOP 2050.

Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative, on the following grounds: the alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives and would not provide any of the Project benefits that would occur with the implementation of the Project, including development of housing in the Ontario Ranch to assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) requirements.
b. Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative
Description: The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would reduce the number of residential units compared to the Project by retaining the existing Specific Plan development assumptions for PAs 30 and 31 (not implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for these PAs) and proceeding with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment associated with the Expansion Area (PAs 32, 33, and 34). As shown in Table 7-1 of the SEIR, this Alternative would involve the development of 1,512 dwelling units within PAs 30 through 33 and would result in an overall reduction of 155 dwelling units in PAs 30 through 33 compared to the Project (1,667 units) (a reduction of approximately 9%).

The Project would result in a net increase of 1,470 units within the Specific Plan area compared to the approved Specific Plan (an increase from 2,418 units to 3,888 units), and this would be reduced to a net increase of 1,315 units with this Alternative. New home types to provide a variety of housing types that promote higher density and more choice in floorplans, and that provide more attainable options for a greater range of residents as well as options for different household compositions would be provided in the Expansion Area. However, the allowed home types in PAs 30 and 31 would remain the same as the previously approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan. The proposed school in PA 34, and roadway and infrastructure improvements to be implemented with the Project would also be implemented under this Alternative. (Draft SEIR, p. 7-12)
Impacts: Aesthetics
As with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve the development of residential uses and school uses; PAs 30 and 31 would be developed pursuant to the approved Specific Plan and the Expansion Area would be developed consistent with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Although there would be a reduction of residential uses, the visual character of the development would be similar to the Project since the development would be required to adhere to the Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and the Ontario Municipal Code. As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than 4050

significant impacts related to impact to a scenic vista, and conflict with goals or policies outlined in the General Plan or Ontario Municipal Code requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, both the Project and this Alternative would include mitigation to reduce impacts related to construction lighting to a less than significant level.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative, the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, and Prime Farmland in PAs 30 and 31 would be converted to non-agricultural uses, consistent with the City’s land use designation and zoning, which do not anticipate continued agricultural activities. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable Project and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources resulting from the Project would also occur with this Alternative, consistent with the conclusion of the 2006 EIR and TOP 2010 EIR.

Air Quality
As with the Project, Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would be consistent with the TOP 2050 growth projections and would not conflict with growth assumptions in the SCAQMD AQMP. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in VOC, NOX, and CO emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact even with mitigation. This would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State O3 standards in the SoCAB. As such, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would be considered to have the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Implementation of the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and the construction assumptions with respect to the intensity of construction would be similar. Therefore, local and regional construction emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project. The relationship of proposed uses under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction and operation would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative.

The Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 144.93 pounds per day (lbs/day) of VOC compared to the threshold of 55 lbs/day, 112.20 lbs/day of NOx compared to the threshold of 55 lbs per day, and 802 lbs/day of CO compared to the threshold of 550 lbs/day. The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have an approximately 9% reduction in residential units compared to the Project (155 fewer residential units). Thus, 4051

total operational emissions (which include area, energy, and mobile sources) including NOx, VOC, and CO emissions would be lower with the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative compared to the Project.

With the reduction in residential units under this Alternative, and assuming a similar 9% reduction in emissions from mobile and other sources, there would still be an exceedance of VOC, NOx, and CO operational emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. An approximate 9% emissions reduction would not be sufficient to reduce the emissions of NOx, VOC and CO below the SCAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance. As with the Project, even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in SEIR Section 5.3, the amount of emissions reduction would not reduce emissions to below the established threshold of significance. Long-term operational emissions of NOx and VOC, which are O3 precursors, would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant impact. Therefore, although the amount of emissions would be reduced, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable operational and cumulative air quality impacts resulting from operational emissions.

The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and Project would involve development of the same types of uses and would have less than significant impacts related to other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Biological Resources
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would have no impact to riparian habitat or wetlands and would comply with local requirements for protection of trees. Potential significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would be the same under the Project and this Alternative. The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with this Alternative and the Project.

Cultural Resources
No historic resources are present within the Amendment Area. Therefore, no impact to historic resources would occur with implementation of the Project or the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project.

Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, this Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to cultural resources.

Energy
4052

Implementation of the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in similar types of energy demand during construction and operation of the residential and school uses as the Project due to the same physical impact area, and type of uses to be developed. However, energy demand for construction and operation of the residential uses would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of units. Therefore, this Alternative would have reduced energy impacts as compared to the Project; however, the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.

Geology and Soils
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the Project. With implementation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures, which require adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical studies, the Project and this Alternative would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Further, because the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, this Alternative would also have the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources and the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Therefore, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve similar construction activities, and the development of the same type of uses as the Project. Therefore, the sources of GHG emissions would be the same, although there would be an overall reduction in GHG emissions due to the reduction in residential units (155 fewer residential units; a reduction of approximately 9% compared to the Project). As with the Project, development under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would be consistent with the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) Update, and therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would involve the development of the same types of uses (residential and school). Thus, similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would occur. Based on the location and condition of the Project site and types of uses proposed, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would have no impact related to location on a hazardous materials site or wildland fire, and a less than significant impact related to hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of a school. Land uses that would occur onsite 4053

under this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and store hazardous materials as the Project resulting in a less than significant impact, and similar less than significant impacts related to hazards associated with the ONT and Chino Airport, and emergency response/evacuation. Impacts associated with the potential to encounter septic tanks and water wells, potential methane gas, and hazardous building materials (asbestos and lead) would also be less than significant for the Project and this Alternative with implementation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project, and the development of the same types of uses. Both the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which would increase the amount of storm water runoff and potentially increase the amount of pollutants entering the storm water. As with the Project, storm water runoff would flow to existing drainage and water quality treatment facilities that have sufficient capacity to accommodate storm runoff and water quality treatment requirements from development of this Alternative. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant for the Project with implementation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and would also be less than significant for the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative.

As with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not involve excavation at depths that would encounter groundwater and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Because the development area would be the same, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would have the same less than significant impacts related to inundation, and no impacts related to flood hazard.

Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve the same area of development as the Project, which is already planned for development pursuant to the approved Subarea 29 Specific and the TOP 2050. Additionally, development has already occurred to the east and west and south. Neither the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative nor the Project would divide an established community.

The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve development of PAs 30 and 31 pursuant to the approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan, and development of the Expansion Area with residential uses and a middle school, consistent with the land uses anticipated by the TOP 4054

2050 Policy Plan. Further the current zoning for existing PAs 30 and 31 is Specific Plan (SP) District (Subarea 29 Specific Plan), and the zoning for the Expansion Area is SP (Specific Plan) with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay, which anticipates development pursuant TOP 2050 Policy Plan and the underlying zoning district. Residential and school uses are currently allowed by the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan, and the residential and school uses that would be developed under this Alternative would be implemented in accordance with the Development Standards and Design Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, as amended with the Project. The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not provide the minimum number of dwelling units anticipated by TOP 2050 in PAs 30 and

31. Even though there would be a reduction in dwelling units developed in the City, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not conflict with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan, the Ontario Municipal Code, or SCAG Connect SoCal, and specifically would not conflict with applicable environmental plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.

Mineral Resources
The Amendment Area does not contain mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is not designated as a mineral recovery site. The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and as with the Project would have no impact to mineral resources.

Noise
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve similar construction activities as the Project and noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance as identified in the 2006 EIR mitigation measures. Because the types of uses developed under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would be the same, the operational onsite noise sources would also be the same and would be less than significant.

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 (noise increase of 8.0 dBA and 6.4 dBA, respectively). A 3 dB increase is a doubling of acoustic energy and is the threshold of perceptibility. With an approximate 9% reduction in trip generation associated with the reduction in units, and similar trip distribution on the roadway network, the traffic noise reduction along Segment 46 would be approximately 0.4 dBA, which would not avoid the significant noise impact (there would be an estimated 6.7 dBA increase in noise compared to the 5 dBA threshold of significance). Therefore, as with the Project, the traffic-related noise impact along this roadway segment 4055

under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

As with the Project, onsite uses under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not be subjected to excessive noise levels from ONT or Chino Airport operations, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Population and Housing
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in the development of 155 fewer residential units compared to the Project and would include development of the proposed middle school. Thus, development of the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in 620 fewer residents (5,260 new residents compared to 5,880 new residents with the Project), and the same number of new employees (56 employees). Population growth under the Project was determined to be within the growth projections for the area and impacts to related population and housing were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not induce substantial unplanned growth resulting in a less than significant impact. Because the Amendment Area is not occupied, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would not displace existing people or housing.

Public Services and Recreation
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in the development of 155 fewer residential units compared to the Project and would include development of the proposed middle school. Thus, development of the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in a reduced demand for public services and recreational facilities. As with the Project, with incorporation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures, which implement standard requirements, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not require the construction of new or expanded fire, police, school or library facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Additionally, with adherence to the City’s parkland requirements impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would have a less than significant impact related to public services and recreation.

Transportation
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve implementation of the same roadway, bikeway, pedestrian and transit improvements as the Project, and would comply with City requirements relative to the circulation system. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not conflict with TOP 2050 Policy Plan Mobility Element policies related to transportation and circulation, Ontario Municipal Code requirements, or SCAG’s Connect 4056

SoCal transportation-related goals. Additionally, this Alternative and the Project would not create hazards through design and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project would have a less than significant impact related to conflict with plans addressing the circulation system, transportation-related hazards and emergency access.

The latest research provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, published in December 2021, details the increase in VMT and VMT per capita associated with decreased density of dwelling units (T-1 Increase Residential Density). Decreased densities affect the distance people travel and provide lesser options for the mode of travel they choose. Decreasing residential density results in longer and more trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus an increase in VMT. Table 7-2 in the SEIR presents the VMT Summary for the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative.

As shown, the OD VMT per SP for both Planning Areas 30-34 (24.39) and for the total Specific Plan Area (26.7) is lower than the Citywide average OD VMT per service population under General Plan Buildout Conditions.

For comparison, the Project OD VMT per SP would be 23.85 for PAs 30 through 34 and 26.4 for the total Specific Plan Area. Therefore, there would be a slight increase in VMT with buildout of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan under this Alternative; however, as with the Project, the VMT impact would be less than significant. Cumulative VMT impacts would also be less than significant for this Alternative and the Project because the proposed development would be consistent with TOP 2050 land use designations.

Tribal Cultural Resources
There are no known tribal cultural resources located within the Amendment Area. Therefore, no impact to known tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources as the Project.

With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to tribal cultural resources.

Utilities and Service Systems
As with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would increase the water demand, wastewater generation, and electric demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project and would generate a similar amount of storm water runoff. Although the total number of residential units would be reduced, the overall utility infrastructure needed to serve the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only 4057

Alternative would be the same as the Project and would be located within the same construction impact area. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to the installation of utility infrastructure.

The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have a reduced water demand than the Project due to the reduction in residential units. Therefore, the conclusions of the Project-specific WSA would be applicable to this Alternative, and OMUC would have sufficient water to serve the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative. Similarly, with a reduction in wastewater generation, there would be adequate capacity in the IEUA wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater generated. The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment.

As with the Project, construction and operation of the proposed residential and school uses under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would comply with applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste management and diversion of solid waste from landfills. The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.

Wildfire
The Amendment Area is not within or near an SRA or VHFSZ. Therefore, under both the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.

Ability to Reduce Project Impacts
The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the Project on agricultural resources (site-specific and cumulative impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses), air quality (conflict with the AQMP and operational impacts), and noise (off-site trafficrelated noise along one roadway segment under Existing plus Project and Opening Year 2025 conditions). The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts to energy, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems.

The total VMT per capita would increase under this Alternative; however, the impact would remain less than significant. All other impacts from the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative (biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire) would be similar to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
4058

The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would involve the development of 155 fewer dwelling units compared to the Project by not including the increase in units proposed in existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan PAs 30 and 31. This represents an approximately 9% reduction in dwelling units compared to the Project. This alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives; however, it would not meet the following objectives, or not meet the objectives to the same extent as the Project:

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.

The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment incorporates the land use changes for existing PAs 30 and 31 included in TOP 2050 Policy Plan. While the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would include the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for the Expansion Area, it would not include the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for PAs 30 and 31 and would not meet this objective to the same extent as the Project. Although the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would not conflict with the goals and policies of TOP 2050, it would not provide the minimum number of dwelling units anticipated by TOP 2050 in PAs 30 and 31.

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

The Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would have 155 fewer dwelling units than the Project and would not maximize housing opportunities; therefore, this objective would not be met.

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

The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment introduces new home types to provide a variety of housing types that promote higher density and more choice in floorplans, and that provide more attainable options for a greater range of residents as well as options for different household compositions. While these new home types would be implemented in the Specific Plan Area under the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative, the allowed home types in PAs 30 and 31 would remain the same. Therefore, this Alternative would not be meet this objective to the same extent as the Project.

Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) This Alternative would not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts (agricultural resources, air quality and noise); and (2) due to its comparative reduction in residential units, this Alternative would impede attainment of the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project.
4059

c. Reduced Density Alternative
Description: The Amendment Area includes land designated for Low Density Residential (2.1-5 du/ac), Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1-11), and Medium Density Residential. The Reduced Density Alternative would involve the same proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment as the Project for PAs 30 through 34, which would be consistent with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan; however, the PAs would be built out at the lower end of the allowed density range for each TOP 2050 Policy Plan land use designation. As shown in Table 7-3 of the SEIR, this Alternative would involve the development of 794 dwelling units within PAs 30 through 33 and would result in an overall reduction of 873 dwelling units in PAs 30 through 33 compared to the Project (1,667 units) (a reduction of approximately 53%).

The Project would result in a net increase of 1,470 units within the Specific Plan area, and this would be reduced to a net increase of 597 units with the Alternative. The proposed school in PA 34, and roadway and infrastructure improvements to be implemented with the Project would also be implemented under this Alternative. (Draft SEIR, p. 7-22) Impacts: Aesthetics
As with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve the development of residential uses and school uses consistent with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan land use designation. Although there would be a reduction of residential uses, the visual character of the development would be similar to the Project since the development would be required to adhere to the Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and the OMC. As with the Project, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts related to impact to a scenic vista, and conflict with goals or policies outlined in the TOP 2050 Policy Plan or OMC requirements that regulate scenic quality, and no impact related to degrading scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. Furthermore, both the Project and this Alternative would include mitigation to reduce impacts related to construction lighting to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant under both the Project and the Reduced Density Alternative.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, and Prime Farmland in PAs 30 and 31 would be converted to non-agricultural uses, consistent with the City’s land use designation and zoning, which do not anticipate continued agricultural activities. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable Project and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources resulting from the Project would also occur with this Alternative, consistent with the conclusion of the 2006 EIR and TOP 2010 EIR.

Air Quality
As with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with the TOP 2050 growth projections and would not conflict with growth 4060

assumptions in the SCAQMD AQMP. However, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in VOC emissions that exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact even with mitigation. This would contribute to a delay in the attainment of federal and State O3 standards in the SoCAB. As such, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered to have the potential to conflict with the SCAQMD AQMP, thereby resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project; however, with an approximately 53% reduction in residential units, construction activities would be reduced and there would be reduced air pollutant emissions during construction.

Therefore, local and regional construction emissions and associated impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, similar to the Project.

The relationship of proposed uses under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project, and potential impacts to sensitive receptors during construction and operation would be less than significant with the Project and this Alternative.

The Project is estimated to generate a maximum of 144.93 lbs/day of VOC compared to the threshold of 55 lbs/day, 112.20 lbs/day of NOx compared to the threshold of 55 lbs per day, and 802 lbs/day of CO compared to the threshold of 550 lbs/day. The Reduced Density Alternative would have an approximately 53% reduction in residential units compared to the Project (873 fewer residential units). Thus, total operational emissions (which include area, energy, and mobile sources) including NOx, VOC, and CO emissions would be lower with the Reduced Density Alternative compared to the Project. With the reduction in residential units under this Alternative, and assuming a similar 53% reduction in emissions from residential mobile and other sources, there would still be an exceedance of VOC operational emission thresholds established by the SCAQMD. It is estimated that NOx and CO emissions would be reduced to a level that would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold avoiding this impact; however, the SoCAB is not in nonattainment for CO. As with the Project, even with implementation of mitigation measures identified in SEIR Section 5.3, the amount of VOC emissions reductions would not reduce emissions to below the established threshold of significance. Long-term operational emissions of VOC, which is an O3 precursor, would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant impact. Therefore, although the amount of emissions would be reduced, the Reduced Density Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable operational and cumulative air quality impacts resulting from operational emissions.

The Reduced Density Alternative and Project would involve development of the same types of uses and would have less than significant impacts related to the other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Biological Resources
4061

The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project. As with the Project, this Alternative would have no impact to riparian habitat or wetlands and would comply with local requirements for protection of trees. Potential significant impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would be the same under the Project and this Alternative. The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with this Alternative and the Project.

Cultural Resources
No historic resources are present within the Amendment Area. Therefore, no impact to historic resources would occur with implementation of the Project or the Reduced Density Alternative. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project. Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, this Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to cultural resources.

Energy
Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar types of energy demand during construction and operation of the residential and school uses as the Project due to the same physical impact area, and type of uses to be developed. However, energy demand for construction and operation of the residential uses would be reduced due to the reduction in the number of units. Therefore, this Alternative would have reduced energy impacts than the Project; however, the Project’s energy impacts are less than significant.

Geology and Soils
The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would result in the same potential impacts related to geology and soils and seismic hazards as the Project. With implementation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures, which require adherence to applicable building codes and incorporation of the recommendations from the site-specific geotechnical studies, the Project and this Alternative would not expose people or structures to substantial safety risks associated with geologic hazards. Further, because the physical impact area would be the same as the Project, this Alternative would also have the potential to impact subsurface paleontological resources and the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation. Therefore, with incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, and adherence to applicable regulations, geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.
4062

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve similar construction activities, and the development of the same type of uses as the Project.

Therefore, the sources of GHG emissions would be the same, although there would be an overall reduction in GHG emissions due to the reduction in residential units (873 fewer residential units; a reduction of approximately 53% compared to the Project). As with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be consistent with the City’s CCAP Update, and therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project and would involve the development of the same types of uses (residential and school). Thus, similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would occur. Based on the location and condition of the Project site and types of uses proposed, the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would have no impact related to location on a hazardous materials site or wildland fire, and a less than significant impact related to hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of a school. Land uses that would occur onsite under this Alternative would have a similar potential to handle and store hazardous materials as the Project resulting in a less than significant impact, and similar less than significant impacts related to hazards associated with the ONT and Chino Airport, and emergency response/evacuation. Impacts associated with the potential to encounter septic tanks and water wells, potential methane gas, and hazardous building materials (asbestos and lead) would also be less than significant for the Project and this Alternative with implementation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures.

Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project, and the development of the same types of uses, although the density of the residential uses would be reduced. Both the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which would increase the amount of storm water runoff and potentially increase the amount of pollutants entering the storm water. As with the Project, storm water runoff would flow to existing drainage and water quality treatment facilities that have sufficient capacity to accommodate storm runoff and water quality treatment requirements from development of this Alternative.

Hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant for the Project with implementation of 2006 EIR mitigation measures and compliance with existing regulatory requirements and would also be less than significant for the Reduced Density Alternative.

As with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not involve excavation at depths that would encounter groundwater and would not 4063

substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Because the development area would be the same, the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would have the same less than significant impacts related to inundation, and no impacts related to flood hazard.

Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve the same area of development as the Project, which is already planned for development pursuant to the approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan and the City’s TOP 2050. The Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would not divide an established community.

The Reduced Density Alternative would involve development consistent with the land uses anticipated by the TOP 2050. Further the current zoning for existing PAs 30 and 31 is Specific Plan (SP) District (Subarea 29 Specific Plan), and the zoning for the Expansion Area is SP (Specific Plan) with an AG (Agriculture) Overlay, which anticipates development pursuant TOP 2050 and the underlying zoning district. Residential and school uses are currently allowed by the existing Subarea 29 Specific Plan, and the residential and school uses that would be developed under this Alternative 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, even though there would be a reduction in dwelling units developed in the City, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not conflict with the TOP 2050, the Ontario Municipal Code, or SCAG Connect SoCal, and specifically would not conflict with applicable environmental plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of this Alternative and the Project.

Mineral Resources
The Amendment Area does not contain mineral resources of regional or statewide importance and is not designated as a mineral recovery site. The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project, and as with the Project would have no impact to mineral resources.

Noise
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve similar construction activities as the Project and noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant with adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance as identified in the 2006 EIR mitigation measures. Because the types of uses developed under the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would be the same, the operational onsite noise sources would also be the same and would be less than significant.
4064

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 (noise increase of 8.0 dBA and 6.4 dBA, respectively). A 3 dB increase is a doubling of acoustic energy and is the threshold of perceptibility. With an approximate 53% reduction in trip generation associated with the reduction in units under this Alternative, and similar trip distribution on the roadway network, the traffic noise reduction along Segment 46 would be approximately 3 dBA.

Therefore, the noise level increase along Segment 46 would be approximately 5.0 dBA and 3.4 dBA with this Alternative. Therefore, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable off-site traffic noise impact for the Opening year 2025 traffic scenario, but the impact under the Existing Plus Project traffic scenario would remain significant and unavoidable.

As with the Project, onsite uses under the Reduced Density Alternative would not be subjected to excessive noise levels from ONT or Chino Airport operations, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Population and Housing
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 873 fewer residential units compared to the Project and would include development of the proposed middle school. Thus, development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in 2,704 fewer residents (3,176 new residents compared to 5,880 new residents with the Project), and the same number of new employees (56 employees). Population growth under the Project was determined to be within the growth projections for the area and impacts to related population and housing were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not induce substantial unplanned growth, resulting in a less than significant impact. Because the Amendment Area is not occupied, the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would not displace existing people or housing.

Public Services and Recreation
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of 873 fewer residential units compared to the Project and would include development of the proposed middle school. Thus, development of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a reduced demand for public services and recreational facilities. As with the Project, with incorporation of the 2006 EIR mitigation measures, the Reduced Density Alternative would not require the construction of new or expanded fire, police, school or library facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts, resulting in a less than significant impact. Additionally, with adherence to the City’s parkland requirements, impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project 4065

would both have a less than significant impact related to public services and recreation.

Transportation
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve implementation of the same roadway, bikeway, pedestrian and transit improvements as the Project, and would comply with City requirements relative to the circulation system.

Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not conflict with TOP 2050 Mobility Element policies related to transportation and circulation, Ontario Municipal Code requirements, or SCAG’s Connect SoCal transportation-related goals. Additionally, this Alternative and the Project would not create hazards through design and would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project would have a less than significant impact related to conflict with plans addressing the circulation system, transportation-related hazards and emergency access.

Decreasing residential density results in longer and more trips by singleoccupancy vehicles and thus an increase in VMT. Table 7-4 of the SEIR presents the VMT Summary for the Reduced Density Alternative. The OD VMT per SP for the total Specific Plan Area under this Alternative (28.6) is lower than the Citywide average OD VMT per SP under General Plan Buildout Conditions, resulting in a less than significant impact as with the Project. However, the OD VMT per SP under this Alternative would be higher than buildout of the Specific Plan with implementation of the Project (26.4).

The Project OD VMT per SP for the Project (23.85) is less than the Citywide average resulting in a less than significant VMT impact. Under this Alternative, with 873 fewer residents, the OD VMT per SP for PA 30 through 34 would be 29.62, which exceeds the Citywide average, resulting in a significant impact that would not occur with the Project. Therefore, at a Project-level, the Reduced Density Alternative would have greater VMT impacts than the Project.

Cumulative VMT impacts would be less than significant for this Alternative and the Project because the proposed development would be consistent with TOP 2050 land use designations.

Tribal Cultural Resources
There are no known tribal cultural resources located within the Amendment Area. Therefore, no impact to known tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative or the Project. This Alternative would involve the same physical impact area as the Project.

Therefore, this Alternative would result in the same potential impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources as the Project. With incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, the Reduced Density Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to tribal cultural resources.
4066

Utilities and Service Systems
As with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would increase the water demand, wastewater generation, and electric demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions. Additionally, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve development of the same area that would occur with implementation of the Project and would generate a similar amount of storm water runoff. Although the total number of residential units would be reduced, the overall utility infrastructure needed to serve the Reduced Density Alternative would be the same as the Project and would be located within the same construction impact area. Therefore, as with the Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would have similar, less than significant impacts as the Project related to the installation of utility infrastructure.

The Reduced Density Alternative would have a reduced water demand as compared to the Project due to the reduction in residential units. Therefore, the conclusions of the Project-specific WSA would be applicable to this Alternative, and OMUC would have sufficient water to serve the Reduced Density Alternative. Similarly, with a reduction in wastewater generation, there would be adequate capacity in the IEUA wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater generated. The Reduced Density Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to water supply and wastewater treatment.

As with the Project, construction and operation of the proposed residential and school uses under the Reduced Density Alternative would comply with applicable local and state regulations related to solid waste management and diversion of solid waste from landfills. The Reduced Density Alternative and Project would have less than significant impacts related to solid waste.

Wildfire
The Amendment Area is not within or near an SRA or VHFSZ. Therefore, under both the Reduced Density Alternative and the Project, wildfire impacts would not occur.

Ability to Reduce Project Impacts
The Reduced Density Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the Project related to agricultural resources (site-specific and cumulative impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses). The Reduced Density Alternative would not result in CO and NOx emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance; however, this Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts associated with VOC emissions in exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (conflict with the AQMP and operational impacts). The Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the Project’s off-site traffic-related noise along one roadway segment under Opening Year 2025 conditions, but the off-site traffic noise impact for the Existing Plus Project traffic scenario would remain significant and unavoidable.
4067

The total VMT per capita would increase under this Alternative and would be significant for PAs 30 through 34 (the Amendment Area), resulting in a significant impact that would not occur with the Project. The VMT per capita would remain less than significant for buildout of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan and with respect to cumulative VMT impacts.

Due to the reduction in residential units, the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the Project’s less than significant impacts to energy, public services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. All other impacts from the Reduced Density Alternative (biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, population and housing, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire) would be similar to the Project.

Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
The Reduced Density Alternative would involve the development of 873 fewer dwelling units compared to the Project (a reduction of approximately 53%). This alternative would meet most of the Project Objectives; however, it would not meet the following objectives, or not meet the objectives to the same extent as the Project:

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

The Reduced Density Alternative would have 873 fewer dwelling units than the Project and would not maximize housing opportunities; therefore, this objective would not be met.

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

The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment introduces new home types to provide a variety of housing types that promote higher density and more choice in floorplans, and that provide more attainable options for a greater range of residents as well as options for different household compositions. While the proposed Specific Plan Amendment introducing new home types would still occur under the Reduced Density Alternative, with 873 fewer units, there would be fewer types of units developed, and the density of the residential development would be reduced. With reduced density development, home prices would be higher. Therefore, although the provision of housing under this Alternative would meet this objective to a certain extent, this objective would be met to a substantially lesser degree than with the Project.

Finding: The City Council rejects the Reduced Density Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) This Alternative would reduce but not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts (agricultural resources, air quality and noise); (2) this Alternative would result in a new significant VMT 4068

impact for PAs 30 through 34; and (3) due to its substantial reduction in residential units as compared to the Project, this Alternative would impede attainment of the Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project.

4. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the project site and its surrounding environment.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid or reduce all of the Project’s significant and less than significant environmental impacts and, therefore, can be considered environmentally superior to the Project. While this Alternative would avoid the significant effects of the Project, none of the Project objectives would be met. If a “no project” alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).

The Reduced Density Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative compared to the Project and the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative. The Reduced Density Alternative would have the same physical impact area as the Project; therefore, it would not reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. The reduction in impacts for the Reduced Density Alternative is due to that fact that this Alternative would generate approximately 873 fewer dwelling units than the Project (a reduction of approximately 53%), which would reduce operational impacts (e.g., air quality and GHG emissions, energy demand, trip generation, noise, etc.). Comparatively, the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative would result in 155 fewer dwelling units compared to the Project, a reduction of approximately 9%.

As with the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from implementation of the Project on agricultural resources (site-specific and cumulative impacts related to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses), air quality (conflict with the AQMP and operational impacts), or traffic-related noise impact along one roadway segment under Existing plus Project condition. Due to the reduction in dwelling units, the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a significant VMT impact for development within PAs 30 through 34 (Amendment Area). Although the overall OD VMT per SP at buildout of the Specific Plan would be higher under the Reduced Density Alternative compared to the Reduced Density/Expansion Area Only Alternative and the Project, the impact would be less than significant.

For the other impact categories, the level of impact would be similar to or less than the Project.

Although the Reduced Density Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, it does not meet key Project Objectives to the same extent as the Project, including maximizing housing opportunities to assist in meeting City RHNA allocation requirements, and developing a range of housing types and affordability. 4069

CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[c]).

G. ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

1. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES DUE TO THE PROPOSED

PROJECT
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c), Section 15126.2(d), and 15127, require that for certain types or categories of projects, an EIR must address significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the Project be implemented. As presented in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15127, the topic of Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes need be addressed in EIRs prepared in connection with any of the following activities:
(a) The adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or ordinance of a public agency;
(b) The adoption by a local agency formation commission of a resolution making determinations; or
(c) A project which will be subject to the requirements for preparing of an environmental impact statement pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.

The Project qualifies under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15127(a) in that an amendment to the current Subarea 29 Specific Plan is required in order to implement the Project.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project and states:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.”
Generally, a project will result in significant irreversible environmental changes if the following occurs:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
4070

 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; and  The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. PAs 30 and 31 are developed with structures associated with former dairy farming operation. An existing SCE easement bisects existing PAs 30 and 31. The western portion of the proposed Expansion Area is disturbed; specifically, the northern portion was used for agricultural purposes and the southern portion was previously occupied by a trucking company. The eastern portion of the proposed Expansion Area is undeveloped. The Amendment Area and surrounding area has historically been used for agricultural purposes; however, agricultural activities at the Amendment Area ceased in 2009, except for the western portion of the proposed Expansion Area. There are no non-renewable resources present at the Amendment Area; therefore, conversion of the land from its current state to residential and school uses would not degrade or destroy non-renewable resources in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them.

Construction and long-term operation of the Project would require the commitment and reduction of non-renewable and/or slowly renewable resources, including petroleum fuels and natural gas (for vehicle emissions, construction, lighting, heating, and cooling of structures) as well as lumber, sand/gravel, steel, copper, lead, and other metals (for use in building and roadway construction and utility infrastructure). Other resources that are slow to renew and/or recover from environmental stressors would also be impacted by Project implementation; these include air quality (through the combustion of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases) and water supply (through the increased potable water demands for drinking, cleaning, landscaping, and general maintenance needs). The Project is required by law to comply with federal, State, and local building requirements addressing energy conservation. Compliance with these requirements reduces a building operation’s energy volume that is produced by fossil fuels. A more detailed discussion of energy consumption is provided in SEIR Section 5.6, Energy. The consumption of nonrenewable resources to construct and operate the Project over the long-term would likely commit subsequent generations to the same use of the land and similar patterns of energy consumption. It is improbable that the Amendment Area would revert to permanently undeveloped conditions due to the large capital investment that would already have been committed. However, the Project is not expected to reduce the availability of any natural resources as a result of long-term operational activities.

TOP 2050 and the Ontario zoning ordinance anticipate that development within the Amendment Area would eventually support residential and school uses in accordance with the underlying zoning classification and land use designations. Implementation of the Project would commit the Amendment Area to residential uses and one middle school.

These uses are compatible with the existing and planned uses that surround the Amendment Area. The Project and its environmental effects would not compel or commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are existing today or those that 4071

are planned by TOP 2050 and the zoning ordinance. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties.

SEIR Section 5.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to transport or handle hazardous materials which, if released into the environment, could result in irreversible damage to the environment. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors working at the Amendment Area during the Project’s construction and of all occupants that occupy the Project’s buildings. As such, construction and long-term operation of the Project would not cause significant irreversible damage to the environment that could result if hazardous materials were released from the site, including damage that may result from upset or accident conditions.

Lastly, an increased commitment of public services (e.g., police and fire) would also be required. However, as discussed in SEIR Section 5.15, Public Services and Recreation, the Project would not require or result in the unplanned construction of new or alteration of existing fire or police protection facilities to maintain an adequate level of service to the Amendment Area, and no physical environmental impacts would result. (Draft SEIR, pp. 6-3 - 6-4)

2. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[e]). New residents and employees from the future residential and school uses, which would be allowed by the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area, placing additional demands on public services and infrastructure systems, and in the generation of a variety of environmental impacts, which are addressed in SEIR Section 5.1 through Section 5.19.

To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects are examined through analysis of the following questions:

1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)?

2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?

3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?

4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
A project could indirectly induce growth by reducing or removing barriers to growth, or by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity. However, 4072

a project’s potential to induce growth does not automatically result in growth. Growth can only happen through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private or public sectors. Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which the proposed project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of implementing the Project examined in the SEIR.
a. Would this project move obstacles to growth (e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development)? The Project would result in the completion of roadway improvements along the roadways that abut the Amendment Area and new roadways built on site would serve the Project but would not provide additional capacity to induce unplanned growth. Additionally, the Project would not involve development that would establish an essential unplanned public service or utility/service system. The Amendment Area and surrounding areas are already served by essential public services and an extensive network of utility/service systems and other infrastructure necessary to accommodate or allow the existing conditions and planned growth.

The existing and planned utility/service systems in the roadways adjacent to or near the Amendment area can serve the development proposed within the Amendment Area with connections to these existing facilities. The utility infrastructure installed as part of the Project would be sized and located expressly to serve the onsite uses, and would not, therefore, induce unplanned growth in the Project vicinity.

The Project involves the development of residential uses in PAs 30 through 33, and a middle school in PA 34, consistent with the land use designations for the Amendment Area identified in the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan. The proposed residential uses would be development in accordance with applicable Subarea 29 Specific Plan requirements and City development standards, and the proposed middle school would be developed in accordance with applicable state requirements for school uses. The Project implements growth and development anticipated by TOP 2050 and would not change existing regulations pertaining to land development. Therefore, the Project is not considered to be growth inducing with respect to the removal of obstacles to growth.
b. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service? As discussed in SEIR Section 5.15, Public Services and Recreation, the Project would increase the demand for public services (police, fire, schools, libraries, and parks and recreational facilities). The proposed residential and school uses would create the typical range of service calls for police and fire services that occur with these types of uses, and the proposed middle school implements a school that has already been planned to serve school demands in the Ontario Ranch. Therefore, the Project would not necessitate the unplanned construction of new or the expansion of existing public service facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. Additionally, funding mechanisms are in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate growth in the City, including the Project. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growthinducing consequences with respect to public services. 4073

c. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? During Project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until Project construction is completed. This would be an indirect, growth-inducing effect of the Project.

As further described in SEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for purposes of analysis in the SEIR, it is anticipated the Project would result in the development of 1,470 net new residential units and one middle school on 20 acres. It is estimated that this development could generate up to 5,876 new residents and approximately 56 new employment opportunities. As discussed in SEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the Project would not exceed the growth projections for the City or the region.

The increase in housing/population and employment generation at the Amendment Area was anticipated in TOP 2050, which estimates the buildout conditions for the City (by 2050). Further, it is expected that the short-term construction jobs and new positions during operation would be filled by workers who already reside in the local area or region.

As development occurs onsite, Project residents and employees would seek shopping, entertainment, employment, home improvement, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. The Project is located near existing employment and retail areas, which would help serve the employment and shopping needs of the future residents. However, the increased demand for such economic goods and services could encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses that address these economic needs. This growth may be experienced in the areas in proximity to the Amendment Area that are either currently undeveloped or underutilized. However, this type of growth is already anticipated in TOP 2050. Therefore, implementation of residential and school uses allowed by the Project would support existing uses in the area and could encourage or facilitate the growth envisioned in TOP 2050.
d. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? There are no proposed changes to the type of uses allowed by TOP 2050 and zoning ordinance. Further, no changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this Project. As identified in SEIR Sections 5.1 through 5.19, the Project would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and identified mitigation measures, which would ensure there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations, and environmental impacts are minimized. The Project does not propose any precedent-setting actions that, if approved, would specifically allow, or encourage other projects and resultant growth to occur. Furthermore, the Project is not extending any infrastructure or facilitating further development. Accordingly, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than TOP 2050 and zoning ordinance allow is speculative. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). If any other property owner were to propose development or redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, that project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its 4074

own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. (Draft SEIR, pp. 6-4 - 6-7)
SECTION V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered “acceptable” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). The agency’s statement is referred to as a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The following provides a description of the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse impact and the justification for adopting a statement of overriding considerations.

A. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City identifies the following significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project:

Agricultural Resources
 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? (Project and Cumulative Impact) Air Quality
 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Project and Cumulative Impact)
 Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Project and Cumulative Operational Impacts)
Noise

1. Would the Project generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Project and Cumulative Off-site Traffic Noise Impacts) 4075

B. PROJECT BENEFITS IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
The following section describes the benefits of the Project that outweigh the Project’s unavoidable adverse effects and provides specific reasons for considering the Project acceptable even though the Final SEIR has indicated that there will be significant and unavoidable project impacts even with the mitigation measures implemented.

Accordingly, this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding potentially significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the Project, as set forth below, has been prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(c), the Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included in the record of the Project approval and will also be noted in the Notice of Determination. Each of the benefits identified below provides a separate and independent basis for overriding the significant environmental effects of the Project.

Having reduced the potential effects of the proposed Project through all feasible mitigation measures as described previously herein and balancing the benefits of the Project against its potential unavoidable adverse impacts, the City finds that the following legal requirements and benefits of the proposed Project individually and collectively outweigh the potentially significant unavoidable adverse impacts for the reasons stated. The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the approved Specific Plan are restated in subsection (1) below and remain applicable to the Project. In addition, the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been updated and refined based on current information as presented in subsection (2) below.

1. 2006 EIR Overriding Considerations
The Project involves an amendment to the previously approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan to among other reasons, develop a project consistent with the vision for Ontario Ranch as presented in TOP 2050. The Project does not change the types of land uses allowed by the approved Specific Plan (residential, park and school). The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the approved Specific Plan are restated below.

The Project will implement the vision of the New Model Colony (NMC) General Plan, which is designed to be a place of diversity that includes the following: a mix of residential neighborhoods with a variety of housing options; regional serving centers that provide retail, professional office, medical facilities, high-density housing, entertainment complexes, and hotel and conference facilities; employment centers; and a Town Center that serves as the principal center of activity and the common focal point for all NMC neighborhoods and districts.

The Project will provide land uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses and that are consistent with the policies for specific plans identified in the NMC General Plan.
 The Project will implement the policies of the NMC General Plan.  The Project will provide infrastructure to serve the Project in a timely manner consistent with NMC programmed infrastructure plans.
 The Project will provide employment opportunities on the Project site. 4076

 The Project will contribute to the City's Jobs/Housing Balance and assist in satisfying the City's regional housing needs allocation.  The Project will improve water quality by transitioning land uses on the Project site from agriculture to urban uses and by implementing best management practices that will prevent pollutants from entering waterways.

2. Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Statement of Overriding Considerations To the extent that the significant effects of the Project are not avoided or substantially lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Ontario, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR and the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds that such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of the following overriding considerations. The City finds that any one of these Project benefits standing alone would be sufficient to sustain the Statement of Overriding Considerations.  The Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the goals and objectives established by TOP 2050.

Implementing the City’s General Plan as a policy is a legal and social prerogative of the City.

TOP 2050, including the Policy Plan, which is the City’s General Plan, was approved in August 2022. As described in SEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing, the Project would generate approximately 5,876 new residents and would increase the total number of allowed units in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan from 2,418 units to 3,888 units (an increase of 1,470 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. Further, as outlined in SEIR Section 5.11, Land Use and Planning, the Project is consistent with the goals and policies included in TOP 2050 Policy Plan.  The Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Project would assist in the City in meeting State-mandated fair share housing production targets as outlined in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and contribute to the City’s Jobs/Housing Balance.

SCAG’s RHNA provides an allocation of the existing and future housing needs by jurisdiction; this is based on income level, existing housing needs in each city and county, and the fair share allocation of the projected regional population growth.

All local governments are required to set aside sufficient land, adopt programs, and provide funding (to the extent feasible), to facilitate and encourage housing production commensurate with that housing need. The City’s adopted Housing Element outlines how the City will meet its RHNA allocation obligations for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update, which covers the housing element planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The City’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period is 20,854 units, including 8,599 above moderate units.

The Amendment Area is not identified in the Housing Element as a “Housing Opportunity Area;” however, the development of new housing units within the 4077

Amendment Area (an increase of 1,470 units compared to the approved Specific Plan) would assist the City in meeting State-mandated fair share housing production targets for above moderate housing as outlined in SCAG’s RHNA.

As further discussed in SEIR Section 5.14, Population and Housing, implementation of development pursuant to TOP 2050, including the Project, would result in a jobs-housing ratio of 2.3, which would be reduced compared to the 3.0 jobs-housing ratio under the previous TOP.
 The Project will provide infrastructure to serve the Project in a timely manner consistent with Ontario Ranch programmed infrastructure plans.

As described in SEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project would implement on- and off-site infrastructure improvements consistent with Ontario Ranch programmed infrastructure plans, including, but not limited to the 2012 New Model Colony Water Master Plan (Phase 1a-1e), 2012 New Model Colony Sewer Master Plan, and 2012 City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage.  The Project will provide employment opportunities on the Project site.

The approved Subarea 29 Specific Plan PA 2 (14.5 gross acres) is planned for development with commercial uses, and the Project does not include any changes to this planned employment-generating use. Further, as identified in SEIR Section

5.14, Population and Housing, the middle school within PA 34 of the proposed Expansion Area would generate approximately 56 employment opportunities.  The Project will improve water quality by transitioning land uses on the Project site from agriculture to urban uses.

As further discussed in SEIR Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, existing dairy operations were a primary source of nitrate and total dissolved solids (TDS), and implementation of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan would improve groundwater quality over time, with respect to nitrates and TDS. With respect to surface water quality, project-specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) would be prepared for development within the Amendment Area (PAs 30 through 34), and the WQMPs would adhere to the New Model Colony East Water Quality Management Plan Guidance (NMC East WQMPG). The NMC East WQMPG establishes a uniform and integrated approach in meeting MS4 requirements and provides overall guidance for NMC East Builders and the City of Ontario as it relates to selection of best management practices (BMPs) and implementation NMC East WQMPG. Preparation and implementation of Project-specific WQMPs would ensure compliance with the City’s NPDES municipal stormwater permit and would minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving water.

C. CONCLUSION
The City Council of Ontario has balanced the Project’s benefits against the significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the Project’s benefits, which aim to meet 4078

the goals and policies of TOP 2050, outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and these impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in the light of the Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

SECTION VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Pursuant to PRC Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.

Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION VII. PROJECT APPROVAL
Based upon the entire record before it, including the SEIR, Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, City Council hereby approves the proposed Project.

SECTION VIII. STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5) working days of final Project approval.

The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.

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

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
4079

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
4080

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. ____ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023. _________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
4081

EXHIBIT A
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report,
Response to Comments and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
(To follow this page)
4082
4083
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2004011009)
for the
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
(File No. PSPA21-005)
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Prepared by:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
October 2023
4084
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Name and Number Page

1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Content and Format............................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Draft SEIR Commentors.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.4 Lead Agency and Point of Contact ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.5 Project Summary.................................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 Comments and Responses.................................................................................................................. 2-1

3.0 Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections............................................................................................ 3-1

4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program..................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Description of the Program....................................................................................................4-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table Name and Number Page
2-1 Draft SEIR Commentors...................................................................................................................... 2-1 4-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................. 4-2 4085
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW
This document, combined with the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), constitutes the Final SEIR for the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment (Project). In summary, the Draft SEIR describes the Project, describes the existing environmental conditions relevant to the Project, evaluates the Project’s potential environmental effects, and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period: July 17, 2023 through August 31, 2023.

1.2 CONTENT AND FORMAT
Following this introductory Section 1.0, Section 2.0, Comments and Responses, of this Final SEIR presents Draft SEIR comments and responses to these comments; Section 3.0, Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections, identifies minor revisions to the Draft SEIR; and Section 4.0, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

1.3 DRAFT SEIR COMMENTORS
Draft SEIR comment letters were received from the following agencies. • San Bernardino County Flood Control District
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
Comment letters received in regard to the Draft SEIR are included, along with corresponding responses, in their entirety in Final SEIR Section 2.0, Comments and Responses.

1.4 LEAD AGENCY AND POINT OF CONTACT
The Lead Agency for the Project and SEIR is the City of Ontario. Any questions or comments regarding the preparation of this document, its assumptions, or its conclusions, should be referred to:

City of Ontario
Planning Division
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact Person: Jeanie Irene Aguilo, Associate Planner

1.5 PROJECT SUMMARY
The following information is summarized from the Project Description in the Draft SEIR. For additional detail regarding Project characteristics and Project-related improvements, along with analyses of the Project’s 4086
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

potential environmental impacts, please refer to Draft SEIR Sections 3.0, Project Description, and 5.0, Environmental Analysis, respectively.

1.5.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located in the City of Ontario, in San Bernardino County. The currently proposed Amendment Area encompasses approximately 151.1 acres and includes existing Planning Areas (PA) 30 and 31 (approximately 37.9 acres) of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan area, and the proposed Expansion Area (new PAs 32, 33, and 34; approximately 113.2 acres). Existing PAs 30 and 31 are bound by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Haven Avenue to the east, Parkview Street to the south, and existing residential development in PAs 22 and 23 to the west. The proposed Expansion Area is bound by Eucalyptus Avenue to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, Mill Creek Boulevard to the east, and Bellegrave Avenue to the south. Bellegrave Avenue also forms the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Ontario/San Bernardino County and City of Eastvale/Riverside County.

1.5.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
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 proposed Specific Plan Amendment would add the approximately 113.2 gross-acre Expansion Area to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan area to create new PAs 32, 33 and 34 in the southern portion of the City of Ontario and allow for the development of a 20-acre middle school and up to 1,315 detached and attached homes in this area. In addition, the Project includes changes to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan for existing PAs 30 and 31 to allow for the development of an additional 155 dwelling units (an increase from 197 units to 352 units).

Collectively, these actions would increase the total number of allowed residential units in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan from 2,418 units to 3,888 units (an increase of 1,470 units). 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 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 through 2050. TOP 2050 anticipates the proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment, including the increase to 3,888 units in the Specific Plan Area, 4087
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

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

1.5.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
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.

1.5.4 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A. Lead Agency Discretionary Actions and Permits
California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (hereinafter, “CEQA Guidelines”) Section 15124 states in pertinent part that if “a public agency must make more than one decision on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA 4088
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

should be listed…” As identified in Table 3-2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, of the Draft SEIR, decisions, or discretionary actions, necessary to realize the Project would include:
• Approval of the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
• Approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps
• Approval of Development Plans
• Approval of Development Agreements
The City would also process ministerial permits necessary to implement on- and off-site improvements related to the development of the Project.

B. Other Agency Consultations and Permits
Anticipated consultation(s) and permits from agencies and utility companies necessary to realize the Project would likely include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Permitting by/through the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) pursuant to requirements of the City’s Construction Activity General Construction Permit and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
• Approval from San Bernardino County Department of Public Health to cap the well in Eucalyptus Avenue.
• Approval of permits for stationary sources from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
• Approval of an encroachment permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) for any work within the SBCFCD roadway right-of-way. • Approval from Southern California Edison (SCE) for construction within the SCE easement area, and permits and associated approvals, as necessary for the construction of new utility infrastructure or connections to existing facilities.
• Permitting (i.e., utility construction and connection permits) from affected utility purveyors, notably Southern California Gas Company, Frontier Communications, Charter Communications/Spectrum, and Ontario City Fiber.
4089
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This Section presents written comments received pursuant to public review of the Draft SEIR and provides responses to those comments as required by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15089, 15132, and 15088.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) requires that: “[t]he lead agency…evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response.

The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period: July 17, 2023 through August 31, 2023. Table 2-1, Draft SEIR Commentors, lists the Draft SEIR commentors. Commentor correspondence and correlating responses are presented subsequently. Comments have been reproduced verbatim and without grammatical or typographical correction. The comments received do not raise significant environmental issues related to the analysis presented in the Draft SEIR.

Table 2-1 Draft SEIR Commentors
Commentor Acronym
Assigned
Correspondence
Date
Regional Agencies
San Bernardino County Flood Control District SBCFCD 8/17/2023 South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD 8/31/2023 4090
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

Flood Control District
•
Transmitted Via E-mail
August 17, 2023 File: 10(ENV)-4.01
City of Ontario Planning Department
Attn: Jeanie Irene Aguilo, Associate Planner
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
[email protected]
RE: CEQA COMMENT – NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DSEIR); FILE NO. PSPA21-005; SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT (SCH NO. 2004011009).

Dear Ms. Aguilo:

Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on July 26, 2023 and pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided:

Permits Division (Johnny Gayman, Chief, (909) 387-7995):

1. The proposed Project in the City of Ontario is located adjacent to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Road Right-of-Way. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit from the SBCFCD if they are proposing any work within the SBCFCD R/W. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the SBCFCD Permit Section at (909) 387-1863.

Flood Control Water Resources Division (Michael Fam, Chief, (909) 387-8120):

The Project is part of:
• Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) No. 2 – March 1969; Moffatt & Nichol • Ontario New Model Colony Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) – L.D. King • City of Ontario MPD – March 2012; Hunsaker and Assoc. Irvine, Inc.

We have reviewed the DSEIR and offer these comments:

1. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's recommendations are most often made for site specific conditions. Therefore, the recommendations made here are general in nature until such time as more detailed plans become available. 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 | Phone: 909.387.7910 Fax: 909.387.7911 Brendon Biggs, M.S., P.E.

Chief Flood Control Engineer
Noel Castillo, P.E.

Assistant Director
David Doublet, M.S., P.E.

Assistant Director
SBCFCD-1
SBCFCD-2
4091
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

2. According to the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panels 06071C9375H, dated August 28, 2008, the Project (two Planning Areas (PA), both lie within Zone X (outside the 500-yr. floodplain).

3. If any encroachment onto the SBCFCD’s Road Right-of-Way is anticipated, a permit shall be obtained from the District. Other on-site or off-site improvements may be required, which cannot be determined at this time.

4. One of the benefits of the CSDP/MPD is to identify the alignment of future drainage and flood control facilities. It is hoped that the City of Ontario will continue to use this document to protect the alignment of these future facilities.

Flood Control Planning Division (Michael Fam, Chief, (909) 387-8120):

1. We are aware there may be storm drains in and around the site that may be affected by the proposed Project. When planning for or altering existing or future storm drains, be advised that the Project is subject to the Ontario MPD dated, March 2012. It is to be used as a guideline for drainage in the area and is available at the City of Ontario offices. Any revision to the drainage should be reviewed and approved by the jurisdictional agency (City, County).

2. The proposed Project is located adjacent to a San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) right-of-way and/or facilities (3-317-1A) County Line Channel Easement (06- 594751 OR) located along the north side of Belgrave Avenue. Any encroachments including but not limited to, access for grading, fence removal and installation, side drain connections, and utilities on the District’s right-of-way and/or facilities will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction. Please contact the San Bernardino County Flood Control Permit Section at (909) 387-7995 for further information regarding this process.

Sincerely,
Nancy Sansonetti, AICP
Supervising Planner
Environmental Management Division
NS:MC:MM:ml
SBCFCD-3
SBCFCD-4
SBCFCD-5
SBCFCD-6
SBCFCD-7
4092
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

San Bernardino County Flood Control District
825 East Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835
Dated August 17, 2023
Comment SBCFCD-1
Thank you for allowing the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project. We received this request on July 26, 2023 and pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided:

1. The proposed Project in the City of Ontario is located adjacent to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) Road Right-of-Way. The applicant will need to obtain an encroachment permit from the SBCFCD if they are proposing any work within the SBCFCD R/W. If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the SBCFCD Permit Section at (909) 387-1863.

Response SBCFCD-1
SBCFCD’s receipt of the SEIR is acknowledged. The need for an encroachment permit for any work within the SBCFCD’s right-of-way is noted and has been added to the list of “Other Agencies and Utilities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits” included in Table 3-2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, of the Draft SEIR (refer to Section 3.0, Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections, of this Final SEIR).

Comment SBCFCD-2
The Project is part of:
• Comprehensive Storm Drain Plan (CSDP) No. 2 – March 1969; Moffatt & Nichol • Ontario New Model Colony Master Plan of Drainage (MPD) – L.D. King • City of Ontario MPD – March 2012; Hunsaker and Assoc. Irvine, Inc.

We have reviewed the DSEIR and offer these comments:

1. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's recommendations are most often made for site specific conditions. Therefore, the recommendations made here are general in nature until such time as more detailed plans become available.

Response SBCFCD-2
SBCFCD’s statement that the recommendations provided in their comment letter are general in nature is noted and no response is required.

Comment SBCFCD-3

2. According to the most recent FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Panels06071C9375H, dated August 28, 2008, the Project (two Planning Areas (PA), both lie within Zone X (outside the 500-yr. floodplain). 4093
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

Response SBCFCD-3
SBCFCD’s comment that the Project lies within Zone X is noted and is consistent with the information presented in Section 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR.

Comment SBCFCD-4

3. If any encroachment onto the SBCFCD’s Road Right-of-Way is anticipated, a permit shall be obtained from the District. Other on-site or off-site improvements may be required, which cannot be determined at this time.

Response SBCFCD-4
The need for an encroachment permit for any work within the SBCFCD’s right-of-way is noted and has been added to the list of “Other Agencies and Utilities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits” included in Table 3- 2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, of the Draft SEIR (refer to Section 3.0, Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections, of this Final SEIR). As identified in Draft SEIR Section 3.0, Project Description, existing storm drain facilities installed pursuant to the City of Ontario Master Plan of Drainage (2012) would accommodate storm water runoff from the Project. This includes an existing 96-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in Haven Avenue and a 10-foot by 8-foot reinforced concrete box in Mill Creek Avenue, which are owned and maintained by the City of Ontario, and the SBCFCD County Line Channel, which extends along Bellegrave Avenue. The Project would install a 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) in Eucalyptus Avenue (along the northern boundary of PA 33). Storm drains installed within the Amendment Area would convey the on-site flows to the proposed Master Planned lines. The physical impacts associated with installation of the on- and off-site storm drain infrastructure necessary to serve the Project have been evaluated in the Draft SEIR. Further, as required by mitigation measure MM Hydro 4 presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in Section 4 of this FSEIR, the City of Ontario will coordinate with the SBCFCD to ensure that the Project meets the County’s flood control requirements.

Comment SBCFCD-5

4. One of the benefits of the CSDP/MPD is to identify the alignment of future drainage and flood control facilities. It is hoped that the City of Ontario will continue to use this document to protect the alignment of these future facilities.

Response SBCFCD-5
The request for the City of Ontario to continue to use the CSDP/MPD to identify the alignment of future drainage and flood control facilities is noted. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR, and in Response to Comment SBCFCD-6 below, the Project would not require new or expanded backbone storm drain facilities beyond that anticipated by the 2012 Ontario MPD. The Project does not conflict with the CSDP/MPD.

Comment SBCFCD-6

1. We are aware there may be storm drains in and around the site that may be affected by the proposed Project. When planning for or altering existing or future storm drains, be advised that the Project is subject 4094
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

to the Ontario MPD dated, March 2012. It is to be used as a guideline for drainage in the area and is available at the City of Ontario offices. Any revision to the drainage should be reviewed and approved by the jurisdictional agency (City, County).

Response SBCFCD-6
Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR, and the supporting Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Hydrology Report) prepared by Q3, dated May 11, 2022, included in Appendix J of the Draft SEIR, provide an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to the storm drain system outlined in the 2012 Ontario MPD, consistent with the commentor’s suggestion. As identified, development of the Project would not require new or expanded backbone storm drain facilities beyond that anticipated by the 2012 Ontario MPD.

Comment SBCFCD-7

2. The proposed Project is located adjacent to a San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) right-of-way and/or facilities (3-317-1A) County Line Channel Easement (06-594751 OR) located along the north side of Belgrave Avenue. Any encroachments including but not limited to, access for grading, fence removal and installation, side drain connections, and utilities on the District’s right-of-way and/or facilities will require a permit from the SBCFCD prior to start of construction. Please contact the San Bernardino County Flood Control Permit Section at (909) 387-7995 for further information regarding this process.

Response SBCFCD-7
The Project’s location adjacent to the SBCFCD’s right-of-way and/or facilities (County Line Channel Easement along the north side of Bellegrave Avenue) is discussed in the Draft SEIR and is shown on Figure

5.10-1, Regional Drainage Map. The need for an encroachment permit for any work within the SBCFCD’s right-of-way is noted and has been added to the list of “Other Agencies and Utilities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits” included in Table 3-2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, of the Draft SEIR (refer to Section

3.0, Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections, of this Final SEIR). 4095
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SENT VIA E-MAIL: August 31, 2023
[email protected]
Jeanie Irene Aguilo, Associate Planner
City of Ontario Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Notice of Availability of a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the PSPA21-005, Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Proposed Project) South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The City of Ontario is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. The following comments include additional recommended air quality mitigation measures for construction and information about South Coast AQMD rules and permits that the Lead Agency should include in the Final SEIR.

South Coast AQMD Staff’s Summary of Project Information in the Draft SEIR Based on the Draft SEIR, the Lead Agency proposes construction of 1,470 residential units on 151.1 acres.
1 The project is located on the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Haven Avenue.
2 The Proposed Project’s construction would last approximately 48 months, in the beginning of February 2023 to the completion which is expected in July 2025.3 South Coast AQMD Staff’s Comments
Air Quality Mitigation Measures for NOx and PM emissions from construction Based on the Air Quality Section of the Draft SEIR, it is evident that the construction activities associated with the Proposed Project are expected to have significant air quality impact on NOx emissions before implementing mitigation measures.
4 Given the project’s scope, it is crucial to
ensure that the levels of construction emissions, particularly NOx and PM10, remain below significant thresholds during the 48-months of construction period. An effective approach to achieve this goal, when feasible, is opting for electric emission-free engines instead of dieselfueled ones for the construction equipment. This proactive choice not only aligns with environmental concerns but also demonstrates a commitment to minimizing the project's environmental footprints. To mitigate NOx emissions, the Proposed Project should consider promoting greener construction practices, such as limiting the older engines use in favor of latest available advanced technologies or choosing to retrofit some to cutting-edge cleaner exhaust aftertreatment techniques. Additionally, the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality 1 Draft SEIR, p. 16. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. p. 23. 4 Ibid. p. 187.

SCAQMD-1
SCAQMD-2
4096
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

Jeanie Irene Aguilo August 31, 2023
-2-
Handbook5 offer resources to help the Lead Agency identify additional potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project for both operational and construction emissions.

South Coast AQMD Permits and Responsible Agency
If the implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary equipment (e.g., internal combustion engines), permits from South Coast AQMD are required. The Final SEIR should include a discussion on any existing and new stationary equipment requiring South Coast AQMD permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project.

Any assumptions used for the stationary sources in the Final SEIR will also be used as the basis for the permit conditions and limits for the Proposed Project. Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions on permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.

Conclusion
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the Draft SEIR for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final SEIR. When the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations raised in the comments, the issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail, giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith and reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision-makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Proposed Project. Thank you for considering these comments. South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Sahar Ghadimi, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sam Wang
Sam Wang
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Implementation
SW:SG
SBC230719-10
Control Number
5 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/capcoa-quantifying-greenhouse-gasmitigation-measures.pdf SCAQMD-3
SCAQMD-2
(CONT.)
SCAQMD-4
4097
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

South Coast Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178
Dated August 31, 2023
Comment SCAQMD-1
South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The City of Ontario is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Lead Agency for the Proposed Project. The following comments include additional recommended air quality mitigation measures for construction and information about South Coast AQMD rules and permits that the Lead Agency should include in the Final SEIR.

Based on the Draft SEIR, the Lead Agency proposes construction of 1,470 residential units on 151.1 acres.1 The project is located on the southeast corner of Eucalyptus Avenue and Haven Avenue.2 The Proposed Project’s construction would last approximately 48 months, in the beginning of February 2023 to the completion which is expected in July 2025.3
Response SCAQMD-1
SCAQMD’s introductory comments are noted and the summary of the Project description is accurate.

However, for clarification, the City of Ontario is the lead agency for the Project, and is not the project proponent for the proposed development. Specific comments regarding the Draft EIR are provided and responded to below.

Comment SCAQMD-2
Based on the Air Quality Section of the Draft SEIR, it is evident that the construction activities associated with the Proposed Project are expected to have significant air quality impact on NOx emissions before implementing mitigation measures.4 Given the project’s scope, it is crucial to ensure that the levels of construction emissions, particularly NOx and PM10, remain below significant thresholds during the 48- months of construction period. An effective approach to achieve this goal, when feasible, is opting for electric emission-free engines instead of diesel-fueled ones for the construction equipment. This proactive choice not only aligns with environmental concerns but also demonstrates a commitment to minimizing the project's environmental footprints. To mitigate NOx emissions, the Proposed Project should consider promoting greener construction practices, such as limiting the older engines use in favor of latest available advanced technologies or choosing to retrofit some to cutting-edge cleaner exhaust aftertreatment techniques.

Additionally, the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook offer resources to help the Lead Agency 1 Draft SEIR, p. 16. 2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. p. 23.
4 Ibid. p. 187.
4098
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

identify additional potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project for both operational and construction emissions.

Response SCAQMD-2
This comment addresses the need for the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce construction-related criteria pollutant emissions. As indicated in section 5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, mitigation measures from the Subarea 29 (Hettinga) Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2004011009) certified by the City in 2006 (mitigation measures MM Air 1, MM Air 2, and MM Air 3) and The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) certified by the City in 2022 (mitigation measure MM 3-1) have been incorporated into the Project to reduce construction-related emissions. With implementation of these mitigation, which include a requirement for use of construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits (refer to TOP 2050 SEIR MM 3-1), construction-related impacts would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required. It should be noted that use of Tier 4 equipment is a feasible mitigation measure that is included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program and implementation of this mitigation measure will be enforced by the City.

Comment SCAQMD-3
If the implementation of the Proposed Project would require the use of new stationary equipment (e.g., internal combustion engines), permits from South Coast AQMD are required. The Final SEIR should include a discussion on any existing and new stationary equipment requiring South Coast AQMD permits and identify South Coast AQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project. Any assumptions used for the stationary sources in the Final SEIR will also be used as the basis for the permit conditions and limits for the Proposed Project. Please contact South Coast AQMD’s Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385 for questions on permits. For more general information on permits, please visit South Coast AQMD’s webpage at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/permits.

Response SCAQMD-3
This comment addresses SCAQMD’s role as a Responsible Agency for the issuance of permits for stationary equipment. Although no such permits are expected to be needed for the proposed residential and park uses, the SCAQMD has been added to the list of “Other Agencies and Utilities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits” included in Table 3-2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, of the Draft SEIR (refer to Section 3.0, Draft SEIR Clarifications and Corrections, of this Final SEIR). It is anticipated that the proposed school use may require permits for stationary sources. The school district, serving as the lead agency for the required CEQA documentation for the school, would be responsible for obtaining such permits at such a time that the school site is developed.

Comment SCAQMD-4
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074, prior to approving the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency shall consider the Draft SEIR for adoption together with any comments received during the public review process. Please provide South Coast AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final SEIR. When the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations raised 4099
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

in the comments, the issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail, giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith and reasoned analysis in response.

Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision-makers and the public who are interested in the Proposed Project.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Proposed Project. Thank you for considering these comments.

South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise from this comment letter. Please contact Sahar Ghadimi, Air Quality Specialist, at [email protected] should you have any questions.

Response SCAQMD-4
As requested, the City will provide SCAQMD with written responses to all comments prior to approval of the Project and certification of the Final SEIR. Responses to the commentor’s specific comments on the Draft EIR are provided and responded to above. SCAQMD is on the City’s notification list for public notices issued for the Project and the Final SEIR.
4100
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

3.0 DRAFT SEIR CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Minor clarifications or corrections to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) generated by the City of Ontario or in response to comments received on the Draft SEIR are stated in this Section. The Draft SEIR clarifications and corrections presented below are in the same order as the information appears in the Draft SEIR. Changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text has been removed and by bold underline (underline) where text has been added. The applicable page numbers from the Draft SEIR are also provided where necessary for easy reference. The Draft SEIR has not been modified and published in its entirety as a single document to reflect these SEIR minor revisions.

The information included in these Draft SEIR revisions does not constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5 because the new information added to the SEIR through these revisions makes insignificant clarifications or corrections to the already adequate Draft SEIR.

Draft EIR Global Change

1. The proposed land use designation for PA 30 and PA 31 is hereby changed from Mixed Residential (11.1-25 du/acre) to Mixed Residential (5-25 du/acre) to be consistent with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. This change applies to all Draft SEIR text, tables and figures, as applicable. There is no change to the maximum number of residential units allowed in the Subarea 29 Specific Plan area and evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

Section 3.0, Project Description

1. Table 3-2, Project Related Approvals/Permits, is hereby revised as follows to identify the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District as potential Responsible Agencies that would be required to issue permits for implementation of the Project.

Table 3-2 Project Related Approvals/Permits
Public Agency Approvals and Decision
Proposed Project – City of Ontario Discretionary Approvals City of Ontario • Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment (File No.

PSPA21-005).
• Certify this SEIR along with appropriate CEQA
Findings.

Subsequent City of Ontario Approvals
Discretionary Approvals
City of Ontario
• Development Advisory Board (DAB)
• Planning Commission (PC)
• City Council (CC)
• Tentative Subdivision Maps (DAB, PC, CC)
• Development Plans (DAB and PC)
• Development Agreements (DAB, PC, CC)
4101
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

Public Agency Approvals and Decision
Ministerial/Administrative Approvals
City of Ontario Staff • Final Subdivision Maps
• Landscaping/irrigation plan(s)
• Grading Permits
• Building Permits
• Street Improvement Plans
• Encroachment Permits
• Accept public right-of-way dedications
• Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company • Infrastructure plans for the construction of water and sewer infrastructure and connection to the water and
sewer distribution and conveyance systems.

Ontario City Fiber • Infrastructure plans for the construction of new utility infrastructure or connections to existing
facilities.

Other Responsible Agencies and Utilities – Subsequent Approvals and Permits Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issuance of a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

San Bernardino County Department of Public Health • Approval to cap well in Eucalyptus Avenue San Bernardino County Flood Control District
(SBCFCD)
• Approval of encroachment permits for work
within SBCFCD right-of-way
South Coast Air Quality Management District • Issuance of permits for any new stationary equipment
Southern California Edison • Approval of construction within SCE easement area, and permits and associated approvals, as necessary,
for the construction of new utility infrastructure or
connections to existing facilities.

Southern California Gas Company, Frontier
Communications, Charter Communications/Spectrum,
and Ontario City Fiber
• Permits and associated approvals, as necessary, for
the construction of new utility infrastructure or
connections to existing facilities.

Section 7.0, Alternatives

1. The 4th sentence on page 7-27 of the Draft SEIR is hereby revised as follows to correct the opening year for the Project.

Therefore, this Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable off-site traffic noise impact for the Opening year 2020 2025 traffic scenario, but the impact under the Existing Plus Project traffic scenario would remain significant and unavoidable. 4102
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097).

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies measures incorporated in the Project which reduce its potential environmental effects; the entities responsible for implementation and monitoring of mitigation measures; and timing for implementation of mitigation measures (refer to Table 4.2-1). As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, this MMRP employs both reporting on, and monitoring of, Project mitigation measures. The objectives of the MMRP are to:
• Assign responsibility for, and further proper implementation of mitigation measures; • Assign responsibility for, and provide for monitoring and reporting of compliance with mitigation measures; and,
• Provide the mechanism to identify areas of noncompliance and need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs.

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM
As the Lead Agency, the City of Ontario is responsible for ensuring full compliance with the mitigation measures adopted for the Project. The City shall monitor and report on all mitigation activities. Mitigation measures shall be implemented at different stages of development throughout the Project area. In this regard, the responsibilities for implementation have been assigned to the Lead and Responsible Agencies, Applicant or successor(s) in interest, Contractors, On-Site Monitors, or combinations thereof.

If during the course of Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures identified herein cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall be immediately informed, and the City shall then inform any affected Responsible Agencies. The City, in conjunction with any affected Responsible Agencies, shall then determine if modification to the Project is required and/or whether alternative mitigation is appropriate. 4103
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

Table 4-2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
Section 4.1 - Aesthetics
MM 5.1
Project-specific Mitigation
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
Section 4.2 - Agricultural Resources
2006 EIR Mitigation
MM Ag 1
In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, each Specific Plan developed for properties within the NMC 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.

Prior to
Construction
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Opening of
Model Homes
Property Owner/
Developer
City
Attorney/
Planning
Department
Section 4.3 - Air Quality
2006 EIR Mitigation
4104
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

During Construction Contractor Planning
Department
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.

During Construction Contractor Planning
Department
MM Air 3 Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. During Construction Contractor Planning Department
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.

Prior to Approval of
Street Improvement
Plans
Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation
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 constructionrelated 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:

CEQA Review is
Complete
During Construction Contractor Planning
Department
4105
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

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 operationphase-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 CEQA Review is
Complete
4106
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers).

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4107
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

Section 5.4 - Biological Resources
2006 EIR Mitigation
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 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 grounddisturbing 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 Prior to Grading Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4108
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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 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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
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 Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4109
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permit
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
Section 5.5 – Cultural Resources
2006 EIR Mitigation
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 During Construction Contractor Planning
Department
4110
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented.

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.

During Construction Contractor Planning
Department
Section 5.6 – Energy
MM Util 5
2006 EIR Mitigation
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
Section 5.7 – Geology and Soils
2006 EIR Mitigation
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Building
Department
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 Prior to Tentative
Map Approval
Report Submitted
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4111
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Removal of
Unstable Soils Prior
to Grading
Building
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Building
Department
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 over-excavation and recompaction of specific soils in building pad and pavement areas.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Building
Department
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.
c. If fossil remains large enough to be seen are uncovered by earthmoving activities, a qualified paleontologist or qualified designee Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4112
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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 4113
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Section 5.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project-specific Mitigation
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
and/or Site Plans
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
Section 5.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
2006 EIR Mitigation
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 Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4114
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
(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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Building
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4115
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Prior to and During
Demolition
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4116
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Prior to specific
filings and sale
agreements as stated
in AB 2776
Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
Section 5.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality
2006 EIR Mitigation
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 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.

Prior to and During
Construction
Property
Owner/Developer
Engineering
Department
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 Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Engineering
Department
4117
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
Appendix I2 of the 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 non-storm water discharges.

Prior to and During
Construction
Property
Owner/Developer
Engineering
Department
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 Control District to ensure that the project meets County flood control requirements.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property
Owner/Developer
Engineering
Department
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 shrubbery screens will be implemented rather than “mounded” grass and shrubbery planted screens.

Post construction Property
Owner/Developer
Planning
Department
4118
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

Post construction Property
Owner/Developer
Engineering
Department
Section 5.13 - Noise
2006 EIR Mitigation
MM Noi 1 The construction activities of the proposed project shall comply with the City of Ontario Noise Ordinance Section 5-29.09(a) that prohibits construction activities on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

During construction Contractor Planning
Department
MM Noi 2 Construction staging areas shall not be located within 150 feet of existing sensitive receptors and construction equipment shall be fitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers.

During construction Contractor Planning
Department
MM Noi 7 Architectural plans shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for an acoustical plan check prior to the issuance of building permits to assure that the proper windows and/or doors are upgraded for sound reduction and proper ventilation systems are incorporated in order to meet the interior noise level requirement.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
Project-specific Mitigation
MM 5.13-1
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential development, the Property Owner/Developer shall prepare an acoustical study(ies) of proposed plans, which shall identify all noise-generating areas and associated equipment, predict noise levels at property lines from all identified areas, and noise attenuation features required to be Prior to Issuance of
a Building Permit
for Residential
Development
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4119
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), as necessary, to comply with the City Municipal Code Section 5-29.04.

Section 5.15 – Public Services/Recreation
2006 EIR Mitigation Measures
MM Serv 1 To reduce fire hazards, wood-shingled and shake-shingled roofs are prohibited.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Fire
Department
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Fire
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 non-residential projects in accordance with currently adopted standards.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Fire
Department
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.

Prior to
Construction
Property Owner/
Developer
Fire
Department
MM Serv 5 To reduce fire hazards, houses located on cul-de-sacs longer than 300 feet shall be constructed with residential fire sprinklers.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
MM Serv 8 The developer shall pay library, police, and fire service development impact fees.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4120
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
Section 5.16 - Transportation
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
MM Trans 3 Signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

Prior to occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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.

To be Shown on
Tract Maps and
Prior to Map
Approval
Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
Section 5.17 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Project-specific Mitigation
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 Prior to the
Commencement of
any Ground
Disturbing Activity
Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
4121
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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 ground-disturbing 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 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, 4122
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
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.

During Construction Property Owner/
Developer
Planning
Department
Section 5.18 – Utilities and Service Systems
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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.

Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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.

Prior to Issuance of
Grading Permits
Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
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 Prior to Occupancy Property Owner/
Developer
Engineering
Department
4123
Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment
Subsequent EIR Final Subsequent EIR
City of Ontario October 2023

SEIR Section/
MM No. Mitigation Measure Implementation
Timing
Responsible
Party
Monitoring/
Reporting
Entity
Date of
Completion/
Initials
sustainable systems for use of water and energy within the project design.
4124
Appendices are available on the CEQAnet Web Portal:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2004011009/5
4125
RESOLUTION NO.________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, APPROVING FILE NO. PSPA21-005, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
SUBAREA 29 SPECIFIC PLAN TO BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN INTO

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN POLICY PLAN (GENERAL
PLAN) LAND USE PLAN THAT 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) TO BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN

INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN POLICY PLAN
(GENERAL PLAN) LAND USE PLAN, [3] ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 7 NEW PRODUCT TYPES WITHIN THE
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, 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 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 ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), File No.

PSPA21-005, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to the existing 539.7 acres of land located within the Subarea 29 Specific Plan 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
4126
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

WHEREAS, the Application also applies to the proposed annexation area 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 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 properties to the south are residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City of Eastvale. The properties to the south are residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City of Eastvale. The properties to the east are within the Esperanza Specific Plan and are currently being developed with residential uses. The properties to the west include the Cucamonga Creek Channel and Colony Commerce Center – East Specific Plan that are developed with industrial uses; and
WHEREAS, to achieve consistency with the TOP 2050 Official Land Use Plan (Figure LU-01), the SPA proposes to amend the following land uses:
(1) 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);
(2) 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);
(3) 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); (4) Proposed Planning Area 33 (Annexation Area) – Changing 49.6 acres of land from Low-Medium Density Residential (5.1 – 11 du/ac) to (MDR) Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac); and
(5) Proposed Planning Area 34 (Annexation Area) – Changing 20 acres of land from Low Density Residential (2.1 – 5 du/ac) to Public School; and WHEREAS, the SPA 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). The proposed annexation will create three additional planning areas within the Mixed Residential and School land use designations.

Planning Areas 32 and 33 will encompass 93.2 acres while Planning Area 34 will encompass 20 acres; and
4127
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, there will be a net increase of 1,470 dwelling units allowed with the Specific Plan Area, for an increase of 2,418 units to 3,888 units; and WHEREAS, the Subarea 29 Specific Plan provides a variety of residential housing types, oriented toward park and open space amenities designed to promote walkability 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, 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 the following seven additional product types:
(1) Motorcourt Single Family Detached (SFD) – The Motorcourt SFD is an 8- Pack Cluster Home detached product type and is characterized by a private lane constructed with decorative pavers that provides both garage and front entry access to each unit;
(2) Greencourt – The Greencourt is similar to the Motorcourt SFD, but introduces different building configurations including a 6-, 8-, and 12-Pack Cluster Home plotting types to provide more flexibility and diversity; (3) Attached Motorcourt – The Attached Motorcourt is an attached townhome designed around a common motorcourt constructed with decorative pavers that provides garage access to each unit, with the main entrances of the units fronting the street, private drive aisle, or paseo. The paseos will be landscaped to provide visual interest and promote pedestrian mobility;
(4) 3-Story Townhomes – The 3-Story Townhomes product type are attached homes that share two common walls, except for the end units. These homes have direct garage access from a private lane or drive aisle, that may be side-by-side or a tandem configuration. The main entrances of the units front the street or a paseo. The paseos will be landscaped with accent trees, provide landscape planters, and feature enhanced entries;
(5) 3-Story Triplex – The 3-Story Triplex is an attached 3-unit row townhome product type which has direct garage access from a private lane or drive aisle. The main entrances of the units front the street or a paseo;
(6) 3-Story Tandem Townhomes – The 3-Story Tandem Townhomes product type are similar to the 3-Story Townhomes, with the exception that all units feature a 4128
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

tandem garage configuration. The attached homes that share two common walls, except for the end units. These homes have direct garage access from a private lane or drive aisle. The main entrances of the units front the street or a paseo; and (7) Flats – Flats are attached homes that are stacked on top of each other.

These homes have attached garage access, that may be side-by-side or a tandem configuration. Front doors may be accessed from a street-side sidewalk, paseo, or from a private alley. Front door access depends on the design of the homes; and WHEREAS, all changes and additions to the Specific Plan (exhibits, tables, development standards and design guidelines) are contained within the revised Specific Plan document; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Subarea 29 Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan). Section 9 of the Specific Plan, “General Plan Consistency”, describes the manner in which the Subarea 29 Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the Subarea 29 Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009), including the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Consideration have been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the Specific Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San 4129
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, during the Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment review, 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 California Government Code Section 65351; 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 Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution Nos. PC23-082 and PC23-083, recommending the City Council adopt the Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on November 21, 2023, the City Council approved a resolution adopting a Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, each prepared pursuant to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines, and concluded said hearing on that date; 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, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:

SECTION 1. Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.
4130
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the project and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the SEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2004011009) and supporting documentation, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and (2) The Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and (3) The Subarea 29 Specific Plan Amendment SEIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

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 ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making authority 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, is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and
(2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area 4131
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023

for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decisionmaking authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, is consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

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 Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, 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. The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan amendment will provide land use consistency with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan). The proposed amendment will accommodate the construction of future residential and school land uses within the Specific Plan which is consistent with goals, policies, plans and City Council priorities of The Ontario Plan. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Subarea 29 Specific Plan amendment will provide land use consistency with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The land use changes will provide a combination of residential and school uses within the Subarea 29 Specific Plan, which is consistent with the type and intensity of development specified in The Ontario Plan. (3) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed amendments will accommodate the construction of future residential and school developments in order to establish a harmonious relationship between the existing surrounding land uses and planned uses within the southeast quadrant of the specific plan.
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, 4132
City Council Resolution
File No. PSPA21-005
November 21, 2023