Ontario City Council
November 21, 2023

resolutions, and subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached resolutions.

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site is comprised of 16.65 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues, within the proposed Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (see Figure 1: Project Location). The Project site is currently developed with a new and used car dealership (Citrus Motors, including Citrus Kia and Citrus Ford). Daily operations include retail sales and motor vehicle servicing activities, including a wash bay and paint booth. The dealership facilities have a combined 161,320 square feet of commercial floor area, which translates to a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 0.22. The dealership will be relocated to a new site at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Guasti Road (adjacent to the Mercedes dealership). The properties to the north and west of the Project site are located within the Light Industrial land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan and are developed with industrial buildings. The property to the east of the project site is the Interstate-15 Freeway (I-15). The properties to the south of the project site are located within the Commercial / Food / Hotel land use district of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan and are developed with a gas station and fast-food drive-thru restaurant. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in the "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses" table located in the Technical Appendix of this report.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:
(1) Background — On August 16, 2022, The Ontario City Council certified The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“TOP 2050 SEIR”, State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002. The Ontario Plan 2050 and associated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report analyzed the Project site and established the land use designation and guidelines for development, including but not limited to, general land use (industrial), maximum FAR (0.55), and assumed building area (approximately 398,900 square feet).

The Project site and the surrounding properties have been zoned for industrial and commercial development since the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”) was established in January of 1983. Prior to redevelopment of the site for industrial and commercial land uses, the site was historically used for agricultural crops – predominantly citrus orchards.

On July 18, 2022, the Applicant submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No.

PMTT22-025) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) applications to facilitate the development of one industrial building totaling 344,110 square feet. The Development Plan also proposes to raze the existing commercial buildings. The Applicant also submitted an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (File No.

PSPA22-006) to bring the Project site’s zoning into compliance with TOP 2050’s Industrial 897
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

land use designation and includes graphic and textual modifications throughout the document.

On September 18, 2023, the Development Advisory Board reviewed the Addendum and File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034 and recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the use of the Addendum, and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Plan applications.

On September 26, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the October 24, 2023, hearing.
(2) Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-006) – The Applicant submitted an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to modify the land use designation on the Project site from Commercial / Food / Hotel to Light Industrial to bring the property into compliance with TOP 2050’s Land Use Plan, which designates the site as Industrial (IND, 0.55 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)). The amendment includes modifications to exhibits and text to support the proposed Project, and the redlined document has been appended to the Resolution for the Specific Plan Amendment as “Attachment A”. (3) Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No. PMTT22-025) – The Applicant submitted Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 to combine two existing parcels into one and vacate a portion of Woodruff Way, to accommodate the development of one industrial building on 16.65 acres of land (see Exhibit B: Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559). The proposed parcel exceeds the Specific Plan’s minimum parcel size of one acre. While the Specific Plan does not establish minimum lot dimensions, and while the parcel will be irregular in shape, the parcel will also exceed the minimum equivalent Light Industrial zoning district dimensions outlined in the Development Code (100-foot width and 100-foot depth), with an average width of 356 feet and average length of 960 feet. (4) Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034)
(a) Site Design/Building Layout — The Project site is bounded on three sides by public rights-of-way, including Rockefeller Avenue on the west, Wanamaker Avenue on the north, the proposed Woodruff Way cul-de-sac and Jurupa Street to the south, and the Interstate 15 (“I-15”) Freeway along the southeast oblique. The northeast oblique is an interior property line shared with the parcel to the east of the Project site. One industrial building will be constructed along the northern portion of the lot (see Exhibit C - Site Plan).

The proposed building will be 344,110 square feet in area and result in a FAR of 0.48. The building will be largely rectangular in shape and sited in an east-west orientation, with enhanced building frontages facing Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues. Dock-high loading doors will face the southerly property line and will largely be screened from public view by a combination of a 14-foot-high concrete screen wall, extensive landscape planter, and the existing commercial development located to the southwest of the site. 898
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Portions of the adjacent rights-of-way to the south and southeast (I-15 off-ramp and Jurupa Street) are situated at a higher elevation than the Project site (approximately 10- to 24-foot grade difference) and motorists could have unobstructed views of the loading area. In response to the potential visibility of this area, the Applicant has made goodfaith efforts to reduce the visual impact by providing additional architectural treatment (metal canopies, glazing, reveal lines, and varied parapet heights) and replacement of the existing chain link fence with a 14-foot-high concrete screen wall, painted and treated to match the building (see Exhibit F – Conceptual Renderings). (b) Site Access/Circulation — Vehicular access to the Project site is available from two points along both Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues. Truck access is available from a driveway along both Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues, and a driveway from the proposed Woodruff Way cul-de-sac. Pedestrian access to the site is available from Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues. No pedestrian access is proposed along Woodruff Way.
(c) Parking — The Project has provided off-street parking pursuant to the “Warehouse and Distribution” parking standards specified in the Development Code. The Project provides 183 passenger vehicle parking spaces and 64 trailer parking spaces, which meet the minimum parking requirements. The off-street parking calculations for the Project are summarized in the table below:

Table 1: Parking Summary
Type of Use Building
Area (in SF) Parking Ratio Spaces Required
Spaces
Provided
Warehouse / Distribution
334,110 SF
warehouse plus
10,000 SF office
(344,110 SF total)
One space per 1,000 SF (0.001/SF)
for portion of GFA <20,000 SF, plus

0.5 space per 1,000 SF (0.0005/SF)
for GFA > 20,000 SF.
182 183
Office 10,000 SF (3
percent of GFA)
4 spaces per 1,000 SF (0.004/SF) of
GFA. Parking is required when
“general business offices” and
other associated uses exceed 10
percent of the building GFA.
0 0
TOTAL 182 183
Trailer Parking 55 dock high
doors
1 space per 4 dock-high loading
doors 14 64
The Development Code requires a more intense parking rate for general business offices and other associated uses, at a rate of four spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; however, this requirement is only applied when the office square footage exceeds 10 percent of the building’s gross floor area. As the proposed office square footage is 10,000 square feet, or 0.3 percent of the building, the square footage for the office is calculated under the Warehouse and Distribution standards. 899
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

(d) Architecture — The Applicant proposed a concrete tilt-up industrial building incorporating a contemporary industrial architectural style that will complement the existing industrial buildings surrounding the Project site. The design utilizes various architectural treatments to help break down the building’s massing and provide visual interest from each public right-of-way (see Exhibit E: Elevations). Design elements include:
• Unique wood paneling;
• Horizontal and vertical reveal lines to break down the massing; • Color blocking to provide visual interest;
• Glazing at the main entry and spaced throughout the elevations; • Decorative metal entry canopies and window “eyebrows”; • Recessed and protruding panels to bring visual changes to the building planes; and
• Varying parapet heights to further break down the massing and provide visual interest.
(e) Landscaping — The Project proposes landscaping along the entire perimeter of the site and adjacent to exterior building walls (see Exhibit G: Conceptual Landscape Plan). A 35-foot landscape area has been provided along the northerly elevation of the building, and a 70-foot-deep landscape area (average) along the southerly property line, which will help to soften the appearance of the architecture and truck parking lot. Per the Ontario Development Code, a minimum of 15 percent landscape coverage is required for corner lots, and 15.5 percent landscaping has been provided, which meets the requirement. A variety of plantings are proposed in a variety of box and gallon sizes, including:
• Trees: Western Redbud, Golden Raintree, Brisbane Box, Fruitless Olive, Date Palm, Aleppo and Canary Island Pines, Italian Cypress, Arizona Sycamore, and Live and Engelmann Oaks in 24-inch to 48-inch box containers.
• Shrubs: Century Plant, Dwarf Bottlebrush, Mediterranean Fan Palm, Flax Lily, Red Yucca, Deer Grass, Heavenly Bamboo, Coffeeberry, Blue Gem Coast Rosemary, and Texas Sage.
• Groundcovers: Dwarf Coyote Bush, Japanese Honeysuckle, Putah Creek Myoporum, and Huntington Carpet Rosemary.
• Screening plants: Flax Lily, Soft Leaf Yucca, and Striped Fortnight Lily. (f) Signage — All Project signage is required to comply with sign regulations provided in Ontario Development Code Division 8.1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the installation of any new on-site signage, the Applicant is required to submit Sign Plans for Planning Department review and approval. (g) Utilities (drainage, sewer) — Public utilities (water and sewer) are available to serve the Project. Furthermore, the Applicant has submitted a Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ("PWQMP"), which establishes the Project's compliance with storm water discharge/water quality requirements. The PWQMP includes site design 900
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

measures that capture runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizes low impact development ("LID") best management practices ("BMPs"), such as retention and infiltration, biotreatment, and evapotranspiration. The PWQMP proposes the use of underground stormwater retention chambers where downstream landscaped areas are limited. Any overflow drainage will be conveyed to the public street by way of parkway drains and culverts.

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

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff has received one written communication in support of the project from Mitchell Tsai Attorney at Law.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions as "Attachment B" for the Specific Plan Amendment, and as “Attachment A” for the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Plan.

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

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Specific Plan Amendment and as the decision-making body for the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Plan applications for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2- 4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in 901
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP 2050 that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Operate in a Businesslike Manner
(2) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G 1-2. Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision. (3) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
 LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Community Economics Element:
 Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors.  CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community. 902
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

 CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
 CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
 CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Safety Element:
 Goal S-1 Seismic & Geologic Hazards: Minimized risk of injury, loss of life, property damage, and economic and social disruption caused by earthquake-induced and other geologic hazards.
 S-1.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process. We follow state guidelines and the California Building Code to determine when development proposals must conduct geotechnical and geological investigations.

Community Design Element:
 Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
 CD-1.1 City Identity. We take actions that are consistent with the City being a leading urban center in Southern California while recognizing, enhancing, and preserving the character of our existing viable neighborhoods.  CD-1.3 Existing Neighborhoods. We require the existing character of viable residential and non-residential neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and enhanced.  Goal CD-2 Design Quality: A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.
 CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
• Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion;
903
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

• A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
• Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.
 CD-2.7 Sustainability. We collaborate with the development community to design and build neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, outdoor spaces, landscaping, and buildings to reduce energy demand through solar orientation, maximum use of natural daylight, passive solar and natural ventilation, building form, mechanical and structural systems, building materials, and construction techniques.  CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.
 CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.
 CD-2.10 Parking Areas. We require all development, including single-family residential, to minimize the visual impact of surface, structured, and garage parking areas visible from the public realm in an aesthetically pleasing, safe and environmentally sensitive manner. Examples include:
• Surface parking: Shade trees, pervious surfaces, urban run-off capture and infiltration, and pedestrian paths to guide users through the parking field;  CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.  CD-2.13 Entitlement Process. We work collaboratively with all stakeholders to ensure a high degree of certainty in the efficient review and timely processing of all development plans and permits.
 Goal CD-5 Protection of Investment: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings, and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments. 904
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

 CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property. We require all public and privately-owned buildings and property (including trails and easements) to be properly and consistently maintained.
 CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure. We require the continual maintenance of infrastructure.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: 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 contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364, certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002) was filed for this Project. File No. PGPA20-002 established the underlying TOP 2050 (General Plan) Land Use Plan designation of Industrial (IND, 0.55 FAR) on the Project site. The related Specific Plan Amendment will bring the Project site into compliance with TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. The Addendum prepared for the Project does not preclude the imposition of any mitigation measures as laid forth in TOP 2050 SEIR and said mitigation measures are included by reference in the Project conditions of approval. The Addendum also included studies and assessments to support the findings that the Project will not have a significant environmental affect not already covered by TOP 2050 SEIR (see Appendices A through G.3 to Attachment A – Addendum). A summary of each study is as follows:
a) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment (Appendix A) – The report analyzed existing air quality, air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from Project-related sources, regional air pollution, and global climate change, as well as energy use resulting from implementation of the proposed Project and whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or confliction with any applicable plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The report also reviewed all TOP 2050 SEIR mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Project. The report concluded that the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact during construction or operational activities associated with air quality and GHG.
b) Cultural Records Search (Appendix B) – The cultural resources assessment analyzed the Prehistoric and Historic Periods of the Project site and performed an archaeological record search as well as review of the Sacred Lands Files (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). One resource, an historic railroad, has been recorded within a one-mile radius of the project site (not within the project boundaries). The NAHC SLF search did not indicate the presence of sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within a one-mile radius of the project site.
905
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

c) Geotechnical Report (Appendix C.1) – The geotechnical investigation conducted database research, field work and lab sampling for the project site to determine whether construction was feasible on the Project site from a geotechnical standpoint. While geotechnical conditions exist that should be addressed prior to construction, including mitigations found in the California Building Code, remedial grading work, stormwater infiltration installation, and other recommendations based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard-of-practice in southern California, the Project site was found to be feasible for the proposed Project’s scope of work. d) Paleontological Assessment (Appendix C.2) – The paleontological resource assessment was completed to evaluate the Project site’s potential to yield paleontological resources and included a review of paleontological literature and fossil locality records for previous projects in the area, a review of the underlying geology, and recommendations to mitigate potential impacts to paleontological resources. The assessment found that there were no known fossil localities within the Project boundaries or near the Project; however, other discoveries had been made in locations one mile or greater from the Project site. A field visit was conducted and concluded that no paleontological resources, or evidence of paleontological resources, were observed during the survey.

TOP 2050 SEIR indicates the City is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and UpperPleistocene sediments deposited during the Pliocene and early Pleistocene time, Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are, therefore, considered to have high sensitivity at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. In addition, TOP 2050 SEIR (Section 5.5) indicates that only one paleontological resource has been discovered in the City. The Project site has surficial sediments composed of younger Quaternary Alluvium, derived as alluvial fan deposits from the San Gabriel Mountains to the north or as dune sands.

These deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils, at least in the uppermost layers, but they may be underlain by older sedimentary materials at estimated depths greater than 10 feet which could contain paleontological resources.

Project grading may exceed 10 feet in depth in some areas so the Project will implement TOP 2050 SEIR Mitigation Measure 5-2, as outlined in Section 5, Cultural Resources, as this measure addresses paleontological resources. The measure requires that, in the event unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation, construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate resource protection actions will be taken.

The Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in TOP 2050 SEIR. No changes or additions to TOP 2050 SEIR analyses are necessary.
906
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

e) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”, Appendix D) – The ESA was completed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for the purposes of meeting certain landowner liability protections and identifying the potential presence of hazards on or near the Project site, including recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”), controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”), or historical recognized environmental conditions (“HRECs”).

Identification of RECs, CRECs, and HRECs is important, as it aids in preventing exposure and guiding proper handling of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or near a property. The study revealed no RECs in connection with the Project site.

However, although not considered RECs, the study identified other “notable findings”— areas of contingent risk that are not clearly defined by the ASTM Standard, including past industrial/commercial operations at the site and past use of the site for agricultural orchards. While there is no readily available detailed information about the past industrial operations on-site, there is no indication that these operations were chemically intensive or involved the use of significant amounts of petroleum products or other hazardous substances. Additionally, the site has operated as an auto dealer, including auto servicing, bodywork, paint booth, and carwash, since 1992. Historically, past orchard operations may have involved the application of arsenical and lead-based pesticides or other organic pesticides; however, the use of such substances in this region would have been widespread and ubiquitous. The study discouraged commercial use of the site, however, it found that the proposed industrial use would be appropriate and recommended additional conservative non-scope considerations (such as additional surveys prior to demolition and grading work). These conservative “De Minimis” conditions are those that do not represent a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies, but provide additional certainty that accidental exposure to potentially-harmful conditions is reduced. f) Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (“PWQMP”, Appendix E.1) – A PWQMP is a tool to improve the integration of required water quality elements, stormwater management, water conservation, rainwater harvesting and re-use, and flood management. PWQMPs are reviewed and conditioned on by the Environmental Engineering Division and the Engineering Department, and a Final WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by said staff prior to the issuance of construction permits. The project shall implement a variety of strategies to reduce any potential stormwater and water quality impacts.
g) Preliminary Hydrology Report (Appendix E.2) – The preliminary hydrology study was prepared as one of the components of the submittal application for a Tentative Parcel Map and examines drainage characteristic and patterns of the on-site watershed regarding distribution and management of storm water runoff. The study concluded that, through the construction of the proposed drainage system and a storm water quality maintenance program as well as other site improvements, flood protection is provided for 100-year storm events and the proposed Project will generate less storm water runoff than the existing condition. As further review is completed on the final grading, 907
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

landscape, and street and utility improvement plans and additional requirements are made by the Environmental Engineering Division and the Engineering Department, the Applicant shall comply, prior to issuance of construction permits. h) Noise Analysis (Appendix F) - A noise analysis was prepared to evaluate potential noise impacts, and any applicable reduction measures, associated with the proposed Project and in conjunction with TOP 2050 SEIR and the City’s Municipal Code and Development Code requirements. The analysis focused on airport land use compatibility, sensitive receptors (land uses with greater sensitivity to noise, such as residential land uses), and operational and construction noise. The noise assessment concluded that the industrial land use was appropriate for the proximity to the airport, and that the operational noise levels associated with the Project will not exceed City exterior noise level standards at the nearest noise-sensitive receiver locations. While noise impacts would be both less than significant and less than that identified in TOP 2050 SEIR, conservatively, implementation of the mitigation measures listed in TOP 2050 SEIR is included as a project condition of approval.
i) Trip Generation Memo (Appendix G.1) - A Trip Generation Analysis was prepared for the Project site to analyze the traffic generation forecast potential for the proposed demolition of an existing motor vehicle retail center and construction of an industrial development. The analysis found that the proposed Project would result in a lower trip generation forecast when compared to the existing/entitled land use (commercial).

Therefore, the analysis concluded that the proposed Project can be expected to generate trips that would be within the trip budget originally approved for the Project site through TOP 2050 SEIR and would not create any new traffic impacts. j) Vehicle Miles Traveled Report (“VMT”, Appendix G.2) – VMT analyses are reviewed, approved, and conditioned by the Traffic Division and Engineering Department. As presented, the analysis concludes that the proposed Project’s VMT analysis, using TOP 2050’s model, was found to meet the Project Type screening criteria and thus is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact when compared to both the existing land uses and the land uses assumed in TOP 2050 SEIR. The Project’s estimated trips will not exceed the City’s 110 net new daily vehicle trip threshold. k) Focused Traffic Assessment (Appendix G.3) – A Focused Traffic Assessment was prepared to analyze peak hour level of service (LOS) operations at the intersection of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue to evaluate the effect of an additional westbound right turn traffic lane at the intersection due to the vacation and termination of the existing Woodruff Way. The assessment also analyzed whether a westbound dedicated right turn lane is needed at the intersection of Jurupa Street and Rockefeller Avenue to support the anticipated traffic volume or acceptable peak hour operations. The assessment concluded that the existing and future westbound right turn volume at the affected intersection is less than 300 vehicles per hour during peak hours, is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS with the existing lane geometrics, and that the 908
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

intersection operations do not suggest that additional capacity (such as a right turn lane) is necessary to maintain acceptable peak hour operations. 909
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

Existing Land Use Policy Plan
Land Use Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use Designation
Site: Retail and Service – Car
Dealership Industrial (IND): 0.55 FAR California Commerce Center Specific Plan
Light Industrial
(Proposed)
North: Industrial Industrial (IND): 0.55 FAR California Commerce Center Specific Plan Light Industrial
South:

Commercial – Gas
Station and Fast Food
Drive-Thru
Industrial (IND): 0.55 FAR California Commerce
Center Specific Plan
Commercial / Food /
Hotel
East: Interstate-15 Freeway (I15) N/A N/A N/A
West: Industrial Industrial (IND): 0.55 FAR California Commerce Center Specific Plan Light Industrial
General Site & Building Statistics
Item Proposed Min./Max. Standard Meets
Y/N
Project Area: 16.65 N/A
Lot/Parcel Size: 16.65 acres 1 acre (Min.) Y
Building Area: 344,110 SF N/A
Floor Area Ratio: 0.48 0.55 (Max.) Y
Building Height: 45.5 feet 140 feet (FAA Allowance) (Max.) Y 910
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
911
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit B: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20559
912
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit C: SITE PLAN
913
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit D: FLOOR PLAN

914
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit E: ELEVATIONS
915
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit F: CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS
View of the Corner Entry at Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues, Looking Southeast View of the Truck Yard from Jurupa Street, Looking North 916
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit F: CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS CONTINUED
View of the Truck Yard from the I-15 Freeway Off-ramp, Looking Northwest 917
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Exhibit G: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
918
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File Nos.: PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

Attachment A: Resolution for an Addendum to TOP 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Document to follow this page)
919
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-078

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE USE
OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PURSUANT TO THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NOS. PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025, AND PDEV22-034.

WHEREAS, LINK LOGISTICS REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (File No. PSPA22-006), Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No. PMTT22-025), and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034), which consists of exhibit and textual modifications to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to support a Tentative Parcel Map to consolidate two existing parcels into one and facilitate the partial vacation of Woodruff Way, and a Development Plan to raze approximately 161,320 square feet of commercial buildings and construct one 344,110 square-foot industrial building, on 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller Avenue and Wanamaker Avenue, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified on August 16, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as "Certified SEIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified SEIR (hereinafter referred to as "SEIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR, and that the Certified SEIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
920
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR for File Nos. PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025, & PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified SEIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the decision-making authority for File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22- 034, and the recommending authority for File No. PSPA22-006 for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and is, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking authority for File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034, and the recommending authority for File No. PSPA22-006 for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project.

Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of the Project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364, certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002); and (2) The SEIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
921
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR for File Nos. PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025, & PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the SEIR Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
922
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR for File Nos. PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025, & PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above:
[1] The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22- 006) portion of the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR, and does hereby approve the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference; and
[2] The Planning Commission hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Tentative Parcel Map (File No. PMTT22-025, TPM 20559) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) portion of the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR, and does hereby approve the SEIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
923
924
925
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR for File Nos. PSPA22-006, PMTT22-025, & PDEV22-034 October 24, 2023

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
926

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report

1. Project Title/File Nos.: File Nos.: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025, PSPA22-006 – Woodruff Logistics Center

2. Lead Agency: City of Ontario-Planning Department, 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764

3. Contact Person: Alexis Vaughn, Phone: (909) 395-2416, Email: [email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: B9 Wanamaker Owner LLC; 3401 Etiwanda Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 91752

5. Project Location: The Project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figures 1, Regional Location Map, and 2, Aerial Site Photograph, below, the Project site is located at 1350 and 1375 Woodruff Way (APNs: 238-201-41 and 238-221-22). The Project site is bordered by East Jurupa Street to the south, industrial uses to the east, South Rockefeller Avenue to the west, and Wanamaker Avenue to the north. Regional access is provided via Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 60 (SR-60).

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Industrial

7. Zoning Designation: Existing – Commercial/Food/Hotel and Light Industrial under the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (CCCSP); Proposed – Light Industrial under the CCCSP

8. Description of Project: The Project proposed the following entitlements:

1. A Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-006) to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 8.4 acres of land from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial;

2. A Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) to construct 344,110 square foot industrial building on 16.65 acres within the Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan. The Project is located at 1350 and 1375 Woodruff Way (APN: 1050-491-11); and

3. Tentative Parcel Map (PMTT22-025) to consolidate the existing parcels on site (APNs:
238-201-41 and 238-221-22) into one for development of the proposed building. 927
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 1: Regional Location Map
928
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 2: Aerial Site Photograph
929
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-06)
The California Commerce Specific Plan was adopted in January 1983. The Specific Plan is located on 1,416.5 acres of land generally located west of Haven Avenue, west of the Day Creek Channel and south of Southern Pacific Railroad. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will include the following revisions to the Specific Plan:
• Any graphic that currently identifies the 8.4 acres of Commercial/Food/Hotel Commercial/Office, will be changed to Light Industrial and the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way; and
• Changes to Exhibit 17 – Land Use Plan to reflect the addition of 8.4 acres of Industrial.

Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034)
The Project Applicant seeks to demolish the existing structures and re-develop the 16.15-acre site as a logistics center with approximately 344,110 square feet (s.f.) of building area as shown on Figure 3, Site Plan. Of the total building square footage, the Project would allocate 334,260 s.f. for warehousing/distribution and 10,000 s.f. for office uses. The Project would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, associated on-site landscaping and parking.

Building Characteristics and Operations
As depicted in Figure 4, Building Elevations, the proposed building will be a one-story, 45.5-foot tall speculative warehouse/distribution and office facility, designed to be visually compatible with adjacent buildings and uses. The primary color scheme of the proposed building would include varying shades of white, grays, and dark grays and would be further accented with blue reflective glazing and decorative wood. The building is designed with 55 dock doors on the south-facing side of the building.

Although the ultimate end-user is unknown at this time, for purposes of conservative analysis, the Project is assumed to operate up to 24-hours daily, 7 days a week. Based on typical building user characteristics, it is reasonably assumed that up to 15% of the building space could be used for cold storage. Loading and unloading activities would occur at the southern portion of the building.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access will be provided via 5 driveways on Wanamaker Avenue, South Rockefeller Avenue, and Woodruff Way. The driveway on Woodruff Way would be restricted to truck only and the northern driveway on South Rockefeller Avenue and western driveway on Wanamaker Avenue would be restricted to passenger vehicles only. The Project also includes surface parking with ±183 parking spaces. Of the ±183 spaces, there are ±153 standard automobile parking stalls, 4 standard accessible parking stalls, 2 van accessible parking stalls, 1 van accessible electric vehicle (EV) parking stall, 1 standard EV parking stall, 18 standard EV parking stalls, and 4 clean air vehicle parking stalls. Passenger vehicle parking stalls would be located in parking areas positioned at the eastern, western, and northern side of the proposed building. Additionally, a bicycle rack would be provided at the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building near the office spaces. The Project would further include 64 truck trailer parking spaces located along the southern boundary of the Project site, closest to the 55 proposed dock doors. Additionally, the Project proposes to modify Woodruff Way to a cul-desac and it would no longer be connected to Wanamaker Avenue. 930
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 3: Site Plan
931
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 4: Building Elevations
932
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Landscaping, Walls, and Lighting
As depicted in Figure 5, Landscape Plan, a variety of trees, shrubs, accent plants, and ground cover are proposed along the perimeter of the Project site and parking area. Landscaping will feature drought-tolerant plant materials for a total of 342 trees, including 32 15 gallon, 45 48” box, 167 36” box, 90 24” box trees, and 8 20’ brown trunk height trees.

A 14-foot tall concrete tilt screen wall will border the Project site’s southern boundary along the trailer parking spaces and truck yard, which will transition to an 8-foot tall metal manual sliding gate from the gate entry to the truck driveway access on Woodruff Way and 8-foot tall metal swing gates at the interior entry to the truck yard from both South Rockefeller Avenue and Wanamaker Avenue. Additionally, an 8-foot tall wrought iron tubular fence would border the Project’s eastern boundary.

Exterior lighting would be installed on-site, as necessary, for safety, security, and wayfinding.

Decorative architectural lighting as well as landscape lighting would also be installed to accent building entries as focal points throughout the site. Ornamental landscaping, lighting, walls, and utility infrastructure improvements/connections would be installed per compliance with the City's Municipal Code.

Infrastructure Improvements
Water service to the Project site will be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As shown in Figure 6, Conceptual Utilities Plan, water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the northeastern corner of the building to an existing 12-inch water main on Wanamaker Avenue. Additionally, a portion (from the Project’s driveway on Woodruff Way to the proposed fire line along the northern side of the proposed building) of the existing 12-inch water main along Woodruff Way would be removed.

Sanitary sewer service to the Project site would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Sewer would be accommodated via proposed sewer lines that would extend from the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building to an existing 8-inch sewer main on Woodruff Way at the Project’s driveway. Additionally, a portion of the existing 8-inch sewer main on Woodruff Way that runs through the proposed building would be removed.

A storm drain system would be installed in both east and west sides of the proposed building conveying the runoff southerly that ultimately drains to the existing 96-inch storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street. The westerly half of the site will drain from north to south via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream at Woodruff Way that ultimately discharge the existing storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street.

Runoff from the northeasterly area including the easterly half of the site will drain southwesterly to a series of catch basins and conveyed south via proposed storm drain line that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream south of the Project site. The northerly landscaped area adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue will sheet flow west to an existing street catch basin northwest of the site. The remaining westerly landscaped area adjacent to South Rockefeller Avenue will drain east to an existing street catch basin at the intersection northeast of East Jurupa Street and South Rockefeller Avenue.

Electricity will be provided by the Southern California Edison. Additionally, two fiber optic lines will be constructed: one from the western boundary of the Project site to the existing handhole at South Rockefeller Avenue with two handholes at the northern and southern ends and one along the northern boundary of the Project site to the with two handhole in the middle and at 933
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

the eastern end. All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project site.

Project Construction Characteristics:

Project construction would occur in one phase and is expected to commence in August 2024 and would last through August 2025. Construction activities are as follows:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation & Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating & Landscaping
The Project will require demolition of the existing buildings and asphalt paving on site. As depicted in Figure 7, Conceptual Grading Plan, the Project would not require import/export of soils.
934
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 5: Landscape Plan
935
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 6: Conceptual Utilities Plan
936
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 7: Conceptual Grading Plan
937
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

9. Project Setting: As shown in Figure 2, the Project site is currently developed with Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership buildings, which are approximately 161,320 s.f. combined. Citrus Motors Kia is located in the eastern parcel and Citrus Motors Ford is located at the western parcel. The buildings house auto sale showrooms, auto serving, and auto body shop operations. Primary vehicular access to the Project site is via driveways along South Woodruff Way and South Rockefeller Avenue. Sidewalks are currently present only along the eastern side of South Woodruff Way.

Background: On January 27, 2010, the Ontario City Council adopted The Ontario Plan (“TOP”).

An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared for TOP (State Clearinghouse No. 2008101140) and certified by the City Council on January 27, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “Certified EIR”), which included Mitigation, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, commencing with Public Resources Code Section 21000 (“CEQA”). Subsequently, on August 16, 2022, the Ontario City Council adopted The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”), an update to TOP. TOP 2050 serves as the framework for the City’s business plan and provides a foundation for the City to operate as a municipal corporation that consists of six (6) distinct components:
1) Vision; 2) Governance Manual; 3) Policy Plan; 4) Council Priorities; 5) Implementation; and 6) Tracking and Feedback. The Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 meets the functional and legal mandate of a General Plan and contains nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Resources, Community Economics, Safety, Mobility, Community Design and Social Resources.

A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) was prepared for TOP 2050 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) and was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Certified SEIR”). The Certified SEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP 2050; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan compared to the TOP, and in the Policy Plan and impacts resultant of population and employment growth in the City.

The Project site was analyzed in the Certified SEIR as Industrial to be consistent with the industrial uses surrounding the Project site. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in Certified SEIR included air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation.

10. CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the negative declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
938
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the negative declaration due to the involvement of any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Thus, if the Project does not result in any of the circumstances listed in Section 15162 (i.e., no new or substantially greater significant impacts), the City may properly adopt an addendum to the Certified SEIR.

11. Analysis: According to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be used if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 requiring the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. The CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration are needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below:
1) Required Finding: Substantial changes are not proposed for the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

Substantial changes are not proposed by the Project and Project implementation will not require revisions to the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP 2050; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The Project site is located within the Industrial land use designation of the TOP 2050. As discussed in the Certified SEIR, maximum development of the Project site (16.65 acres) would not exceed 398,901 s.f. of industrial uses based on a maximum FAR of 0.55 under the TOP 2050 land use plan. As discussed above, the Project proposes the development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. logistics center.

The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum 939
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the proposed Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 398,901 s.f. vs. 344,110 s.f.). Since the anticipated buildout resulting from the proposed project changes will be less than that originally analyzed in the Certified SEIR, no revisions to Certified SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present. 2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project was undertaken, that would require major revisions to the Certified SEIR. The Project would be developed consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the site as the site was analyzed in the Certified SEIR. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the Certified SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.
3) Required Finding. No new information has been provided that would indicate that the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

No new information has been provided that would indicate the proposed Project would result in any new significant effects not previously discussed in the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR analyzed the Project site as Industrial consistent with surrounding industrial properties to the north, east, and west. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the Certified SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

12. Conclusion: The Certified SEIR, as certified by City Council on August 16, 2022, was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA and in accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). The Certified SEIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP 2050.

Consequently, the Certified SEIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City’s land use plan, and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed Project coordinates with the existing uses of the properties and uses within the surrounding areas. As described on page 12, the amount 940
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

of development under the proposed Project will be less than the development analyzed in the Certified SEIR.

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the Certified SEIR, the analysis in this document, and CEQA statute and State CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Project will not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

13. Surrounding Land Uses:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
Site: Auto Dealership Industrial (IND) California Commerce Center Specific Plan
Commercial/Food/
Hotel; Light Industrial
North: Warehouse/
Distribution Uses
IND California Commerce
Center Specific Plan Rail Industrial
South:

Gas Station and fastfood restaurant with
Toyota warehouse
beyond East Jurupa
Street
IND Toyota Business Park
Specific Plan
Commercial/Food/
Hotel; Warehouse/
Distribution
East: Manufacturing/
Warehouses
IND California Commerce
Center Specific Plan Light Industrial
West: Converse and Nexen
Tile Warehouse IND California Commerce Center Specific Plan Light Industrial

14. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated include (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit; Issuance of a Construction General Permit); • State Water Resources Control Board (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan); • South Coast Air Quality Management District (Issuance of Air Quality permits to construct and operation, if necessary)

15. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? ☒Yes ☐ No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Completed 941
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant” or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 942
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Signature: Date: August 2, 2023
Printed Name: Alexis Vaughn For: City of Ontario

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

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

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

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

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 943
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

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

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

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

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
944
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
945
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
946
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
947
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
948
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
949
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 950
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. (State CEQA
Guidelines section 15065(a).)
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code sections 21083, 21083.05, 21083.09.

Reference: Gov. Code section 65088.4; Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083, 21083.3, 21083.5, 21084.2, 21084.3, 21093, 21094, 21095 and 21151; Sundstrom v.

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. 951
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that increased development under TOP 2050 would occur within the City limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The scale and design of the City under TOP 2050 would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: TOP 2050 does not identify scenic vistas within the City. However, the Policy Plan (Policy CD-1.5) requires all major north-south streets be designed and developed to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Project site is located along South Rockefeller Avenue and is not identified as a major street in the Roadway Classification (Figure M-01) of the Mobility Element within the Policy Plan (City of Ontario, 2022a). Additionally, the Project site is surrounded by industrial uses and the Certified SEIR assumed buildout of the Project site as an industrial development. The type and character of development that would occur on the Project site is similar to what was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there are no State Scenic highways through or in the vicinity of the City. The closest designated State scenic highway is a portion of State Route 142 in Chino Hills, approximately five miles west of the Ontario city limit.

Therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would occur and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The City of Ontario is served by three freeways: I-10, I-15, and SR-60. I10 and SR-60 traverse the northern and central portion of the City, respectively, in an east–west direction. I-15 traverses the northeastern portion of the City in a north–south direction. These segments of I-10, I-15, and SR-60 are not designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation. The nearest eligible State scenic highway is SR-142, approximately

11.25 miles to the southwest of the Project site (Caltrans, 2022). In addition, there are no historically significant buildings or any scenic resources identified on or in the vicinity of the Project site.

Therefore, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project 952
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?) Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes goals and policies to ensure that new development would be compatible with the existing community and would be of quality design. Additionally, future development would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Project-related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near-term construction activities because construction activity is common in the City, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area. The Project site is zoned Light Industrial and Commercial/Food/Hotel under the California Commerce Specific Plan (CCCSP) and the Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to the CCCSP to change the land use designation of 8.4 acres of land from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial. Design standards applicable to the Light Industrial zone under the CCCSP would remain the same under the Project and the Project is required to comply with the development standards established in the CCCSP. As part of the development review process, City staff conducted a thorough review of the Project’s design and determined that the Project would be consistent with the Light Industrial development standards and design guidelines from the CCCSP.

Accordingly, there are no components of the Project that would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the Certified SEIR. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in additional sources of light and glare; however, adherence to the design standards of the City of Ontario Development Code would ensure that light and glare from new developments would be minimized and that significant impacts would not occur. Therefore, impacts to light and glare would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Under existing conditions, the Project site is primarily surrounded by industrial uses. Street lights are located along South Rockefeller Avenue, Wanamaker Avenue, South Woodruff Way, and East Jurupa Street. New lighting will be introduced to the site with the redevelopment of the Project. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, Project on-site lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project site and minimize light spillage.

Furthermore, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, site lighting plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different 953
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. Therefore, no impact on land zoned for the purpose of agricultural uses would occur and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is presently occupied by two auto dealership buildings and does not contain any agricultural uses. Further, the site is identified as Urban and Built-up Land on the map prepared by the California Resources Agency, pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC, 2018). The Project does not have the potential to convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City of Ontario’s land use plan no longer designates agricultural land uses in the City. Buildout of TOP would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts and TOP 2050 would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Therefore, impacts to Williamson Land Acts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The Project site is zoned Specific Plan and would involve a Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 8.4 acres of land from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial. The Project’s proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture.

Furthermore, as concluded in the Certified SEIR, there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 954
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City of Ontario. Therefore, no impacts to forest land would occur and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the City’s Zoning Map does not designate any parcels of land in the Project area for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, forest land or timberland. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there is no land in Ontario that would be considered forest land. Therefore, no impacts to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: There is currently no land in the City of Ontario that qualifies as forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g). Neither the Policy Plan nor the City’s Zoning Code provide designations for forest land. Additionally, the Project site is presently occupied by two auto dealership buildings and does not contain forest land. Consequently, the Project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. 955
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: As previously discussed above, the Project site does not include Farmland (defined as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) or forest land and, therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use of forest land to non-forest use. The Project would not result in any impacts to agricultural and/or forestry resources. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required.

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

The analysis in this section is based on the Woodruff Logistics Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) dated April 4, 2023. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A of this Addendum. At the time this Addendum was prepared, the Project’s site plan consisted of a 344,678 s.f. warehouse building. The Project’s site plan has been revised to reduce the overall building square footage to 344,110 s.f. The analysis conducted for the technical studies included as appendices to this EIR (including Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation) assumed the higher building square footage (344,678 s.f.) and, therefore, provides an overly conservative analysis of Project operations in this Addendum.

South Coast AQMD Regional and Local Significance Thresholds The City of Ontario utilizes the South Coast AQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and thresholds of significance to determine the potential significance of Project emissions. A Project may have a significant impact if Project emissions would exceed these air pollution thresholds.

Table 3-1, South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold of Significance, below identifies South Coast AQMD’s regional construction and operational emissions within its jurisdiction.

Table 3-1 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold of Significance Pollutant Construction Regional Thresholds Operational Regional Thresholds NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Notes: lbs/day – Pounds Per Day, NOX – Nitrogen Oxides, VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds, PM10 – Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less, PM2.5 – Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less, SOX – Sulfur Oxides, CO – Carbon Monoxide.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 1)
The South Coast AQMD also established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that a project can emit without contributing to an existing or new air quality standard exceedance. LSTs are defined separately for construction and operational activities and are dependent on location, project size, and distance to sensitive receptors. a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 956
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that buildout of TOP 2050 would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) under the first criteria.

However, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3-2 and AQ-1 into future development projects for the operation phase would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of TOP 2050. Additionally, goals and policies in TOP 2050 would promote increased capacity for alternative transportation modes. However, due to the magnitude of residential units that would be developed under TOP 2050 to accommodate the RHNA, no additional mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts below South Coast AQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

Currently, State, and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the South Coast AQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the State and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are regularly updated to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. In December 2022, the South Coast AQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, state, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the federal CAA requirements.

The Project’s consistency with the AQMP will be determined using the 2022 AQMP, as discussed below. Criteria for determining consistency with the 2016 AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section

12.2, and Section 12.3 of the South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The Project’s consistency with these criteria is discussed below.

Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.

The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refer to are the CAAQS and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations could occur if regional or localized significance thresholds are exceeded. As evaluated under Air Quality Threshold b, below, the Project’s regional and localized construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold or LST thresholds. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase.

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in TOP 2050 is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.
957
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.

The TOP 2050 adopted by the City in August 2022, designates the Project site as “Industrial” land uses. The “Industrial” designation allows for a wide range of light industrial uses, including warehousing/distribution, assembly, light manufacturing, research and development, storage, repair facilities, and supporting retail and professional office uses. This designation also accommodates activities that could potentially generate impacts, such as noise, dust, and other nuisances. The Project includes the development of 344,110 s.f. industrial warehouse building, consistent with the current land use and zoning designation. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP.

AQMP Consistency Conclusion
The Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. Additionally, Project construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a) Additionally, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and AQ-1 to reduce cumulative air pollutant emissions. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

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

Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing 958
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
freeboard on trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials.
• Using construction equipment rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as having Tier 4 interim or higher exhaust emission limits.
• Ensuring construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards.
• Limiting nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
• Using Super-Compliant VOC paints for coating of architectural surfaces whenever possible. A list of Super-Compliant architectural coating manufactures can be found on the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/brochures/Super-Compliant_AIM.pdf.

These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans) submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City’s Planning Department.

MM 3-2 The City of Ontario shall evaluate new development proposals within the City and require all developments to include access or linkages to alternative modes of transportation, such as transit stops, bike paths, and/or pedestrian paths (e.g. sidewalks).

AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phaserelated air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce longterm 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.
959
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate applications to optimize renewable energy generation systems and avoid peak energy use.
• Site-specific developments with truck delivery and loading areas and truck parking spaces shall include signage as a reminder to limit idling of vehicles while parked for loading/unloading in accordance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2845 (13 CCR Chapter 10 sec. 2485). • Provide changing/shower facilities as specified in Section A5.106.4.3 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide bicycle parking facilities per Section A4.106.9 of CALGreen (Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide preferential parking spaces for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles per Section A5.106.5.1 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures).
• Provide facilities to support electric charging stations per Section A5.106.5.3 and Section A5.106.8.2 of CALGreen (Nonresidential Voluntary Measures; Residential Voluntary Measures).
• Applicant-provided appliances shall be Energy Star–certified appliances or appliances of equivalent energy efficiency (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers). Installation of Energy Star–certified or equivalent appliances shall be verified by the City during plan check.

MM 3-1 and AQ-1 have been met through preparation of Woodruff Logistics Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. provided in Appendix A. No construction or operational-related impacts have been identified in the technical report. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that buildout in accordance with TOP 2050 would generate short-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Mitigation Measure 3-1 and the goals and policies of TOP 2050 would reduce construction-related air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. Therefore, construction related regional air quality impacts of developments that would be accommodated by TOP 2050 would remain significant and unavoidable.

Buildout in accordance with TOP 2050 would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Mitigation Measure 3-2 and AQ-1, in addition to the goals and policies of TOP 2050, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and 960
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the City. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from residential development associated with TOP 2050 compared to that of the TOP.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project proposes a development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. logistics center. The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 398,901 s.f. vs. 344,110 s.f.). The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a land use that was planned by the TOP 2050 and evaluated in the Certified SEIR; therefore, the Project would not generate air pollutant emissions that were not already anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Notwithstanding, an Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) was prepared to quantify air pollutant emission associated with the implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project’s daily regional emissions from construction have been estimated using South Coast AQMD’s CalEEMod 2022.1 model, as shown in Table 3-2, Regional Threshold Summary of Construction. As shown in Table 3-2, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the regional numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s construction emission impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3-2 Regional Threshold Summary of Construction
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 3.74 36.10 34.40 0.06 6.80 4.22
2025 60.20 22.30 41.20 0.05 2.84 1.49
Winter
2024 3.62 34.50 31.50 0.06 4.41 2.38
2025 1.87 13.60 23.50 0.04 2.75 1.00
Maximum Daily Emissions 60.20 36.10 41.20 0.06 6.80 4.22 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 3)
Emissions associated with the Project’s operation were calculated using CalEEMod 2022.1.

The Project’s daily regional emissions from operation are shown in Table 3-3, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions. As shown in Table 3-5, the Project is anticipated to generate less emissions per day for pollutants of VOC, NOX, CO, SOX, and PM2.5 as compared to emissions generated by the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation, and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds.

As shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3, Project-related construction and operational activities would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance threshold for any criterial pollutant.

Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. 961
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Table 3-3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Proposed Project 14.89 13.64 87.84 0.14 4.48 1.21
TOP 2050 22.07 20.24 190.90 0.36 11.13 2.39
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -7.18 -6.60 -103.06 -0.22 -6.65 -1.18 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Proposed Project 12.34 14.03 66.34 0.14 4.46 1.18
TOP 2050 18.76 21.29 146.60 0.33 11.11 2.36
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -6.42 -7.26 -80.26 -0.19 -6.65 -1.18 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 6)
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and AQ-1 would be applicable to the Project.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Buildout of TOP 2050 could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs). Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Policy ER-4.9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of TOP 2050 would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin due to the increase in industrial land use allowed under TOP 2050. While individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of cancer risk in the SCAB; and therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or place where they gather to exercise are defined as sensitive receptors. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site. The receptor locations are shown in Figure 8, Sensitive Receptors Locations.
962
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 8: Sensitive Receptors Locations
963
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

The South Coast AQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact.

The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R5, represented by the Rodeway Inn Ontario Mills Mall at 4075 E Guasti Rd, approximately 5,587 feet (1,703 meters) northwest of the Project site. Consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO is location R4, represented by Ace Calendering Enterprises at 1311 Wanamaker Ave, adjacent east of the Project site.

Construction Emissions
Project-related construction localized emissions are presented in Table 3-4, LST Summary of Construction. As shown, the Project’s construction emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s significance thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during construction. Therefore, the nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations that would present a public health concern and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3-4 LST Summary of Construction
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.90 21.70 6.47 1.80
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 118 869 990 578
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 36.00 32.90 7.26 4.16
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,721 794 639
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.30 30.20 4.12 2.31
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,881 880 650
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 9)
Operational Emissions
Project-related operational localized emissions are presented in Table 3-5, Summary of Operations. As shown, Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds for localized air pollutant emissions during operation. Therefore, Project operation would expose 964
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

sensitive receptors near the Project site to less-than-significant localized criteria pollutant concentrations.

Table 3-5 LST Summary of Operations
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 3.72 53.69 0.27 0.23
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,754 254 161
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 10)
CO Hotspots
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hotspot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

Due to the relatively small size of the Project, the Project does not have the potential to generate the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hotspot. Therefore, CO “hotspots” are not an environmental concern for the Project and no impacts would occur. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors near the Project site to significant pollutant concentrations during construction and operation. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that industrial uses would be generally limited to the areas designated Industrial and future environmental review would be required for these types of industrial projects, which would ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. Both residential and nonresidential land uses would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with TOP 2050 are considered less than significant. Moreover, any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, impacts associated with constructiongenerated odors are considered less than significant. 965
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: Land uses generally associated with odor complains include:
agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of concrete and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the Project construction and operations would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that no sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the City have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species. TOP 2050 includes policies to ensure that special-status species and habitat are protected through compliance with state and federal regulations (e.g., Policies ER-5.1 and ER-5.2). Projects under TOP 2050 that undergo independent CEQA review would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. Compliance with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, including requirements of the USFWS regarding critical habitat; mitigation fees paid by projects in Ontario Ranch; and acquisition and management of habitat using those fees would reduce impacts on sensitive animal species from implementation of TOP 2050. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently developed with Citrus Motors Ford and Citrus Motors Kia auto dealership buildings. The Project site is in an urbanized and industrialized area in the City of Ontario and vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental species. The Project site is located within an area that has not been identified as containing species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As a part of the Project, existing vegetation within the Project site would be removed and replaced with a variety of trees and ornamental vegetation. The replacement of on-site vegetation and trees would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive or special-status species, as defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and 966
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Wildlife Services (USFWS). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in direct vegetation removal in surface water areas in the City; however, projects approved pursuant to TOP 2050 could indirectly result in such removal. Projects that would result in impacts to surface water areas determined to be jurisdictional to the state would require CDFW approval pursuant to the Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et. seq.) in the form of Streambed Alteration Agreements. Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts to sensitive habitat because it would not result in the development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City even though it would result in an increase in land use intensity. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is completely developed/disturbed, as it was in 2022 when the Certified SEIR was certified. The Project site is currently developed with commercial uses and is in a highly urbanized and industrialized area in the City. The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by the Department of Fish & Game or Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek channels and portions of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels, are owned and maintained by San Bernardino County; they are not subject to land use controls by the City of Ontario and would not be affected by TOP 2050. Remaining segments of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels in the City that are owned by the City of Ontario, would be designated Open Space–Non-recreation by TOP 2050 and would not be developed with other land uses. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in direct impacts to waters of the State because TOP 2050 does not grant specific entitlements for development. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts to jurisdictional waters since TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial 967
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: No wetland habitat is present on site (USFWS, 2020). Therefore, Project implementation would have no impact on these resources. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that no regional wildlife movement corridors have been identified in the City, most of which is ill suited for the purposes of wildlife movement. There are trees and shrubs scattered throughout the City that may be used for nesting or roosting by migrating birds. Individual projects would require to comply with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). Therefore, TOP 2050 is not anticipated to have substantial adverse impacts to migratory birds. Furthermore, Policy ER-5.1 would encourage efforts to conserve flood control channels and transmission line corridors as wildlife movement corridors.

Consequently, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: No surface water bodies; streams or waterways occur on the Project site. The Project site does not provide nursery sites for wildlife, nor is it conducive to function as a corridor for migratory wildlife. There are a limited number of ornamental trees on site that would be removed and replaced with new trees and landscaping. The MBTA implements the United States’ commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. Nesting migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq.

Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, compliance with federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would eliminate any potential impacts. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR discussed this impact along with threshold f below with emphasis on the impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) Ontario Recovery Unit. Projects proposed within the Ontario Recovery Unit would be required to conduct focused surveys for DSFLF on the project site and consult with the USFWS regarding mitigation of impacts on any DSFLF found. TOP 2050 would not grant specific entitlements for development and would not conflict with FESA requirements and USFWS regulations regarding critical habitat. Furthermore, Policy ER-5.1 of TOP 2050 would support efforts to conserve highquality habitat for the DSFLF. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is a potential for habitat onsite for sensitive species.

TOP 2050 would have similar impacts regarding consistency with a habitat conservation plan. 968
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Section 10-2 of the Ontario Municipal Code addresses tree protection, maintenance, and replacement policies for trees within the City’s parkways and rightsof-way. Additionally, the City has published landscape guidelines that must be followed when developing new or existing sites. All existing trees within the site will be removed as part of the Project. As shown in Figure 5, Landscape Plan, a total of 342 trees would be planted in accordance to the City’s landscaping guidelines. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As discussed above, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts regarding consistency with a habitat conservation plan. There is one habitat conservation plan in the City, a 19-acre area near the intersection of Greystone Drive and the eastern city boundary established to protect the DSFLF. The HCP area would remain designated Industrial under the Proposed Project. Any project proposed for development within this HCP pursuant to TOP 2050 would be required to consult with the USFWS regarding project impacts on DSFLF and mitigation of any such impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan (CDFW, 2019). The Project site is located approximately 1.53 miles north from the HCP area. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that Ontario has eight historic districts, and four proposed and five potential historic districts are deemed eligible for listing. The City’s Register of Historic Resources shows 1,957 historic resources, 99 of which are designated Historic Landmark properties. The Development Code establishes criteria for Tier I, Tier II or Tier III properties, with Tier I and II being of the highest value. Given this strong policy of the City and the programmatic nature of TOP 2050, implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in significant impacts to Tier I and II resources. Tier III consists of all properties that are Designated 969
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Historic Landmarks, are contributing structures in Designated Historic Districts, or are Eligible Historical Resources, as defined by the Development Code. Demolition of these properties should be avoided where possible, but may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged, and requires a demolition mitigation fee. The Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III resources. As a result, historical resources categorized under the ordinance as Tier III could potentially be impacted with implementation of TOP 2050. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would require historic or potentially historic resources to be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s Development Code tier system. Impacts to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: A project-related significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to adversely affect a historical resource meeting one of the definitions listed below. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the Historic Resources Commission, a local register of historic resources, or the lead agency. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The Project site is not listed as a Tier 1, II, or III historical resources under the TOP 2050.

Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and no impacts would occur. Additionally, the existing buildings onsite were constructed in 1987 and 1998 and less than 45 years old. The Project would not result in any impacts to historical resources. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded the records review at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SSCIC) identified 17 archeological resources in the City.

Based on the results of the research, there is potential archaeological sensitivity throughout the City. Adoption of TOP 2050 would not directly affect archaeological resources. However, longterm implementation of TOP 2050 land use plan could allow development (e.g., new development, infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archeological resources. Therefore, future 970
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

development that would be accommodated by TOP 2050 could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Mitigation Measure 5-2 would require preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during development. Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: A cultural records search, included as Technical Appendix B, with data from the South-Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton was conducted for the Project which encompassed an area of one-mile surrounding the Project site. Based on the results of the records search, no resources were recorded in the Project site and one resource has been recorded within one-mile of the Project site. The resource is a historic railroad. The records search results also indicate that 18 previous studies have been conducted within one-mile of the Project site, one (1) of which included the Project site and did not identify any cultural resources. (BFSA, 2023a)
While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its urbanized nature and extent of prior ground disturbance, the presence of previously undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources on the Project site remains possible, and these resources could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, Mitigation Measure 5-2 would be implemented to ensure the proper treatment of significant archaeological resources should they be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities in native soil. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

MM 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist.

If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, 971
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded there are known Native American gravesites and cemeteries in the City, including Bellevue Memorial Park on the north side of G Street, between Benson Avenue and Mountain Avenue. TOP 2050 in itself does not involve grading activities and would not directly disturb any human remains. However, long-term implementation of TOP 2050 would allow development and redevelopment, including grading of sensitive areas, possibly disturbing human remains, including those outside of formal cemeteries.

Although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with TOP 2050 could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law including California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and PRC Section 5097.98 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, impacts to human remains would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project is in an area that has been previously disturbed by development. The possibility of uncovering human remains during Project-related grading activities is remote due to fact that the previous development of the site has substantially disturbed the subsurface of the site. Thus, human remains are not expected to be encountered during any construction activities. However, as concluded in the Certified SEIR, in the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, existing regulations, including the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, would afford protection for human remains discovered during redevelopment activities including but not limited to demolition, site preparation and grading, infrastructure installation, and other grounddisturbing activities. Furthermore, standard have been imposed on the Project that in the event of unanticipated discoveries of human remains are identified during excavation and construction activities, the area shall not be disturbed until any required investigation is completed by the County Coroner and/or Native American consultation hasb been completed, if deemed applicable. Mandatory compliance with these requirements would ensure that no impacts associated with the discovery of human remains would occur. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the types of land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 would also be similar to the land uses accommodated under TOP. Thus, the construction processes for future development projects accommodated under TOP 2050 would be similar to the construction processes of current development projects and projects accommodated under TOP. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction. 972
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Operation of new development projects accommodated under TOP 2050 would create additional demands for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Overall, regulatory compliance will increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage. Additionally, TOP 2050 includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, public and active transit, and renewable energy generation that will contribute to minimizing building and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of proposed policies under TOP 2050 and Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) in conjunction with regulatory requirements would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under TOP 2050 would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would implement the TOP 2050 land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use and development intensity is consistent with the development regulations contained within the TOP 2050. The proposed building would be approximately 54,641 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the development proposed by the Project – and its energy use – is within the scope of the Project that was evaluated in the Certified SEIR. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Additionally, TOP 2050 includes Environmental Resources Element policies and Safety Element policies that would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The California Title 24 energy efficiency standards for non-residential buildings address electricity and natural gas efficiency in lighting, water, heating, and air conditioning, as well as the effects of the building envelope (e.g., windows, doors, walls and rooves, etc.) on energy consumption.

Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, the Project would be required to comply with the Title 24 CALGreen standards current at that time and the City’s CCAP. Since each new building will comply with applicable State standards and adhere to the City’s CCAP, which includes energy reductions measures, the Project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
973
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

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

42. Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City of Ontario is not within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Ground rupture is the visible offset of the ground surface when an earthquake rupture along a fault affects the Earth’s surface. Southern California, including the City of Ontario, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix C.1, the Project site is not located with an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. (SoCal Geo, 2021) Fault rupture would not occur on the Project site since no active faults cross the Project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with seismic safety provisions of the CBC (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations). Such compliance would reduce hazards arising from ground shaking to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Southern California is a seismically active area and properties in the City of Ontario, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity along nearby regional faults. The Project site is not at an increased risk relative to the surrounding areas. Consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, Project-related structures and buildings would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), which contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion, the Ontario Municipal Code, TOP 2050, and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, as structures would be designed to meet or exceed CBC standards for earthquake resistance, redevelopment of the Project would not create significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No 974
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there is currently no potential for liquefaction based on groundwater levels throughout the City being greater than 50 feet below ground surface. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Discussion of Effects: Seismic-related ground failure includes, but is not limited to, liquefaction. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to fluids when subject to high intensity seismic events. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater, 2) low-density non-cohesive (granular) soils and 3) high-intensity ground motion. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility and groundwater is considered to have existed at depth in excess of 25 feet due to the lack of water encountered at all borings (SoCal Geo, 2021). Therefore, consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, the Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to seismic-related liquefaction. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Landslides?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR did not identify any specific constraints regarding landslides.

Discussion of Effects: Slope failures in the form of landslides are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of steep hills. The Project site and surrounding area are generally flat with no significant slopes. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the young alluvial sediment and wind-blown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur. In addition, construction activities on project sites larger than one acre are required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that details best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes the following policies regarding erosion and loss of topsoil: ER-1.6, ER 4.7, S-5.1, and S-5.2. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Erosion is the movement of rock and soil from place to place. Erosion 975
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

occurs naturally by agents such as wind and flowing water; however, grading and construction activities can greatly increase erosion if effective erosion control measures are not used. Common means of soil erosion from construction sites include water, wind, and being tracked offsite by vehicles. The Project site is in a highly urbanized, built-out portion of the City and is largely flat; soils have already been disturbed by existing development. Because the Project site is fully developed and contains very little exposed soils, existing erosion occurring on the site is minimal.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (General Construction Permit) contains water quality standards and stormwater discharge requirements that apply to construction projects of one acre or more. The General Construction Permit was issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for implementing part of the federal Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP that identifies the sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and describes and ensures the implementation of BMPs to reduce the pollutants, including silt and soil, in construction stormwater discharges. Examples of BMPs that are commonly included in SWPPPs are shown in Table 7-1, below.

Table 7-1 Examples of Construction-Phase Stormwater Pollution Prevention BMPs Category Goal Sample Measures
Erosion Controls Prevent soil particles from being
detached from the ground
surface and transported in runoff
Preserving existing vegetation;
soil binders; geotextiles and mats
Sediment controls Filter out soil particles that have
entered runoff
Barriers such as slit fences and
gravel bag berms; and street
sweeping
Tracking Controls Prevent soil from being tracked
offsite by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways
and entrances/exits
Wind Erosion Control Prevent soil from being
transported offsite by wind
Similar to erosion controls above
Non-stormwater Management Prevent discharges of soil from site by means other than runoff
and wind
BMPs regulating various
construction practices; water
conservation
Waste and Materials
Management
Prevent release of waste
materials into storm discharges
BMPs regulating storage and
handling of materials and wastes
Future development within the Project site will be required to comply with the NPDES permit by preparing and implementing a SWPPP specifying BMPs for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during Project construction. Consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Project-related demolition, site preparation and grading, and construction activities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the thick alluvial deposits comprising the Chino Subbasin may be susceptible to compaction, with resulting 976
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

subsidence at the surface, in the event of rapid groundwater withdrawal. Projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 could expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from ground subsidence. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Additionally, the young sediments underlying the City are generally dry and loose in the upper few feet, and therefore are susceptible to compression. Much of the Ontario Ranch has been intensively farmed and is especially susceptible to compression. Developments approved pursuant to TOP 2050 could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from compressible soils. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As stated previously, the Project site is not susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. The potential for other geologic hazards on the Project site, including lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse is considered low (SoCal Geo, 2021). Furthermore, Projectrelated structures and buildings would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the CBC and the Ontario Municipal code, which requires the Project to implement the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation. The recommendations require foundations to be constructed based on the expansion index and shear strength of onsite soils.

Consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, compliance with the CBC and Ontario Municipal code would ensure that impact would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that expansive soils are likely in the southern parts of the City, where there are silts, sandy silts, and silty clays. Projects in the southern part of the City under TOP 2050 could expose persons or structures to potentially significant hazards from expansive soils. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling. According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, the near-surface soils consist of well graded sands and silty sands with no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive (SoCal Geo, 2021). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
977
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that wastewater from the City is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the IEUA. Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, impacts related to septic tanks would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: No septic tanks will be used as part of the proposed Project. The Project would connect to the existing waste water disposal system. Accordingly, no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City is underlain by deposits of Quaternary and upper-Pleistocene sediments deposited during Pliocene and early Pleistocene time. Quaternary Older Alluvial sediments may contain significant, nonrenewable, paleontological resources and are therefore considered to have high sensitivity. Older Pleistocene alluvial sediments can yield fossil remains, often found at depths of 10 feet or more below existing ground surface. As a result, the possibility of finding additional paleontological resources within City boundaries is moderate to high at depths of 10 feet or more below ground surface. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by TOP 2050 could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Mitigation Measure 5-2 requires that in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources during grading and excavation of the site, a qualified paleontologist would assess the find and develop a course of action to preserve the find. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a level that is less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Project’s Paleontological Resource Assessment, included as Appendix G.2, the young eolian/alluvial deposits below the artificial fill at the Project site may be considered to have a low potential for paleontological resources, but increase to an undetermined to high potential for yielding significant paleontological resources with increasing depth and age. Therefore, there is potentially significant impacts related to paleontological resources. (BFSA, 2023b)However, the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-2 to ensure construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the project site and a qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to determine the significance of these resources in the event unanticipated paleontological resources are identified during excavation.

Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5-2, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the 978
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

MM CUL 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist.

If significance criteria are met, then the project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, radiocarbon dates, and other special studies; submit materials to a museum for permanent curation; and provide a comprehensive final report including a catalog with museum numbers.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that GHG emissions associated with TOP 2050 would be slightly higher compared to those of TOP in the absence of local measures identified in the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) and would not meet the 2050 GHG target of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita. With implementation of the CCAP, TOP 2050 would result in a decrease in emissions. The City would achieve the Executive Order (EO) S-03-05 GHG emissions reduction targets, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the City by 2050 from existing conditions, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. Therefore, TOP 2050, which includes the CCAP, would reduce GHG emissions impacts compared to TOP. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The analysis in this section is based on the Woodruff Logistics Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) dated April 4, 2023. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A of this Addendum.

The CCAP establishes an annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis. Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore 979
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation.

The Project’s annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 8-1, Project GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 8-1, the Project will result in total GHG emissions of approximately 3,557.75 MTCO2e/yr. However, when compared to emissions generated by the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation, the Project would result in a net decrease of 2,489.88 MTCO2e/yr.

As such, Project-related emissions would not have a potential significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Table 8-1 Project GHG Emissions
Source
Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related
emissions amortized over 30 years 27.07 1.33E-03 1.33E-03 1.93E-02 27.53 Mobile Source 1,927.00 0.09 0.15 3.62 1,978.00
Area Source 6.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 7.02
Energy Source 775.00 0.07 0.01 0.00 779.00
Water Source 113.00 2.60 0.06 0.00 196.00
Waste Source 28.90 2.89 0.00 0.00 101.00
Refrigerants Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.20 58.20
On-Site Equipment Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.73
TRU Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 316.27
Total CO2e (All Sources) 3,557.75
TOP 2050 6,047.63
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP
2050) -2,489.88
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Tables 13, 15, 16 and 17) Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that development projects accommodated under TOP 2050 are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the 2017 Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan. Additionally, TOP 2050 would provide for residents to both live and work in the City instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and reducing VMT per service population. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal.

Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. 980
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: Since certification of the Certified SEIR, CARB has adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan. Pursuant to Section 15604.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards to determine the significance of impacts from GHG emissions. As such, the Project’s consistency with SB 32 (2022 Scoping Plan) is discussed below.

The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road ZeroEmission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean OffRoad Fleet Recognition Program, Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Finally, the Project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategy/ Regional Transportation Plan, which pursuant to SB 375 calls for the integration of transportation, land-use and housing policies to plan for achievement of the GHGemissions target for the region. Thus, a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions from Project construction and operation would occur. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a) Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) dated October 2021 and is provided in their entirety as Appendix D of this Addendum.
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR discussed thresholds a, b, and c together and concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, thereby increasing the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured, and the number of people exposed to these materials.

The City of Ontario has around 127 facilities or sites that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste, as recorded by the national Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Envirofacts Database. An increase in the transport of hazardous waste from an 981
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

increased demand for transport, use, and disposal within or outside the City could result in more accidents leading to the release of hazardous materials. Demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. Current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP 2050 policies would regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential releases; exposure; and risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. Therefore, additional hazardous waste transport, use, and/or disposal that would occur upon the buildout of TOP 2050 would be less than significant with adherence to the existing regulations and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations, or would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.

The Project Applicant proposes to redevelop the Project site with a building that has the potential to store hazardous materials during the future building user’s daily operations. As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not result in a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Existing and Historical Uses of the Project Site
Based on a review of regulatory databases and a site reconnaissance, the Project site does not contain any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. Hazardous materials used, stored, and/or generated on the Project site were found to be properly labeled and stored at the time of the assessment with no signs of leaks, strains, or spills. The aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) observed on the Project site were determined to not represent a significant environmental concern. The historical industrial and agricultural uses of the Project site do not represent a REC or human health risk. No RECs or HRECs were identified that would negatively impact the environment. (Ramboll, 2021) As a result, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to onsite soil contamination.

Project Construction
General Construction Hazardous Waste
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would operate on the subject property during construction of the Project. Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. Also, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), South Coast 982
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

AQMD, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, with mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase.

Demolition
The use of asbestos-containing materials (ACM, a known carcinogen) and lead-based paint (LBP) (a known toxic), both of which are considered hazardous materials, was a common building construction prior to 1981 and 1978, respectively. The existing buildings onsite were constructed in 1987 and 1998; therefore, it is unlikely that ACM and LBP were used on these buildings. However, although unlikely, since asbestos had continued to be used in some buildings during the 1980s, , the possibility of asbestos cannot be ruled out (Ramboll, 2021). All proposed demolition activities would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local hazardous materials regulation, which includes mandatory provisions for the safe removal, transport, and disposal of ACMs.

South Coast AQMD Rule 1403 establishes survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Assuming that ACMs are present in the existing structure located on-site, then Rule 1403 requires notification of the South Coast AQMD prior to commencing any demolition activities. Rule 1403 also sets forth specific procedures for the removal of asbestos and requires that an on-site representative trained in the requirements of Rule 1403 be present during the stripping, removing, handling, or disturbing of ACM. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing, and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because future development on the Project site would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be less than significant.

Project Operation
Future users of the proposed on-site Project building are not yet known. Future uses on-site are assumed to be those permitted by the TOP 2050 and CCCSP zoning designations. Future users have the potential to use hazardous materials (i.e., gasoline, diesel, biodiesel fuels, and oil) during the course of daily operations at the Project site. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future warehouse operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the building site. Federal and State Community-Right-to-Know laws allow the public access to information about the amounts and types of chemicals that may be used by the businesses that would operate at the Project site. Laws also are in place that require businesses to plan and prepare for possible chemical emergencies. Pursuant to the City of Ontario Municipal Code, any business involved in the use, production, storage, or transfer of any material defined as hazardous and subject to regulation by San Bernadino County Department of Public Health and/or subject to regulation by the South Coast Air Quality Management District per Rules 1401, 1402, and 1403. Such businesses are also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which require immediate reporting to San Bernadino County Fire Protection District and State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business.

The operation of the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure the proper transport, use, and disposal of hazardous 983
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

substances. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As discussed above, the Certified SEIR concluded that additional hazardous waste transport, use, and/or disposal that would occur upon the buildout of TOP 2050 would be less than significant with adherence to the existing regulations and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: During Project construction, there is a possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as petroleum-based fuels or hydraulic fluid used for construction equipment. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local, State, and federal law.

Construction
The Project would comply with the requirements of applicable laws and regulations governing upsets and accidents including the requirements of the hazardous materials disclosure program, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, the hazardous materials release response plans and inventory program, and California Health and Safety Code Section 25500.

These requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for upset and accident conditions. For example, all spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities are required to be immediately contained, the hazardous material identified, and the material remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations for the cleanup and disposal of that contaminant. All contaminated waste would be required to be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, this impact is considered less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Operation
Regulatory requirements pertaining to upsets and accidents following during the 984
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

construction phase would also be implemented during the operational phase. For the operational phase, both the federal government and the State of California (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, §§ 25500–25520; 19 CCR, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3, Article 4, §§ 2729–2734) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials, termed a reporting quantity, to submit a hazardous materials emergency/contingency plan (also known as a hazardous materials business plan) to their local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). These requirements would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR did not identify any specific constraints regarding hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and analysis were combined with threshold a and b which concluded less than significant impacts.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not within 0.25 mile of the existing or proposed school. The closest school to the Project site is the Ontario Center School, located approximately

2.17 miles to the northwest of the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that development in accordance with TOP 2050 would involve redevelopment and reuse of some sites listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases. Redevelopment of these sites could potentially expose future residents and workers to hazards from known hazardous materials releases on and near the sites. Site assessments for hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous materials releases would be required for redevelopment projects developed in accordance with TOP 2050 and the regulations and policies of the agency assigned to the site.

TOP 2050 include policies that address development on and around known hazardous waste sites.

Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts because TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification. Therefore, buildout of TOP 2050 would not expose people to substantial hazards from hazardous materials sites listed on environmental databases and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of 985
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Citrus Motors building is listed in the California Environmental Protection Agency Regulated Site Portal (CERS) HAZ WASTE, CERS TANKS, Aboveground Storage Tank (AST), Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) small quantity generator (SQG), and San Bernardino County Permit (San Bern Co Permit) databases. However, listings on these databases, by themselves, are not necessarily indicative of contamination and these listings are not considered to represent a significant environmental concern. (Ramboll, 2021) Based on the review of the available regulatory information, the Project site is located in an area of historic industrial operations. As discussed in Response 9.a, the Project site does not contain any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the consistency determination analysis for the Ontario International Airport (ONT), prepared by the City and submitted to Ontario International Airport – Inter Agency Collaborative (ONT-IAC), found that TOP 2050 is consistent with ALUCP for ONT. Additionally, buildout of TOP 2050 would involve development within the Chino Airport influence area. Projects accommodating TOP 2050 in this area would be required to meet the conditions of the Chino Airport Authority and the 2011 Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, including those determining appropriate land uses, maximum population density, maximum site coverage, height restrictions, and required notification/disclosure areas based on the noise contours and runway protection, approach, and Part 77 zones of the adopted Chino Airport Master Plan. The Airport Planning section of TOP 2050 Land Use Element includes policies that would ensure airport planning compatibility and consistency. Therefore, TOP 2050 ensures compatibility with both ONT and Chino Airport. Impacts related to airport safety hazards would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the Chino Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2022a). According to the ONT Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Specifically, the Project site is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the Project’s industrial warehouse is considered normally compatible land use with exterior noise levels ranging from 65-70 dBA CNEL. For normally compatible land uses, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise. Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Moreover, according to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the ONT safety zones. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than 986
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the threat of flood is Ontario’s greatest hazard as large portions of the City are within the flood zone, according to the Vulnerability Analysis conducted as part of TOP 2050. There are also substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The City's Safety Element includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. The City seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to and recover from every day and disaster emergencies. The City manages disaster preparedness through the Technical Services Bureau of the Ontario Fire Department. This bureau is responsible for the preparation of the community for disasters and the organization of recovery efforts. The City updated a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LMHP) prepared by the Office of Emergency Services of the Ontario Fire Department in 2018. Because the Project site has been historically used for industrial/commercial uses, it is not identified in any of these plans as being an evacuation area.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8641J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Furthermore, construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the Ontario Fire Department. In addition, the Project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the there are many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including the CAL FIRE 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi987 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

jurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and fire services from the Ontario Fire Department. With adherence to these building practices, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is fully developed and is within a completely urbanized area that is void of any wildland areas. Additionally, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the Project site is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Implementation of the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires and would not exacerbate the risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Thienes Engineering (Thienes) dated June 2022 and is provided in their entirety as Appendices E.1 and E.2 of this Addendum. a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with TOP 2050 have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. To minimize these potential impacts, future development associated with TOP 2050 would require compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP) Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 006-DWQ. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file permit registration documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. In addition, the City of Ontario requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP and the erosion control plan throughout the construction phase of the Proposed Project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities.

Pollutants from the post-construction phases of projects include sediment, metals, nutrients, pesticides, and hydrocarbons. TOP 2050 includes policies that direct the City to reduce pollutants in the City’s stormwater system. Projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from postconstruction activities under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying BMPs for prevention of stormwater pollution during the postconstruction phase, including site-design, source-control, and/or treatment BMPs. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant 988
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As demonstrated in the analysis below, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Temporary Construction-Related Activities
Construction of the Project would involve demolition, clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, construction, and landscaping activities. Construction activities would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints and solvents, and other chemicals with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the Project in the absence of protective or avoidance measures.

Construction activities would disturb the 16.65-acre site; therefore, the Project is subject to the requirements of the SWRCB GCP, as previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR. Mandatory adherence to the CGP and implementation of measures outlined in the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
The site would be developed with a building up to 344,110 s.f. and associated parking and landscaping. To meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

According to the Project’s Preliminary WQMP, included as Appendix E.1, the Project is designed to include on-site structural source control BMPs consisting of subsurface system and catch basins. In addition, operation source control BMPs would be implemented, including but not limited to, minimizing non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers, providing proper covers/roofs and secondary containment for outside material storage & work areas, providing solid roofs over all trash enclosures, and providing education/training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs (Thienes, 2022b).

Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP and long-term maintenance of proposed on-site water quality control features would be required by the City to ensure the long-term effectiveness of all on-site water quality features.

In addition to the WQMP, the NPDES program also requires certain land uses, including the industrial land use proposed by the Project, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption is granted. Because the permit is dependent upon the operational activities of the building and the tenants are not known at this time, details of the SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined at this time. However, based on the requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term operation.
989
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Implementation of the Project would have a beneficial impact on water quality because it would capture all on-site flows and treat flows prior to being discharged into the City’s storm drainage system. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality or result in potential discharge of stormwater to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City and reduce the amount of permeable surfaces available for groundwater recharge. Most of the increase in impermeable surfaces in the City would result from development of the Ontario Ranch in accordance with land use designations in TOP 2050. Future urban development in Ontario Ranch would be served by domestic water provided by the City. Approximately 46 percent of the City’s water supply is groundwater pumped by the City from the Chino Groundwater Basin; groundwater pumping is managed by OMUC so that domestic demands do not exceed the safe yield for the basin. With the implementation of City policies that promote Low Impact Development (LID) and infiltration for new development projects and compliance with the Chino Basin Watermaster’s safe yield restrictions, the potential for the project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Water supply to the Project would be provided by OMUC and would not require the direct use of groundwater at the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not require direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. Excavation that would result in the interception of existing aquifers or penetration of the existing water table is not proposed or anticipated. In addition, since the existing Project site is mostly impervious, the Project would not reduce any existing percolation of surface water into the groundwater table. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would?
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development associated with TOP 2050 would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase 990
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, the project would be required to comply with the requirements in the State’s CGP, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities. In addition, the City of Ontario requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants.

For post-construction, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to control stormwater discharges under NPDES Permit through preparation of a WQMP identifying BMPs for reducing or eliminating runoff. Collectively, implementation of BMPs outlined in SWPPPs, erosion and sediment control plans, WQMPs, and TOP 2050 policies would address anticipated erosion and siltation impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: Under existing conditions, the Project site does not contain a stream or river; therefore, the Project does not have the potential to alter the course of a stream or river.

No impacts would occur in this regard. Refer to Response 10a. Project construction would temporarily expose on-site soils to surface water runoff. However, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, compliance with construction-related BMPs and/or the SWPPP would control and minimize erosion and siltation, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site;
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces in the City, which could result in future onand off-site flooding. The City’s standard conditions of approval for new development also require the preparation of hydrology studies and drainage analyses that document the peak runoff rates from the developed site and evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system to accept these flow rates. Additionally, TOP 2050 policies would direct the City to incorporate strategies to capture, slow, or treat run-off and to reduce the flooding potential down-gradient of new development. These policies would reduce the potential for on- and off-site flooding during the operational phase of future development projects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently developed; redevelopment of the site would not increase impervious surfaces. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., included as Appendix E.2, a storm drain system would be installed in both east and west side of the proposed building conveying the runoff southerly that ultimately drains to the existing 96-inch storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street. The westerly half of the site will drain from north to south via a proposed storm drain system that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream at Woodruff Way that ultimately discharge the existing storm drain system located along East Jurupa Street.

Runoff from the northeasterly area including the easterly half of the site will drain southwesterly to a series of catch basins and conveyed south via proposed storm drain line that connects to an existing 27-inch storm drain downstream south of the Project site. The northerly landscaped area adjacent to Wanamaker Avenue will sheet flow west to an existing street catch 991
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

basin northwest of the site. The remaining westerly landscaped area adjacent to South Rockefeller Avenue will drain east to an existing street catch basin at the intersection northeast of East Jurupa Street and South Rockefeller Avenue.

Moreover, the total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the Project site at proposed condition is approximately 52.8 cfs, which is slightly less than the existing condition of 54.1 cfs. (Thienes, 2022b). Therefore, runoff discharge from the Project site would not have an adverse effect to the existing storm drain system downstream. The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies as required by the City. In compliance with the MS4 Permit and San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, new development projects would also be mandated to install stormwater treatment BMPs that retain the 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event. Because new development in the City would be required to prepare a hydrology study and drainage analysis in accordance with the San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, no significant impacts would occur. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As stated above, according to the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Report, included as Appendix E.2, runoff from the implementation of the Project would be less compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system. Consistent with the finding of the Certified SEIR, stormwater generated by the Project will be discharged in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements. With the full implementation of a SWPPP developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that only small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are in the 100-year floodplain. The western portion of Ontario Ranch is labeled Zone D—undetermined flood hazard— and no hazard analysis has been completed for this area. TOP 2050 include policies to reduce impacts of potential development within 100-year flood zones. Additionally, Chapter 13 of the Ontario Municipal Code requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development 992
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood hazards. With implementation of existing policies, the potential for the project to impede or redirect flood flows is considered less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8641J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the western and southern portions of the City are in the dam inundation zone of San Antonio Dam. The probability of dam failure is very low, and Ontario has never been impacted by a major dam failure. In addition, dam owners are required to maintain emergency action plans that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. Because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City has emergency action plan (EAP) notification procedures, impacts of release of pollutants due to dam inundation are considered less than significant. The City is inland and approximately 30 miles from the ocean and is not at risk of flooding due to tsunamis. Therefore, impacts associated with the release of pollutants due to inundation would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project site is not in a FEMA flood zone.

Additionally, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, there are no large water bodies in the area that could impact the Project site and the Project site is outside of any tsunami hazard zone. Therefore, the Project would not result in a risk of pollutant release due to inundation from a flooding event, tsunami, or seiche zones. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the City’s groundwater supplies are from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. As discussed above, implementation of the SWPPP, and adherence to the City’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirements would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted during construction.

Additionally, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from postconstruction activities under NPDES Permit. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct or 993
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

conflict with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed under Response 10a, the Project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin; therefore, Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to an SWPPP and WQMP. Additionally, as discussed previously, implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan.

The Project site is located within the Chino Groundwater Basin. Upon development, the Project site will be connected to the City’s public water supply and there will be no onsite wells for use of groundwater. The City manages both the potable and non-potable supplies to ensure withdrawals from the Chino Groundwater Basin do not exceed the safe yield for the Basin, as per the Chino Basin Watermaster's Optimum Basin Management Program (OBMP). Therefore, the Project would not obstruct or conflict with the OBMP. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the changes in land use that would occur upon the implementation of TOP 2050 Land Use Plan would not result in the physical division of an established community. The Land Use Element of TOP 2050 contains policies and programs that encourage the preservation or enhancement of the existing, primarily residential community through infill development, open space opportunities, and development of compatible uses that would reduce the amount of conflict between contradicting land uses and enhance the existing character of Ontario. TOP 2050 would avoid conflicting land uses and would not divide an established community. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. Existing industrial development borders the site to the north, south, west, and east.

The Project Applicant would redevelop the site with industrial use with associated parking and landscaping improvements, consistent with the TOP 2050 land use plan. The Project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development. The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 994
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 is consistent with the majority of Connect SoCal’s goals. Additionally, the Airport Planning section of the TOP 2050 Land Use and Mobility Elements includes policies that would ensure airport planning compatibility and consistency. Therefore, TOP 2050 ensures compatibility with ONT and Chino Airport. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is designated for Industrial by the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site in accordance with the adopted land use designation. The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (CCCSP) to change the land use designation of 8.4 acres of land from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial. The Specific Plan Amendment would bring the land use under the CCCSP for the Project site into conformance with the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan, which lists the Project site as Industrial (0.55 FAR). Design standards applicable to the Light Industrial zone under the CCCSP would remain the same under the Project. The Project is consistent with the Policy Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there are two areas in Ontario that are designated MRZ-2, where significant mineral resources are known or are likely.

The remainder of the City is designated MRZ-3, where the significance of mineral deposits is unknown. Development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts because mineral resources of statewide or local importance are not identified on the California Geological Survey’s P-C maps. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in changes to the existing land use designation or existing conditions of the MRZ-2 areas. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in Ontario, and impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located within a mostly developed area surrounded by urban land uses. As shown in Figure 5.12-1 of the Ontario Plan 2050 Draft SEIR, the Project site is designated as MRZ-3 (City of Ontario, 2022b). As concluded in the TOP 2050 EIR, development in an MRZ-3 area would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As discussed above, the Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral 995
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

resource recovery site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 12a above, there are no known mineral resources in the area. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of locally-important mineral resources. No impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activities associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure 12-4 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction activities could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Moreover, TOP 2050 would not result in new type of stationary noise sources than those under TOP; therefore, stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, traffic noise level increase would be below the significant threshold and TOP 2050 include policies that would minimize traffic noise impacts. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: A Project-specific Noise Assessment has been prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project and is included as Appendix F. Redevelopment of the Project site with a new building and associated improvement has the potential to generate elevated noise levels during both near-term construction activities and under long-term operational conditions. Nearterm (i.e., temporary) and long-term (i.e., permanent) noise level increases that would be associated with the Project are described below. To assess the potential short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts, Urban Crossroads identified 5 representative noisesensitive receiver locations at which the Project’s anticipated noise generation was compared against as shown in Figure 9, Receiver Locations.
996
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Figure 9: Receiver Locations
997
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Construction Noise Impact
The Project’s only potential to cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would occur during the construction phase. Construction activities on the Project site, especially those involving the use of heavy equipment, would create intermittent, temporary increases in ambient noise However, although periodic and temporary construction noise has the potential to be substantial compared to existing ambient noise levels. The Project’s construction-related activities are required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 5-29.09).

The City of Ontario has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction. Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, 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. While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes.

Therefore, a numerical construction threshold of 80 decibels (dBA) equivalent sound level (Leq) based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used for analysis of daytime construction impacts. As shown in Table 13-1, Construction Noise Level Compliance, the Project’s construction-related noise at the off-site receiver locations will satisfy the 80 dBA Leq significance threshold (Urban Crossroads, 2023b). Therefore, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 13-1 Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 38.1 80 No
R2 42.1 80 No
R3 30.3 80 No
R4 35.5 80 No
R5 35.7 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 9. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2 of the Noise Impact Analysis.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 2)
Operational Noise Impact
Future users of the proposed Project are currently unknown. Therefore, this analysis presents worst-case scenario noise conditions for typical warehouse space activities, assuming that the Project would be operational 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The Project’s proposed business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed building, except for traffic movement, parking, and loading/unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site 998
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Project-related noise-sources are anticipated to include loading dock activity, truck movements, roof-top, air-conditioning units, parking lot vehicle movements, and trash enclosure activity.

To estimate the Project’s operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels anticipated with the development of the Project. To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Projectonly operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Section 5-29.04(a) identifies the allowable daytime and nighttime ambient exterior noise standards for each land use type. For residential land uses (Noise Zone I), ambient exterior noise levels may not exceed 65 dBA Leq during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and may not exceed 45 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Table 13-2, Operational Noise Level Compliance, shows the operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Ontario exterior noise level standards adjusted to reflect the ambient noise conditions (Urban Crossroads, 2023b). Therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant.

Table 13-2 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 21.9 21.8 65.0 71.9 No No
R2 24.4 24.3 65.0 74.2 No No
R3 20.1 20.1 65.0 66.8 No No
R4 25.4 25.4 65.0 75.4 No No
R5 25.5 25.5 65.0 76.0 No No
1 See Figure 9 for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Appendix of the Noise Impact Analysis. 3 Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 1)
Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. The following mitigation measure from the Certified SEIR is applicable to the Project:

MM 12-4 Construction activities associated with new development that occurs near sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential noise impacts.

Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 999
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noisesensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that 1000
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activity at projects within TOP 2050 plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. TOP 2050 would have similar impacts as the TOP because specific project-level data for individual developments for TOP 2050 (such as construction equipment) are not available, and construction could generate excessive vibration levels at sensitive receptor locations. Vibration-related noise impacts during construction that would accommodate buildout of TOP 2050 would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 12-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. It should be noted that the identification of this programlevel impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Commercial and industrial operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. The Certified EIR found that the majority of industrial uses would not be immediately adjacent to vibration-sensitive uses, the use of heavy equipment associated with industrial activities would occur indoors, and no significant vibration impacts would occur from vibration generated by industrial uses. TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of TOP. Therefore, vibration impacts during operation would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site was previously analyzed as industrial uses in the Certified SEIR. The Project would be developed consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the site as the site was analyzed in the Certified SEIR. As discussed above, the Project proposes a development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. logistics center. The proposed building would be approximately 54,791 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, industrial uses do not normally induce significant groundborne vibrations because they do not typically involve equipment or activities which result in large vibrations. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1, impacts to future sensitive receptors 1001
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

from excessive airport-related noise would be reduced to interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City.

Consequently, airport noise compatibility impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Moreover, the Project site is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, the Project’s industrial warehouse is considered normally compatible land use with exterior noise levels ranging from 65-70 dBA CNEL. For normally compatible land use, activities associated with the land use may be carried out with minimal interference from aircraft noise. Moreover, as discussed under Response 13a, the Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 accommodates population growth through land use designations, goals, and policies that provide a vision and guide growth in the City. TOP 2050 would increase population, dwelling units, and nonresidential buildings but would result in a small decrease in employment. Although the increase in population, housing, and employment under TOP 2050 would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City of Ontario, TOP 2050 would improve the job-housing balance.

Consequently, impacts would be less than significant, and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would result in the development of an approximately 344,110 s.f. warehouse facility and does not include a residential component. Based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Employment Density Study of 1 employee per 1,195 square feet for warehouse use, the Project would generate approximately 288 direct jobs. According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), as of March 2023, the City of Ontario has a labor force of 93,500 persons and of that labor force, 3,800 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 4.1 percent) (EDD, 2023). According to SCAG’s 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the City of Ontario is anticipated to employ approximately 169,300 persons by 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Additionally, the TOP 2050 projected 296,002 employees in 2050. Therefore, the Project is consistent with both the SCAG’s 2045 and TOP 2050 employment projections for the City. Project-generated jobs are well within the employment projections for the City of Ontario. Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly 1002
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

and would not exceed regional or local growth projections. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that land use changes under TOP 2050 would increase opportunities for housing in the City—for example, by converting shopping centers to mixed-use and increasing residential density in existing residential areas and religious properties. The TOP 2050 Land Use Plan would provide land use designations for a variety of housing types and provide for additional residential opportunities throughout Ontario. TOP 2050 includes the following policies supporting an increase in the provision of housing and diversity of housing opportunities in the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site does not contain any housing and there are no people living at the Project site that would be displaced by the Project. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Fire prevention services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). The Certified SEIR concluded that based on correspondence with the OFD, existing conditions would not be adequate to meet such increased demands from the implementation of TOP 2050. The OFD’s recommendation is that three additional fire stations would be needed in the Ontario Ranch to meet projected needs. While the construction of future facilities could result in potential environmental impacts, future environmental review would occur once specific locations have been determined. Without a definitive location for the development of future facilities, the analysis of potential impacts is too speculative to conduct. Future projects would be reviewed by the City and the OFD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees (DIF) that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.
1003
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006

Discussion of Effects: The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s demand for fire protection services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Additionally, the Project site is not located within the Ontario Ranch area. The proposed building would be in accordance with the applicable provisions of the adopted California Fire Code (CFC) and the City’s Municipal Code Section 4-4.01, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures related to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, fire access, and water availability. The Project will not require the construction of any new fire protection facilities or alteration of any existing fire protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new fire protection facilities. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for fire protection services, as necessary. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
ii. Police protection?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Police protection services are provided by the Ontario Police Department (OPD). The Certified SEIR concluded that according to correspondence with the OPD as part of this project, the OPD currently has enough staffing to meet current demands but would require additional staffing as population increases to accommodate buildout of TOP 2050. There are current plans for adding a substation in Downtown Ontario and Ontario Ranch.

While the construction of future facilities could result in potential environmental impacts, future environmental review would occur once specific locations have been determined. Without a definitive location for the development of future facilities, the analysis of potential impacts is too speculative to conduct. Future development would also be subject to development impact fees which pay for police services. Therefore, impacts to police protection services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s demand for police protection services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Additionally, the Project is not located within the Downtown Ontario and Ontario Ranch areas. The Project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building and Police Departments, which would ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided within the Project’s design. The Project will not require the construction of any new police protection facilities or alteration of any existing police protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for police protection services, as necessary. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1004
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006