iii. Schools?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As part of the development of the Certified SEIR, the City reached out to the five school districts that serve residents of Ontario to obtain existing conditions information and information on potential impacts. Current enrollment for all three of these school districts is below capacity and the capacity of the schools in addition to any already planned construction projects would be able to accommodate the increased population due to the implementation of TOP 2050. However, it is possible that Ontario-Montclair School District and Cucamonga School District would need additional facilities. Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. The Certified SEIR concluded that although the increased demand on school facilities would have the potential to impact one or more of the school districts that serve Ontario, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, impacts to school 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 site is within the school boundary of the Cucamonga School District. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing industrial buildings and redevelop the site with a single industrial building. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial direct growth in the population, nor an increase in student population. The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for public school services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project would be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits. 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. Parks?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Park service were discussed under the Recreation section of the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR concluded that impacts to recreation 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. Details on the summary findings are discussed below in Section 16.
Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional parks. The Project will not require the construction of any new parks or alteration of any existing parks or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new park facilities. 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.
v. Other public facilities?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the Ontario library system is currently not meeting the goal of 0.6 square feet of library facilities per capita. Buildout of TOP 2050 would result in an increase in demand for library services in the City of Ontario based 1005
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
on an increase in population. Environmental impacts could result from the construction of future facilities; however, the location and size of potential future facilities is currently unknown, and each project would have to complete applicable environmental review under CEQA when it is determined. Future projects would be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees). Since adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, impacts on library services would be less than significant. Therefore, 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 would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional public facilities. The Project will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing public facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new public facilities. 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.
16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of TOP 2050 would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage. TOP 2050 would designate approximately 900 acres for recreational uses under the Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) land use designation. Additionally, new development in Ontario Ranch provides an additional two acres per 1,000 residents for private parks in addition to the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents for public parks. There are also at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts 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 would develop the Project site in accordance with the TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for parks was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project is not proposing any significant new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. 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. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of 1006
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes planned park facilities; however, it is speculative to determine the location of proposed park facilities in the City and impacts arising from development of individual park projects. Existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as goals, policies, and actions in TOP 2050 would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of TOP 2050, including expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. Therefore, impacts 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 does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. 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.
17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes policies to encourage and provide access to the regional transit network, to enhance connectivity to the City’s nonmotorized transportation network, and proposes the changes to the Mobility Element that have the potential to affect infrastructure projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities 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:
Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to and produced by a development project. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2021) includes a trip generation rate for high-cube fulfillment center warehouse uses (ITE land use code 155) and high-cube cold storage warehouse uses (ITE land use code 157). According to the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment, included as Appendix G.1, the Project is evaluated as a mix of the following uses: 85% high-cube fulfillment center warehouse and 15% high-cube cold storage warehouse. Based on the assumptions described above, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 812 two-way trips per day with 62 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) AM peak hour trips and 59 PCE PM peak hour trips. However, when accounting for existing conditions, the Project is anticipated to generate 770 fewer two-way trips per day with 79 fewer AM peak hour trips and 68 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive 1007
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values. Additionally, when comparing to the maximum allowed under TOP 2050, the Project is anticipated to generate 1,288 fewer two-way trips per day with 239 fewer AM peak hour trips and 206 fewer PM peak hour trips.
The City of Ontario adheres to the County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The County’s Guidelines indicates that development projects that generate a net increase of 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (without pass-by reductions) would require the preparation and submittal of a Transportation Impact Analysis. The Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The Project on its own, without taking any credit for existing uses, also generates fewer than 100 new peak hour trips (both in actual vehicles and PCE). Lastly, the proposed Project uses are anticipated to generate fewer trips than the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Industrial). As such, additional peak hour traffic operations analysis is not necessary based on the thresholds and standards included in the County’s Guidelines (Urban Crossroads, 2022c). 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.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project site is not located along a bikeway. The closest bikeway to the Project site is located at East Inland Empire Boulevard. The Project would be confined to the Project site and would not conflict within the existing bikeways. In addition, the Project would provide bike racks to accommodate bicycle access to the Project stie.
The Project site features (buildings, parking areas, etc.) would be connected by ADA compliant sidewalks and striped crosswalks within the parking areas to the existing ensure pedestrian access throughout Project site. Additionally, the Project would install sidewalk on South Rockefeller Avenue, Woodruff Way, and Wanamaker Avenue. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s Active Transportation Plan. No impacts would occur.
Transit
Transit service to the City is provided by OmniTrans. The closest bus route to the Project site is Route 82 with a bus stop located at the intersection of South Rockefeller Avenue and East Jurupa Street, approximately 0.07 mile south of the Project site. The City of Ontario strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel. The Project would support transit use by improving existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project area. The Project would not introduce new features to any public road that would affect transit in the Project area.
As such, a less than significant impact would occur.
As demonstrated, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element, and impacts associated with conflict of an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. 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.
1008
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that there is a net increase in citywide Boundary VMT primarily due to the increase in population accommodated by TOP 2050. Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce potential impacts for future development projects to the extent feasible. Future development projects consistent with TOP 2050 would need to consider transportation demand management (TDM) measures consistent with those identified in the Mobility Element. TDM techniques include incentives to use transit; incentives to form carpools rather than drive alone; and making home, work, and shopping closer together to shorten travel distances. Because the VMT impact is citywide, mitigation measures to reduce VMT would need to focus on changing or improving the citywide travel patterns, transportation network, or infrastructure. Given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implementing these types of mitigation measures at a citywide level and of their effectiveness at reducing citywide VMT, VMT impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Discussion of Effects: The City Guidelines lists standardized screening methods for project level VMT analysis that can be used to identify when a proposed land use development project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact, thereby eliminating the need to conduct a full VMT analysis. The City of Ontario VMT screening criteria, as described within the City Guidelines, are listed below:
• Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening
• Low VMT Area Screening
• Project Type Screening
A land use project need only meet one of the above screening criteria to result in a less than significant impact.
TPA Screening
Consistent with guidance identified in the City Guidelines, projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) (i.e., within ½ mile of an existing “major transit stop” or an existing stop along a “high-quality transit corridor” 1) may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. However, the presumption may not be appropriate if a project:
• Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
• Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); • Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization); or • Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate or high-income residential units.
1 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
1009
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Based on the secondary criteria outlined in the City Guidelines, the Project does not meet the secondary criteria of having an FAR at or above 0.75, regardless of the Project being physically located in a TPA.
Low VMT Area Screening
City Guidelines state that projects may be presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact if located in an already low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ). City Guidelines recognize low VMT areas as those that generate a VMT per service population (i.e., population and employment) that is 15% below County of San Bernardino Baseline VMT per service population. The San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) is used to measure VMT performance in individual TAZs within the region. The Project’s physical location was identified in the SBTAM model to determine the TAZ where the Project is located. The Project TAZ 53687401 is then calculated using Origin-Destination (OD) trip matrices to obtain total OD VMT. The resulting total OD VMT is divided by the Project TAZ’s service population. The Project TAZ 53687401 has a VMT per service population of 55.8, which was compared to 15% below County of San Bernardino baseline or 28.41 VMT per service population (33.42 x 0.85= 28.41). As a result, the Project is not located within a low VMT generating zone. Therefore, the Project would not meet the Low VMT Area Screening threshold.
Project Type Screening
The City Guidelines identify that local serving retail less than 50,000 square feet or other local serving essential services (e.g., day care centers, public schools, medical/dental office buildings, etc.) are presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The Project as intended does not contain any local serving uses. Additionally, the City Guidelines state that small projects generating fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips or less may be presumed to have a less than significant impact. The Project is anticipated to generate 899 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the existing use and 1,302 fewer two-way trips per day as compared to the adopted TOP 2050 in actual vehicles. Therefore, the Project’s estimated trips will not exceed the City’s 110 net new daily vehicle trip threshold and the Project would meet the Project Type Screening threshold. (Urban Crossroads, 2023d) The Project VMT impact would be less than significant and 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 increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that majority of the population growth associated with TOP 2050 would occur in Ontario Ranch and there are substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, the City has adopted roadway classification standards in Policy M-1.1 that include roadway design standards as part of TOP 2050, precluding the construction of any unsafe features. Therefore, impacts 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.
1010
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to increase hazards as a result of a geometric design feature has been assessed to provide adequate truck access/circulation. The Project’s circulation plan has been designed to be compatible with all foreseeable vehicles. 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 driveways on Wanamaker Avenue, South Rockefeller Avenue, and Woodruff Way for trucks are 40 feet wide and designed to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks. Additionally, the Project proposes to modified Woodruff Way to a cul-de-sac and it would no longer be connected to Wanamaker Avenue. As a result of the vacation, vehicles previously using Woodruff Way to access Wanamaker Avenue will be using Jurupa Street to Rockefeller Avenue. Redistribution of trips is not expected to result in an increase of hazards as the existing and future westbound right turn volume at the intersection of Rockefeller Avenue and Jurupa Street is less than 300 vehicles per hour during the peak hours. (Urban Crossroads, 2023e)
The Project area is generally characterized by industrial uses. Traffic generated by the Project would be typical of a warehouse and be compatible with the type of traffic generated by the existing and surrounding development. In addition, all proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would be installed in conformance with City design standards. The City of Ontario Engineering Department reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. At the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will further review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Accordingly, the Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use and impacts would be a 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. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance.
Therefore, impacts 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 will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles and meet all applicable City of Ontario Fire and Police Department access requirements to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out.
During construction activities that include road and sidewalk improvements, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. 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. As a result, the Project would not a less than significant impact to emergency access. 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. 1011
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
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:
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that result of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was negative. In accordance with AB 52 and SB 18 requirements, the City sent invitation letters to the Native American contacts provided by the NAHC. Grading and construction activities in undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires deeper soil excavation than in the past have the potential to disturb tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measures 5-3 and 5-4 and new Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to tribal cultural resources remain. a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: As analyzed in Response 5.a, there are no resources on the Project site that are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources as defined by Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). Implementation of the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a listed historical resource. 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. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion of Effects: As discussed in Response 5.a, no resources were recorded in the Project site or within one mile of the Project site. However, since the Project would require excavation for construction into previously undisturbed soils, there is a potential to uncover undiscovered prehistoric artifacts or tribal cultural resources during excavation. Therefore, while unlikely, the presence of subsurface tribal cultural resources on the Project site remains possible, and these could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the Project site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 5-3, 5-4, TCR-1, and TCR-2 would ensure preclude potential impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined in Public Resources Code 5024.1(c). 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:
1012
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
MM 5-2 Upon receipt of an application for a proposed project subject to CEQA and within the City’s jurisdiction, the City’s representative shall consult with the relevant tribe(s)’ representative(s) to determine if the proposed project is within a culturally sensitive area to the tribe. If sufficient evidence is provided to reasonably ascertain that the site is within a tribal culturally sensitive area, an archaeologist shall prepare then a cultural resources assessment. The findings of the cultural resources assessment shall be incorporated into the CEQA documentation. A copy of the report shall be forwarded to the tribe(s). If mitigation is recommended in the CEQA document, the procedure described in Mitigation Measure 5-4 shall be followed.
MM 5-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for a proposed project for which the CEQA document defines cultural resource mitigation for potential tribal resources, the project applicant shall contact the designated tribe(s) to notify them of the grading, excavation, and monitoring program. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Ontario and the tribal representative(s) to develop mitigation measures that address the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitors during grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities; scheduling; terms of compensation; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. The City of Ontario shall be the final arbiter of the conditions for projects within the City’s jurisdiction.
TCR-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring. The project archaeologist, in consultation with interested tribes, the developer, and the City of Ontario, shall develop an archaeological monitoring plan (AMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibility of archaeological and cultural activities that will occur on the project site. Details in the AMP shall include:
1. Project-related ground disturbance (including, but not limited to, brush clearing, grading, trenching, etc.) and development scheduling;
2. The development of a rotating or simultaneous schedule in coordination with the developer and the project archeologist for designated Native American Tribal Monitors from the consulting tribes during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities on the site:
including the scheduling, safety requirements, duties, scope of work, and Native American Tribal Monitors’ authority to stop and redirect grading activities in coordination with all project archaeologists (if the tribes cannot come to an agreement on the rotating or simultaneous schedule of tribal monitoring, the Native American Heritage Commission shall designate the schedule for the onsite Native American Tribal Monitor for the proposed project);
3. The protocols and stipulations that the developer, City, Tribes, and project archaeologist will follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resource’s evaluation.
At least 30 days prior to application for a grading permit and before any 1013
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
brush clearance, grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbing activities on the site, the developer shall retain a tribal cultural monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources.
Pursuant to the AMP, a tribal monitor from the consulting tribe shall be present during the initial grading activities. If tribal resources are found during grubbing activities, the tribal monitoring shall be present during site grading activities.
TCR-2 Treatment and Disposition of Cultural Resources. In the event that Native American cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the course of any ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to brush clearance, grading, trenching, etc., for the proposed project, the following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
1. Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location on-site or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversight of the process;
2. Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and nonhuman remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Ontario with evidence of same:
a. Accommodate the process for on-site reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloging, basic analysis, other analyses as recommended by the project archaeologist and approved by consulting tribes, and basic recordation have been completed; all documentation should be at a level of standard professional practice to allow the writing of a report of professional quality;
b. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository in San Bernardino County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79, and therefore the resource would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility in San Bernardino County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation;
c. For purposes of conflict resolution, if more than one Native American tribe or band is involved with the project and cannot come to an agreement as to the disposition of cultural materials, 1014
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
materials shall be curated at the San Bernardino County Museum by default;
d. At the completion of grading, excavation, and ground-disturbing activities on the site, a Phase IV Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City documenting monitoring activities conducted by the project archaeologist and Native Tribal Monitors within 60 days of completion of grading. This report shall document the impacts to the known resources on the property; describe how each mitigation measure was fulfilled; document the type of cultural resources recovered and the disposition of such resources; provide evidence of the required cultural sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the required pregrade meeting; and, in a confidential appendix, include the daily/weekly monitoring notes from the archaeologist. All reports produced will be submitted to the City, County Museum, and consulting tribes.
2. 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? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in an overall increase in the number of residential dwellings and nonresidential square footage.
The TOP 2050 has policies in place to require improvements to sewer infrastructure as part of new development and redevelopment projects and has processes in place to ensure that any sewer improvement projects are implemented prior to or during new development. With funding from sewer connection/usage fees and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget, the City would continue to expand and improve the sewer infrastructure to accommodate new development and future growth. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater infrastructure.
Due to the increase in demand for potable and recycled water, the City and the IEUA have made plans for infrastructure expansion and improvement. As part of the land development approval process, the City determines a project’s fair-share costs and connection fees. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the City maintains and expands its water distribution system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs.
Therefore, impacts related to water infrastructure expansion and improvement caused by the implementation of TOP 2050 would be less than significant.
Potential future development and the change in land uses could result in an increase in impervious surfaces. Future developments would be required to comply with the City’s storm drain policies and the MS4 permit, which would require the preparation of hydrology reports and drainage plans for review and approval by the City to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the City’s storm drain system. Also, the developers would need to prepare a WQMP that addresses stormwater runoff and requires the construction of stormwater treatment facilities for temporary on-site retention of stormwater runoff. These requirements would minimize the amount of stormwater runoff from potential future development. Compliance with the City’s policies and programs that ensure adequate infrastructure and the regulatory provisions in the MS4 permit that limit runoff from new development would ensure that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in significant increases in runoff that would contribute to the construction or expansion of new 1015
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
storm drains beyond what is already planned. Therefore, impacts with respect to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.
Discussion of Effects:
Water and Wastewater
The Project would include the installation of water and wastewater lines within the Project site. 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, 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. 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, portion of the existing 8-inch sewer main on Woodruff Way that run through the proposed building would be removed.
Although the Project would result in new water and wastewater line connections, these connections would occur on-site and would be part of the Project’s construction phase, which is evaluated throughout this Addendum. The construction of the Project’s water and wastewater lines necessary to serve the Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed as part of this Addendum. Impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater Drainage
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 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.
Refer to the analysis under Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold c.ii, above.
As discussed, stormwater runoff would be treated on site and would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage infrastructure which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.
Dry Utilities
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 1016
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
at the eastern end. Connections to the existing utility networks are available in the Project area and any offsite improvements would occur within improved rights-of-way, which are inherent to the Project’s construction phase and have been evaluated throughout this Addendum. Because the Project site has been previously developed with commercial uses that requires electric power and telecommunication services, implementation of the Project is not anticipated to limit the ability of service providers to provide service to Project. Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the preceding, 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 sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that total water demand associated with TOP 2050 would result in an increase of approximately 6 percent compared to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The 2020 UWMP states that there are sufficient water supplies through 2045 to meet projected demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through 2045. Although TOP 2050 at buildout is estimated to generate a 6 percent increase in water demand using conservative water demand factors, new State requirements and City policies and code requirements would result in enhanced water efficiency and conservation. Applying these measures would result in total water demand below the projections in the 2020 UWMP for year 2045. Therefore, there would be sufficient water supplies to meet the demand for TOP 2050 buildout. 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: OMUC is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site.
The UWMP includes an analysis of water supply reliability projected through 2045 under normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. OMUC’s total water demand for 2020 was approximately 32,109 AF (OMUC, 2021). As stated above, the City is anticipated to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands from the implementation of TOP 2050 at buildout until the year 2045 under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 344,110 s.f. building. 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.). Because the Project Applicant would redevelop the site with a use permitted under the Industrial land use designation, the Project would be consistent with TOP 2050 and, therefore, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR 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.
1017
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that IEUA has two facilities that serve the City of Ontario: RP-1 and RP-5. The current combined capacity of these two facilities is 60.3 mgd and would increase to 66.5 mgd once the expansion project that is currently under construction at RP-5 is completed. The additional flow rate from implementation of TOP 2050 would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment providers. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on wastewater collection and treatment. 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 developed with approximately 161,320 s.f. of existing commercial buildings that requires wastewater treatment services. The Project Applicant would demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site with an approximately 344,110 s.f. building.
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 use that is consistent with the site’s underlying land use designation; therefore, the wastewater generation associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the Certified SEIR and the City’s Sewer Master Plan and analyzed therein. As such, the IEUA’s existing wastewater treatment facilities are anticipated to have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s project demand in addition to its existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant. 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. 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? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the increase in population under the TOP 2050 would result in more solid waste generation and could impact the capacity of the receiving landfills. TOP 2050 would result in a net increase in solid waste generation at buildout of 45,204 tons/year. This net increase is about 2 percent of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and the El Sobrante Landfill’s excess capacity. Therefore, there is sufficient landfill capacity to serve future development pursuant to the TOP 2050. 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: Solid waste generated during the operation of the Project is anticipated to be collected by the City of Ontario and is anticipated to be hauled to Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2059. (CalRecycle, 2023a) The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to received 16,054 tons of solid waste per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051 (CalRecycle, 2023b).
Based on the generation rate of 1.42 pounds per 100 s.f. per day, the proposed 344,110 s.f. 1018
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
building would result in approximately 4,886 pounds per day (2.44 tons per day). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. The Project generated solid waste represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient.
Accordingly, 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.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development pursuant to TOP 2050 would comply with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen building code, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Development would also comply with AB 341, which mandates recycling for commercial and multifamily residential land uses. Additionally, future businesses that generate organic waste in amounts over a certain threshold would be mandated to recycle organic matter in accordance with AB 1826.
In addition, TOP 2050 policies ER-2.1, ER-2.2, and ER-2.3 describe waste diversion requirements, hazardous and electronic waste disposal, and purchasing of products made from recycled materials that would ensure that the City has a cost effective integrated waste management system that meets or exceeds state and federal recycling and waste diversion mandates.
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 following federal and state laws and regulations govern solid waste disposal:
• AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 required each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that contained specified components, including a source reduction component, a recycling component, and a composting component.
With certain exceptions, the source reduction and recycling components were required to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities.
• AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established mandatory recycling as one of the measures to reduce GHG emissions adopted in the Scoping Plan by the California Air Resources Board. • AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires that all “commercial” generators of solid waste (businesses, institutions, and multifamily dwellings) establish recycling and/or composting programs. AB 341 goes beyond AB 939 and establishes the new recycling goal of 75 percent by 2020.
The Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste 1019
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Department’s Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Municipal Code will also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable state and federal laws. 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.
3. WILDFIRE.
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure planned to accommodate the increase in population in the City in the event of an emergency. Additionally, a review of emergency access is included as part of the City’s Design Review process. According to the City’s LHMP, interstate highways would serve as major emergency response and evacuation routes. Additionally, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.
Moreover, the City is located outside of a State Responsibility Area (SRA) and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that the City contains no areas subject to very high wildfire risk. However, the City recognizes that even though fuel loading is light in Ontario and fire risk comes primarily from urban fires, not wildfires, there is some risk related to wildfires. With adherence to the building practices in the CAL FIRE’s 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and City’s LHMP, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards.
Discussion of Effects: As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the City is not located with a SRA.
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard map for the Local Responsibility Area (LRA), the Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE, 2008). Therefore, no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and 1020
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.
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in less-than-significant impacts to sensitive plant and animal species as well as habitats.
Additionally, the Certified SEIR concluded that, with mitigation, TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Tier III historical resources.
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City that is already developed with industrial uses. As discussed in Biological Resources Section of the Addendum, potentially significant biological impacts are not anticipated because the Project site is developed and there are no rare or endangered plants or animal species within the Project site.
Additionally, as indicated in the Cultural Resources Section, the Project site is not included on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or a local register of historical resources, nor is it eligible for listing. 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. 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.) Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR addressed cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics evaluated. The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts regarding air quality, cultural resources (Historic), noise, and transportation (VMT).
Discussion of Effects: As identified through the analysis presented in this Addendum, with the implementation of Project-specific mitigation measures identified herein, 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. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in cumulatively considerable effects to the environment beyond those previously disclosed in the Certified SEIR (and already disclosed throughout this analysis), and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed and analyzed in the Certified SEIR.
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
1021
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that with the implementation of the recommended TOP Mitigation Measures, compliance with existing laws, plans and regulations, and the various TOP Implementation Actions outlined in the Project Description, TOP 2050 does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Discussion of Effects: The Project’s potential to result in environmental effects that could adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly, has been discussed throughout this Addendum. The Project would result in less than significant impacts related to air quality and associated effects on human health from air pollutants, GHG emissions, and construction-related noise and potential effects on hearing impairment. Implementation of the Project would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, beyond those disclosed in the Certified SEIR, and instead, the Project’s impacts are generally less than the impacts assumed by the Certified SEIR.
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
EARLIER ANALYZES
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier Analyzes Used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review.
a) The Ontario Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
b) The Ontario Plan/Policy Plan
c) City of Ontario Zoning
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036.
2) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of, and adequately analyzed in, an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.
REFERENCES
Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA), 2023a. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project, Ontario, California. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix B.
BFSA, 2023b. Paleontological Assessment for the Woodruff Logistics Center Project. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix C.2.
1022
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. November 13, 2008. Retrieved from https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6783/fhszl_map62.pdf
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2023a. SWIS Facility Detail - Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Retrieved from
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367 CalRecycle, 2023b. SWIS Facility Detail - El Sobrante Landfill. Retrieved from https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2022. California Road System - Functional Classification. Retrieved from
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495 797c969a3e5668538
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. April, 2019. Retrieved from
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline City of Ontario, 1983. California Commerce Center Specific Plan. May 17, 1983. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/planning/maps/specific-plan-land-use-mapsdocument/california-commerce-center City of Ontario, 2011. Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. April 19, 2011.
Retrieved from https://www.ontarioplan.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/pdfs/ALUCP_FULL.pdf City of Ontario, 2022a. City of Ontario Policy Plan. August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/Ontarioplan/Policyplan
City of Ontario, 2022b. The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
August 2022. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf California Department of Conservation (DOC), 2018. California Important Farmland Finder.
Retrieved from https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ Employment Development Department (EDD), 2023. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places. March, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-forcities-and-census-areas.html Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2016. FEMA Flood Map Service Center:
Search by Address. Retrieved from
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC), 2021. 2020 UWMP. June 2021. Retrieved from https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll), 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. October 1023
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
2021. Technical Appendix D.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2020. Demographics and Growth Forecast. Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (SoCal Geo), 2021. Geotechnical Investigation.
November 1, 2021. Technical Appendix C.1.
Thienes Engineering, 2022a. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. June 22, 2022.
Technical Appendix E.1.
Thienes Engineering, 2022b. Preliminary Hydrology Study. June 23, 2022. Technical Appendix E.2.
Urban Crossroads, 2022a. Woodruff Logistics Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. April 26, 2023. Technical Appendix A.
Urban Crossroads, 2022b. Woodruff Logistics Noise Assessment. April 21, 2023. Technical Appendix F.
Urban Crossroads, 2023c. Woodruff Logistics Center Trip Generation Assessment. February 21, 2023. Technical Appendix G.1.
Urban Crossroads, 2023d. Woodruff Way Logistics Center Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation. February 23, 2023. Technical Appendix G.2.
Urban Crossroads, 2023e. Woodruff Way Logistics Center Focused Traffic Assessment. May 11, 2023. Technical Appendix G.3.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. October 1, 2020.
Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html 1024
RESOLUTION NO. PC23-079
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE FILE NO. PSPA22-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN TO CHANGE THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL/FOOD/HOTEL TO
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, UPDATE EXHIBITS AND TEXT TO SUPPORT THE
CHANGE, AND BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 (GENERAL PLAN), ON 16.65 ACRES OF
LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
ROCKEFELLER AVENUE AND WANAMAKER AVENUE, AT 1350 AND
1375 S. WOODRUFF WAY, WITHIN THE PROPOSED LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS 0238-201-41 AND 0238-221-22.
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, as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application applies to 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller and Wanamaker Avenues, at 1350 and 1375 South Woodruff Way within the proposed Light Industrial land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan, and is presently improved with two commercial buildings (Citrus Motors); and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Application has been submitted in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No. PMTT22-025) to consolidate two existing parcels into one and facilitate the vacation of a portion of Woodruff Way, and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) to demolish the existing commercial buildings (approximately 161,320 square feet) and construct one 343,110 square-foot industrial building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to modify the land use designation on the Project site from 1025
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
Commercial / Food / Hotel to Light Industrial to support the Project and bring the property into compliance with TOP 2050’s Land Use Plan, which designates the property as Industrial (IND, 0.55 Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”)); and
WHEREAS, the amendment includes graphic and textual modifications throughout to support the proposed Project, and the redlined document has been appended to this Resolution as “Attachment A”; 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 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 environmental impacts of this project were thoroughly analyzed in the SEIR Addendum, which 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, the City's "Local Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. — (hereinafter referred to as "CEQA") and an SEIR Addendum has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the Planning Commission the responsibility and authority to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that 1026
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (hereinafter referred to as "ALUCP"), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, at the September 26, 2023, hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the October 24, 2023, hearing date; and WHEREAS, as the first action on the Project, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission issued a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the SEIR Addendum, finding that the proposed Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts and applying all previously adopted mitigation measures to the Project, which were incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider and make recommendation to the City Council on the subject Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario, as follows:
SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record for the Project, including all written and oral evidence provided during the comment period. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Addendum, the initial study, and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
1027
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
(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
(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: Subsequent or Supplemental 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 Certified EIR 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 1028
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.
SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report.
SECTION 4: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance.
The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria 1029
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
(ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP; and SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 and 4, above, the Planning Commission hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan. The Project site’s current zoning (Commercial / Food / Hotel land use designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan) is inconsistent with the Policy Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial (0.55 FAR). With the Project’s conditions of approval, implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Light Industrial would make the Project site consistent with the Policy Plan, as well as the Vision and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050, as it would facilitate the development of a well-designed industrial building in keeping with, and complementary to, the existing industrial neighborhood surrounding the Project site. (2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed modifications established by the Specific Plan Amendment have been created with the intent to safeguard and further the public interest, health, safety, convenience, and/or general welfare, and to ensure that the purposes of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, are maintained. The Project site is located within an existing industrial neighborhood; as such, an industrial development is an appropriate land use for the site.
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The location of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, and the proposed conditions under which future developments will be constructed and maintained, is consistent with the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050 and the City’s Development Plan, and, therefore, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The Project site is located within an existing industrial neighborhood; as such, an industrial development is an appropriate land use for the site. 1030
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific properties, the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment has been reviewed by all City departments, which have established that the project site is physically suitable for the anticipated development in terms of parcel size, shape, and availability of utilities. Development of the Project site is subject to Planning Commission review and approval of the related development entitlements (File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034), which have also been reviewed by all City departments and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is appropriate for the Project site. Lastly, the Project site exceeds the Specific Plan and Development Code minimum requirements for lot size and dimensions and proposed development does not exceed the maximum FAR as prescribed by The Ontario Plan 2050.
SECTION 6: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 5, above, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES the herein described Application, subject to each and every condition set forth in the Department reports attached hereto as "Attachment B," and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 7: 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 8: 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 9: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1031
1032
1033
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-006
October 24, 2023
ATTACHMENT A:
Redlined Changes to the California Commerce Center
Specific Plan, for File No. PSPA22-006
(Document follows this page)
1034
JN 1132-005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
City of Ontario, Planning Department
303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764
FROM: Tom Cruikshank, Senior Vice President, Development Nicole Morse, Esq., Principal
DATE: August 2, 2023
RE: Woodruff Logistics Center – Proposed Specific Plan Amendment (PSPA22-006) The Project Applicant, Link Logistics Real Estate, seeks to demolish the existing structures on the approximately
16.15-acre property located at the 1350 and 1375 Woodruff Way (APN: 238-201-41; 238-221-22) in the City of Ontario, and redevelop the site as a logistics center with approximately 344,110square feet (s.f.) of building area, including 334,260 s.f. of warehouse space and 10,000 s.f. of office space. As part of the Project, a Specific Plan Amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan (CCCSP) would be required. 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. As depicted in the attached figures, the following changes are made to the CCCSP:
• Land Use Plan, is modified to depict the change in land use from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial for the approximately 8.4-acre portion of Project site and the Project’sremoval of/modifications to Woodruff Way, based on the most recent land use plan (dated March 2020) provided by the City. • Page IV-1: Per direction from Airport Planning Department, text is added which states “All development proposal shall be consistent with the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.” • Page IV-11: Exhibit 8A, Master Plan of Streets and Highways, is modified to depict the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way. Street classifications are also update to reflect the recently adopted TOP 2050 (Figure M-01, Roadway Classifications).
• Pages V-1 and V-3: The number of acreage for the Light Industrial uses and Commercial/Food/Hotel is modified to depict the change in land use from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial for the approximately 8.4-acre portion of Project site. Text is added per direction from Airport Planning Department.
• Page V-2, Exhibit 17, Land Use Plan, is modified to depict the change in land use from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial for the approximately 8.4-acre portion of Project site and the 1035
WOODRUFF LOGISTICS CENTER – PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (PSPA22-006) August 2, 2023
Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way, based on the most recent land use plan (dated March 2020) provided by the City.
• Page V-4: Exhibit 17A, Airport Related Alternative Proposed Land Use Plan, is modified to depict the change in land use from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial for the approximately 8.4-acre portion of Project site and the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way, based on the most recent land use plan (dated March 2020) provided by the City.
• Page V-9: Exhibit 19, Proposed Internal Circulation, is modified to depict the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way.
• Page V-10: Exhibit 20, Daily Trip Generation, is modified to depict the change in land use from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial for the approximately 8.4-acre portion of Project site, the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way, and the daily trip generation for the Project site. • Page V-13: Exhibit 21, Project Street Names, is revised to depict the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way.
• Page V-27: Exhibit 27A, Water Master Plan, is revised to depict the Project’s removal of the existing 12” water line on Woodruff Way and the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way. Additionally, the water line classifications are updated to reflect the recently adopted TOP 2050 SEIR (Figure 5.19-2, Water System).
• Page V-27A: Exhibit 27B, Recycled Water Master Plan, has been created per directions from Engineering/OMUC.
• Page V-30: Exhibit 28, Sewer Master Plan, is revised to depict the Project’s removal of the existing 8” sewer main on Woodruff Way and the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way. Additionally, the sewer line classifications are updated to reflect the recently adopted TOP 2050 SEIR (Figure 5.19-1, Sewer System).
• Page V-37: Exhibit 33, Drainage Master Plan, is revised to depict the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way and the Project’s proposed street/sheet flow. • PageV-38: Exhibit 34, Conceptual Landscape Plan, is revised to depict the Project’s removal of/modifications to Woodruff Way and the Project’s proposed landscaping. • Pages VI-1, VI-3, VI-8, VI-13, VI-17, VI-21, VI-24, VI-32, and VI-35: Text are modified per direction from Airport Planning Department.
• Pages VI-29, VI-30, VI-31, VI-33, and VI-34 are removed per direction from Airport Planning Department. • Pages VIII-11 and VIII-12: Text are modified per direction from Airport Planning Department. 1036
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE
CENTER
Ontario, California
Specific Specific Plan
FIRST APPROVAL
JANUARY 1983
REVISED DECEMBER 31, 1990
AS AMENDED THROUGH
JUNE 19, 2018
1037
1038
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
.
I . INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1-1 A . PURPOSE OF SPECIFIC PLAN ................................ 1-1 B . AUTHORITY ............................................ 1-1 C . DEFINITIONS ........................................... 1-1 I1 . PLANNING CONCEPTS ........................................... 11-1 A . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................. 11-1 5 . VISUALIMAGE ......................................... 11-1 C . COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE .................... 11-2 Ill . GENERAL NOTES ............................................... llI-1 IV . SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................... 1V-I A . PROJECT LOCATION ..................................... IV-1 1 . REGIONAL CONTEXT ............................... IV-1 2 . AREACONTEXT ................................... iV-1 B . SITE CONDITIONS-EXISTING LAND USES ...................... IV-7 C . EXISTING CIRCULATION .................................. IV-7 1 . REGlONAL CIRCULATION ............................ IV-7 2 . LOCAL CIRCULATION ............................... IV-7 D . EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS .......................... IV+12 1 . TOPOGRAPHY ................................... IV-12 2 . GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................. IV-I 2 3 . CLIMATE ....................................... IV-12 4 . SEISMICITY ..................................... IV-12 5 . HYDROLOGY .................................... IV-12 6 . VEGETATION .................................... IV-16 E . - EXISTING UTILITIES ..................................... IV-18 1 . SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ........................... IV-18 2 . WATER ........................................ 1V-18 3 . GAS .......................................... 1V-18 4 . ELECTRICITY .................................... IV-18 5 . TELEPHONE ..................................... IV-18 6 . WASTEWATER ................................... IV-23 V . COMPONENT PLANS ............................................ V-1 A . LAND USE CONCEPT ..................................... V-1 1 . RAIL INDUSTHIAL USES .............................. V-I 2 . LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES ............................ V-1 3 . OFFICE USES ..................................... V-3 4 . COMMERCIAt/FOOD/HOTEL .......................... V-3 5 . AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE ...................... V-3 B . PHASING ............................................. V-5 C . CIRCULATION AND ACCESS ............................... V-8 1 . VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM .................... V-11 2 . STREET NAMES .................................. V-I1 3 . STREET HIERAHCHY ............................... V-11 4 . RAILROAD ACCESS ............................... V-20 5 . SIDEWALKS ..................................... V-20 .
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPEClFlC PLAN
October 6. f 992 Page i
1039
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D . INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................... 1 . PHASING OF UTILITIES ............................. 2 . STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ............................ 3 . WATERSYSTEM .................................. 4 . WASTEWATER ................................... 5 . PUBLIC UTILITIES ................................. E . UMMUNITY FACtLITlES ................................. 1 . FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION ....................... 2 . OPENSPACE .................................... F . GRADING ............................................. a. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT ................................... 1 . STREETSCAPE .................................... 2 . BUFFER PLANTING ................................. 3 . lNTERSECTlONS ................................... H . LANDSCAPING ..................................
VI . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ........................... Vl- 1 A . RAIL INDUSTRIAL ....................................... Vl-1 B . LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ...................................... VI-I C . OFFICE ............................................... VI-1 D . ~OMMERC1ALIFOODtHOTEt ................................ VI-1 E . AIRPORT RELATED ALTERNATIVE ............................ VI-1 F . BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACKS .......................... VI-1 G . FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S REGULATIONS ON CLEAR ZONESIBUILDING HEIGHTS ............................... VI-24 H . SOUND ATTENUATION CRITERIA ........................... V1-25 I . CRITERIA FOR DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS ........... VI-32 1 . BUILDING ORIENTATION ............................ VI-32 2 . LANDSCAPING ................................... VI-32 J . AIRPORT RESTRICTIVE OVERLAYS .......................... VI-32 1 . PERMITTED USES .................................. VI-32 2 . PROHIBITED USES ................................ VI-33 3 . DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ......................... VI-34 4 . REQUIHED SUBMITTALS ............................ VI-35 K . COMMUNITY FACILITIES .. POL1CE PROTECTION ................ VI-35 V11 . ARCHlTECTURAL/DESIGN CONCEPTS ............................. VI1- 1 A . SIGNAGE AND GRAPHICS ................................ VI1-l 1 . DEFlNlTlON OF SIGN TYPES AND RELATED TERMS ......... VII-1 2 . GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................... VII-3 3 . SINGLE BUILDING OCCUPANT IDENTIFICATION: ........... Vll-4 CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECtFlC PLAN
October 6. 1992 Page ii
1040
1066
596.9 42.2
1082
146.8 10
1084
1088
1089
1092
1106
1107
1110
1117
1118
B. EXHIBIT 41 (Continued)
LANDSCAPE
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REO.UIREMENTS
•
•
•
•
MinilTIUtn !andsrn,pe coveraqo
Butl,Jing front ,er,d exterW, side
setbacks
Parking front and exterior side sotbook$
Frol't wld cxt11rior side bufiding
elevafams softened by minimum
laodscape.:l al'i!e
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
•
•
lnt11rior sids parldnp setback
(in fnmt of GW11m1t& scro<,.,wal!i
All parldng llis!blc from ,:my public
street mullt be 11hielded by bo11rmed
moundir,U plimted with trees, ehtub&,
and graw p.)f Master Str�e1scapta Piao
Maximum 10 cars bectwe,m finglt<' type
ph:mt.,rs, minimum 6' wid• fr<,mpark'.lng
LOADING AREAS
•
eteas
• AU l11ndsooped 1;r11;,,i to b# (H<'!neated
with mirumum e· ooneraa eurb
100%
10'
ϱΖ ($e" fil<h.ihlts 42 and 43)
Front and extarior 11111.bs,:,ks
100%
1,
i
I.Qttdin1,1 araas .. hall be dttSigned to provide for baeking and mene1.111&1i»g Ort-site and not from a public str&eL Repealed.
3. All loading amm, shall bo, s,m,enad '!rnm adj,..,un\ pareeh, end ttreets. 4, Bw!dif!gs shat! b.l desigrntd per th,;, conceptual site plans shown in C"hib\h! 39, 40, 42, 43 which show loiodlnq aroes primarily looa1ed to the <1id➔ and re;,r oi the bu<ding.
5. Where loading doors front a pubifo 11tr..,r, roll-up donr11 and ,;,pWJings in the aet'fln wall shall bo, po$!tioned such that the d1JOrw arc not visibh, from the sttaet.
6. AU loadlflg araes frontit'!g e p0bl!c street shllll be scroMed by a cOl'tlblnation of s.creer; walls, omamer,taJ !11;,Qseapin9, ar>rifor pori!ons of \he bu:lding such thllt th" ro�·"-P Qo❖r$ we r.M vimbie trnm lhs stree1.
7. lm:idin_g Brtus ar,:d do,,rs riat frm·hr,g a puLl1c ,meet sh;;;!! Im scre,ensd from view cl� public street by umcre�,o w:ng wuils with redwooo 5Wlne.-O oa\e, or equsL 8, LG11ding d::iore fro,oting i;, pibbe st"'"! shell nat b" closer th"" 70' fm•n rm::>pllr1y lino.
9. Al! ;1,:reenwall,a and wing walls shall be II maximum er 14' in height.
10. A a:,ghHim, .ar.1lysis shall In, r11qt,i1e:l with "11 developm*1it .appt,:;tititms, a'1d shell show tho:\ all rtiii•up ,:fo,m; fife s¢'<'¢r>4d lla!l' vu,w from au,oiniflf! po1ce!u a'ld pc:blic strea!s \sea cliawam in f)(bib1t 40A).
OUTDOOR. STORAGE
• No outd,our sfo,$Qe shvll bs pem>;;!!!<l un!e-ss 4dequa\d'f u,n:,i,r,eJ by fir\ opaqo&. matcr,-;,J ,;;pproved by Cttliforria Corr,merna Cem,n's A:;:,pwvin;, AgP,nt.
AJ stot11g1, scrM>lir,g sh"1l be a m>nh1wro -0f S' in h!iight and no m,1u«idl shth Ls> swred higher lhM S'. � AH 1Jtorago ar,;1m1 fronting Iii p<.1b�c stroct shaJ be S◊rtle<111d by a oonmllte 11cre11r:: wli!ll and orn11ment11l landscaping.
• Loeatil'!ll of o,,,tdo,:,r i.tor.llge 11r.ist111 !'hall bit shown \Ill t� dev-e!uprrn1r1t -sit,:; p!M. and -,ha!l be S<Jbj1;1ct to llflproval by Californhl Commeme Cunter's Appwlling Agent and '1111 C:ty of 011tar!o O;;,v11lopment A,;lllisory 8o!i!rd.
l':XTER!OR SUILD!N"G MATER:At.s:
• All Pl-!Ming lmprr,1111Merrt'<, with the 11xceptfon of trim arid minor llit<:kit;wt.<.,r,;I f,eatur(ls, shall be <><J!lStructed <>f ma11orir11, """'""''"'t"', glass, or othat n.a1e11t1i .:cppruvttd by Califo1n,a Cornmern1t C,mHr's Ajjtm,vir,g Autm ina precision block}.
" AU .exterklt will!$ shaJf be painted¢, SU:tab!y tmllte:L
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992
1170
5' 5' 5'
0'
F. EXHIBIT 48
BUILDING SETBACK SUMMARY
Jurupa Strne_t, Cgmmsrne Psrkway
RAIL
INDl'SlE'AI
!from A:rport Drivo ex\,,ndinij approx. 700' :iooth of Jurupe) and Arnort Drive (west o( Mill<kim)
40•
40•
-0-
35'
-0-
45'
n·
❖
35'
.Q.
2.3'
40"
·C·
as·
.Q.
35•
:w
C
35·
0-
UGHT
!NP\JSIBIAI
40'
40•
.().
-0,
45'
,,.
-0.
0 "'
"'
.O,
·O
3&'
35'
-0
-0
Fmnt
Exterior Sid" (Ccmar parcels)
lntflrior Slde (OM s:de only)
interiQr Sido {Other side)
!'I.ear
w'!ilfik&n Awnu!l- l:l!nrnrn 62111>1.•ll
fr,;;ot
Exttrior SiGe (Come, par,;11M
lnt-,;rior SiiJe \Ona side on'.yJ
Interior Slue \Other ;J1(fel
Rear
dJreo!l Drive
\111i11t of !viillik!,n Aven,.,eJ
fr<mt
Exterior Side (Corner parceis
loterio1 Side (0'10 11kle only)
Interior Side {Ot.7tr sllfol
Rear
6ft Oth11r Streets
Fn:mt
Extw;or S!Jtr (Cemer parcels)
lnte,i,:,r Sidi] iCno s,de cnlyl
hte;fo., Sid;i !Othor sk!,d
Rell�
l. A.'i snb,d,� •"' ,l\sMueed Imm, •. ., pq,,,H/ ', -�
OFF.CE
•o·
40•
35'
as·
3.5'
45'
,,.
35'
35'
"'
23'
40·
as•
35'
35'
,s·
35-·
25'
25'
2"''
COMMERCIAL/
f'OCQIHQJEI
40•
.,.
35•
35'
3$'
45'
32'
35'
35'
"'
,,.
40•
3$'
35'
35'
35•
35'
25'
25'
25'
'l. A'I <•"' u,hao,.,:, for ,�,I •�cv..J =� ffll>,I N ,,oj�CI lo n•� "'f'V<Nd <rl C:,,ifornia C.,rr,m.,,;,, Gt,,,er·� A"!ir<Wiri9 A;..-t ba••� up�n � fu¼I d""¥J" "'"odorda ad 11�rlo!.�e. Q"! ,:.c� CC!io,f!',;.
11. fl""' ff t,-,t,,,,o, $ld• bui',fog -oks •·•If�� •��ftl 1¢ v,, fofo,.,.,g ,equi•om•'lt• jlllllU.••1: \<> S<1ction 5061b, cl !1w Caih,mi;, l.!n,;,m,, l:Li\ding Cw.:
\!!) {� E:ttw !!'!ill"<�•�•"""'""'"' al eo ffillt tjdjfiil ••1b�d< .,.m,,, bd;-111 P,,rMl1 ffil {ij) !.knl* "'11vora, ':'.O fo�t b� ooi:ar<!liM \,ohW:11!1 t,e r,,-o:co'"d build"'!! &•d i,x,ti·-11 Wlidi,\�t 1:n l!ljl"ffl? ;.a·c,,ls; o,
/ii) Manlatft • rn,ni,m-,, d 30 fo,1 bo1da�g sat',ac� whM h<iilc",-g, or, edjacsd P"'""I•...., lb! ,h; �thee fwa, aM 1�1000, .,,b o$>ta:u ttt/f\' be .os .w.:,�� ir. V$ Sp.,,ific Pb- Standed, '" 1"'1� ""1"'0'"'-�d bw,'Q,f1!;1s me-,> all o<;�., t;,,:fo,m l':w,ldi,-11 Coda Star,;"'��.
CAUFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992 Page Vl-22
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1183
�!uea §!fl!!!!, �gmmerce Pat��a�
lbeTWHA Aitport Drive arid
Paaschtfe<t S!rteti and Airport Orlwi
(we,;t -of Millik11r, Av&nueJ
From:
fxulrlor Sklto !CoTT'H!!r Parcels}
Interior Sides
,�,
Mil!ike"! AWliillf
HYve!' Aveoo"
:Front
£xt<11!>0! Side (Corner P1m:,,;ds)
!nt<i,rior Sidos
·-·
Airport Orivs
(aa"t cf Milrikon Av�ua)
'"'"'
Extertor Side (Corr111t ParsetllsJ
!ntooor Sides
Row
An _Other Streets:
Fnmt
ExteriO'! Sid1t (Comer f>ai-eijlsl
!1rte1i<,.. Sides
fi:,.,.,
RAU.
!NOIJSTRfAL
20'
20'
S'
O·
12'
12'
5'
-0-
,,
3'
5'
-0-
15'
16'
5'
-0-
F.
Note: A,1 GUtU),<)\(l\ &rn mo,;,;,m;d fo;;m the property !inn,
CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
October 6, 1992
EXHIBIT 49
PARKING SETBACK SUMMARY
-LIGHT
INO!JSTIUAt. OFFICE
20' 20'
20' 20'
1 O'
0 1 O'
12' 12'
12' 12'
10'
-0- 10'
,. ,,
3' 3'
10'
-0- 10'
15" 15'
1S' 15'
10'
-0· 10'
COMMERCIAL/
FOOD HOTEL.
,0'
20'
10'
10'
12'
12'
10'
10'
3'
,.
10'
10'
15'
15'
10'
10'
Page vt-23
5'
5'
5'
5'
1184
ATTACHMENT B:
File No. PSPA22-006
Conditions of Approval
(Document to follow this page)
1239
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420
LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 8/16/2023
File No: PSPA22-006
Related Files: PMTT22-025 (TPM 20559) and PDEV22-034
Project Description: An amendment to the California Commerce Center Specific Plan to change the land use designation from Commercial/Food/Hotel to Light Industrial and make graphic and textual modifications throughout to support the change, on 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller Avenue and Wanamaker Avenue, within the proposed Light Industrial Land Use Designation of the California Commerce Center Specific Plan; (APNs: 0238-201-41 and 0238-221-22); submitted by Link Logistics Real Estate Management LLC.
Prepared By: Alexis Vaughn, Associate Planner
Phone: 909.395.2416 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:
1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.
2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:
2.1 Specific Plan Amendment. The following shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment:
(a) Two copies of the final Specific Plan document – double-sided, bound, color;
(b) One CD or flash drive containing a complete copy of the final Specific Plan document with all required revisions in the following formats:
(i) An accessible editable format (e.g. Microsoft Word, InDesign), including all required revisions;
(ii) One complete PDF copy;
1240
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PSPA22-006
(iii) A complete electronic website version broken down by chapter, optimized for web. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, the historical resolutions appended to the front of the document may be separated out as their own PDF.
2.2 Indemnification. The applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City of Ontario, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission or other authorized board or officer. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2.3 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.
2.4 Related Applications. Specific Plan Amendment approval shall not be final and complete until such time that related File Nos. PMTT22-025 and PDEV22-034 have been approved by the Planning Commission and the related Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR has been approved by the City Council.
2.5 Additional Requirements.
(a) Per the findings of the related Addendum to TOP 2050 SEIR, Appendix D, Phase I ESA, the Project shall not be converted to a commercial land use without further environmental analysis.
(b) Planning staff shall work with the applicant after Project approval to finalize the Specific Plan document. Updates include, but may not be limited to, the addition of the final Specific Plan Amendment approval information to the document (amendment file number, City Council Resolution number, approval date); the addition of the final amended Specific Plan document to the City website; and making any final modifications to the document as needed for clarity and consistency (including revisions to .
1241
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 NO.
PSPA22-006.
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), which consists of exhibit and textual modifications to support redevelopment of the site. The Specific Plan Amendment was submitted in conjunction with Tentative Parcel Map No. 20559 (File No.
PMTT22-025) to consolidate two existing parcels into one and facilitate the partial vacation of Woodruff Way, and a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-034) to raze approximately 161,320 square feet of commercial buildings and construct one 344,110 square-foot industrial building (hereinafter referred to as Application or Project). The Project site consists of 16.65 acres of land generally located at the southeast corner of Rockefeller Avenue and Wanamaker Avenue, in the City of Ontario, California; 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
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 1242
WHEREAS, at the September 26, 2023, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to the October 24, 2023, hearing date; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the Addendum and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC23-078, recommending that the City Council conclude that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and further recommending that the City Council take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the SEIR Addendum for the Project, has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, are available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ontario as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decision-making authority for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of 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
1243
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The SEIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.
SECTION 2. Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the City Council, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified SEIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified SEIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified SEIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified SEIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or 1244
(d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.
SECTION 3. City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the City Council hereby finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified SEIR, and does hereby 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.
The City Clerk of the City of Ontario shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of November 2023. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
1245
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
1246
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2023- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023, by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2023- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held November 21, 2023 _________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1247
ATTACHMENT A:
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Addendum to follow this page)
1248
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. 1249
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 1: Regional Location Map
1250
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 2: Aerial Site Photograph
1251
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. 1252
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 3: Site Plan
1253
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 4: Building Elevations
1254
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 1255
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.
1256
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 5: Landscape Plan
1257
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 6: Conceptual Utilities Plan
1258
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 7: Conceptual Grading Plan
1259
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;
1260
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 1261
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 1262
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 1263
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. 1264
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. 1265
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1266
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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1267
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1268
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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1269
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1270
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)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
1271
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, 1272
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. 1273
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 1274
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 1275
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 1276
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. 1277
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? 1278
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.
1279
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 1280
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.
1281
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 1282
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. 1283
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.
1284
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006
Figure 8: Sensitive Receptors Locations
1285
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 1286
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. 1287
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 1288
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 1289
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. 1290
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 1291
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 1292
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, 1293
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. 1294
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.
1295
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 1296
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 1297
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 1298
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.
1299
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 1300
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 1301
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. 1302
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 1303
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 1304
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 1305
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 1306
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-034, PMTT22-025 & PSPA22-006