Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, December 19, 2023 (part 4 of 8)

The proposed development would be implemented in compliance with Development Regulations and other development provisions contained in the Parkside Specific Plan as proposed to be amended, and Ontario Development Code. The modified Specific Plan Land Use Summary Table and Land Use Plan, which include the modified PA numbering, are provided in Attachment A of this document.

In addition to the proposed amendments to the Parkside Specific Plan, the Applicant proposes a Tentative Tract Map (TTM No. 20487) (File No. PTTM22-024) for condominium purposes to subdivide 32.95 gross acres (31.69 net acres) located south of Ontario Ranch Road and west of Archibald Avenue within PAs 17 through 19 of the Parkside Specific Plan into five numbered lots: Lot 1 for a clubhouse/recreation area, Lots 2 through 4 for residential uses, and Lot 5 for commercial uses. The following Development Plans are also proposed: Santa Barbara at Parkside Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-037) for the construction of 508 residential units within TTM No. 20487 Lots 2-4 and the clubhouse/recreation area on Lot 1, and the Great Park Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-029) for the construction of a portion of the Great Park within the Parkside Specific Plan area (between Archibald Avenue and Cucamonga Creek Channel). Additionally, a Development Agreement Amendment (File No. PDA05-002) between the City and the Project Applicant is also proposed.

Background: In August 2006, the City of Ontario approved the approximately 250.89-gross-acre Parkside Specific Plan (File No. PSP03-002). The originally approved Parkside Specific Plan allowed for the development of up to 1,947 single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (including what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails within 26 PAs.

The Parkside Specific Plan outlines the land use plan, infrastructure and services, development regulations, and residential and commercial design guidelines for Parkside Specific Plan area.

The Parkside Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2004011008) was prepared for the Parkside Specific Plan and was certified by the City Council in July 2006. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to: loss of Prime Farmland, loss of existing agricultural uses, and conversion of other agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses (project and cumulative); construction-related and operational air quality impacts (project and cumulative); cumulative water quality impacts until such time that receiving waters are not in violation of their respective water quality standards; cumulative traffic noise impacts; temporary cumulative traffic impacts due to exceedance of level of service (LOS) standards; and cumulative impacts related to landfill capacity. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City for these impacts. Mitigation measures were adopted to reduce impacts to less than significant levels to the extent feasible, and those mitigation measures will continue to apply to development in the Parkside Specific Plan area, including the proposed Project.

In July 2009, the City of Ontario approved a minor amendment to the Parkside Specific Plan (File No.

PSPA09-001), which modified the loop entrance road into the Great Park along the west side of Archibald Avenue (between Edison Avenue and Merrill Avenue) in addition to minor circulation exhibit modifications.

The City determined that the environmental impacts associated with this minor amendment were adequately evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

In June 2020, the City of Ontario approved a Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA19-007) to: (1) reconfigure the residential PAs 1 through 4, and 17 through 19; (2) reconfigure the Great Park PA 22 (east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel); (3) revise internal circulation to improve access into the neighborhood commercial PA 19; (4) update and revise the Residential Design Guidelines to introduce new housing types and architectural styles; and (5) update and revise the Landscape Standards. The 2020 Specific Plan Amendment did not increase the total number of allowed units or commercial area to be developed. The City prepared an Addendum to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR for this Specific Plan Amendment.

As previously discussed, the southeast portion of the Specific Plan area (PAs 1 through 4 and 22) is entitled, developed or under construction, and Ontario Fire Station No. 9 (PA 20) has been constructed. The Channel through the Specific Plan area has also been constructed. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not include land use changes for these PAs; the proposed changes are limited to 599
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 6 of 76 ends

refinements in the acreage calculations and the addition of new housing typologies. Therefore, these areas are not included as part of the “Project site” evaluated in this Addendum.

In August 2022, TOP 2050, including the Policy Plan (General Plan) was adopted, and updated the TOP approved in 2010. Parkside Specific Plan PA 19 is shown as an “Area of Change” in TOP 2050, which changed the land use designations for the northern portion of this PA from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential (11.1-25.0 du/ac), consistent with other residential PAs in the Parkside Specific Plan, and changed the southern portion of PA 19 from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use.

Additionally, designated open space areas along the east side of the Channel and the north side of the Great Park were changed to Medium Density Residential (11.1-25.0 du/ac). The associated The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) (TOP Final SEIR) was also certified in August 2022, and is incorporated by reference in this Addendum. The TOP Final SEIR analyzes the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the TOP, focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the Policy Plan Land Use Plan and impacts resultant of population and employment growth in the City. TOP 2050 and TOP Final SEIR anticipate development of up to 3,858 residential units within the Parkside Specific Plan area. The proposed Project includes the addition of 904 allowed units in the Parkside Specific Plan area for a total of 2,851 units, which is 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for the Specific Plan area. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in the TOP Final SEIR include: air quality (consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP], construction and operational emissions, and cumulative contribution to health risk due to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants [TACs]); cultural (historic) resources; noise (project and cumulative construction noise, project and cumulative vibration impacts, and exposure of sensitive receptors to airport noise); and transportation (vehicle miles traveled [VMT] impacts).

CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM:

Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines outlines when an Addendum to an EIR is required, and states:
“The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states:

A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or 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
600
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 7 of 76 ends

(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 proposed 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 adopt an addendum to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Section 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines require that a brief explanation be provided to support the findings that no subsequent EIR is needed for further discretionary approval. These findings are described below, and are based on the analysis presented in this document:

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 significant effects. Substantial changes are not proposed with the Project and the proposed Project will not require revisions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of up to 1,947 of single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (including what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails. As previously described, the proposed Project involves a Specific Plan Amendment to: (1) increase the overall unit count from 1,947 units to 2,851 units with a density range of 11.1 to 25 du/acre, and the overall residential acreage from 156.62 gross acres to 191.68 acres; (2) reduce the size of PA 19 (Neighborhood Commercial) and amount of commercial development from 15.66 gross acres/115,000 sf to 2.68 acres/15,000 sf with the remainder of this PA (proposed PA 18) being designated Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/acre) consistent with the other PAs and TOP 2050; (3) reduce the size of PA 21 (Great Park) from 58.86 gross acres to 37.38 gross acres to accommodate additional residential development, also consistent with TOP 2050; and (4) clarify the description of housing typologies and expand the number of PAs in which each typology is allowed to be developed to encourage a diversity of housing types within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project would also include amendments to the Parkside Specific Plan to modify the Residential Design Guidelines, text, tables and graphics, as needed, to reflect the changes above. In addition, the proposed Project includes TTM No. 20487 and a Development Plan to implement proposed residential and commercial development in PAs 17 through 19.

On August 16, 2022, the City of Ontario adopted TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed Project would allow for a maximum of 2,851 residential units to be developed within the Parkside Specific Plan area, which is 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for the Specific Plan area. The overall proposed density of 14.87 du/ac is consistent with the Policy Plan density for Medium Density Residential uses (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac). Additionally, the City’s water, recycled water, and sewer infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional units with the proposed Project. There are no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts due to the proposed Project.

Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required.

2. Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which would 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 significant effects. As shown on the aerial photograph provided in Figure 3, the Project site subject to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is currently vacant and disturbed by previous and current agricultural activities. The areas surrounding the Project site are developed or also disturbed by dairy farm/agricultural activities. Grading activities and other site disturbance would be conducted in accordance with the mitigation requirements outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, including measures required for the protection of biological, cultural, and paleontological resources. No proposed changes or revisions to the EIR are required. 601
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 8 of 76 ends

3. Required Finding. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, has been provided that would indicate: the proposed project would result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 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, 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 alternatives. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR did not directly address greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts or transportation impacts resulting from vehicle miles traveled since the requirements for these analyses pursuant to CEQA became effective after the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared. However, the impact of buildout of TOP 2050 on the environment due to GHG emissions and VMT, as well as other traffic-related impacts (air pollutant emissions and off-site traffic noise) were analyzed in TOP Final SEIR. According to TOP Final SEIR, GHG and off-site traffic-related noise impacts would be less than significant, and operational air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

The Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) was adopted by the City of Ontario in 2011. As determined by the analysis presented in this Addendum, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to the ONT that were not addressed in TOP Final SEIR. There are no significant impacts associated with the ONT.

Lastly, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines was modified as part of the CEQA Guidelines updates that were approved in December 2018. New checklist topics related to Energy, Tribal Cultural Resources and Wildfire were added and some checklist questions for other environmental topics were revised; however, these are not new topical issues and were evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Initial Study presented in this Addendum uses the updated checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. As identified through the analysis presented in this Addendum, there would be no new significant impacts resulting from the proposed Project related to the changes in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, and based on the findings and information contained in the previously certified Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the analysis above, the attached Initial Study, and the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the TOP Final SEIR, as appropriate. No changes or additions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

The attached Initial Study provides an analysis of the proposed Project and verification that the proposed Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present.
602
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 9 of 76 ends

Surrounding Land Uses (Surrounding the Specific Plan Area):

Existing Land Use TOP 2050 Policy Plan/
General Plan Designation Zoning Designation
North Industrial (Cement Production),
Vacant, and Agricultural Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac) SP - The Avenue Specific Plan (PSP05-003)
East Under Construction Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac) Open Space-Parkland
SP - Grand Park Specific
Plan (PSP12-001)
South
Single-Family Residential,
Vacant, and
Industrial Warehouse
Neighborhood Commercial
Low Density Residential (2.1 to 5.0 du/ac)
Business Park
SP – West Ontario
Commerce Center Specific
(PSP16-002)
West Agricultural
Mixed Use
Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac)
Open Space-Parkland
Specific Plan
Agricultural Overlay
du/ac – dwelling units per acre
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): None.
603
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 10 of 76 ends

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 and Forestry Resources
Air Quality Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population / Housing
Public Services Recreation
Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant” or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier certified EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier certified environmental documents, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, the analysis from the certified Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the certified TOP Final SEIR was used as a basis for this Addendum, and nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Diana Ayala, Senior Planner
Printed Name
City of Ontario Planning Department
For
September 20, 2023
604
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 11 of 76 ends

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 on-site, 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.
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. 605
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 12 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

1. AESTHETICS. 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
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?
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))?
606
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 13 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
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 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 Wildlife
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
607
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 14 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
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 as defined
in Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

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 AlquistPriolo 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?
608
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 15 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
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
65574.5 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?
609
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 16 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
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 off-site;
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
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
e. 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?
610
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 17 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

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

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

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
611
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 18 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

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?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

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)?
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.
612
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 19 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

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?

Page 20 of 76 ends

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
No Impact
or Less
Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Analyzed in
Previous
EIR

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to 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 self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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?
614
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 21 of 76 ends

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES
The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, certified in August 2006, was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA. As required, the EIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan. The Final EIR focused on impacts from the proposed land uses associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Land Use Plan and impacts from the resultant population and employment growth from the Specific Plan.

Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, if the Program EIR addresses the program’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documents may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168[c]). When a Program EIR is relied on for a subsequent activity, the lead agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (Guidelines Section 15168[c][3]). If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.

Here, an Initial Study has been prepared to determine if the proposed Project is within the scope of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR such that additional environmental review is not required. As discussed below, the City has concluded that no additional environmental review in a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is required, such that this Initial Study can serve as an Addendum to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines. Substantial changes are not proposed with the Project and the Project will not require revisions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development capacity of 1,947 of single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (including what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails within 26 PAs.

As previously addressed, the currently proposed Project would increase the allowed number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan area from 1,947 to 2,851 (an increase of 904 units).

As previously described, the proposed Project involves a Specific Plan Amendment to: (1) increase the overall unit count from 1,947 units to 2,851 units, and the overall residential acreage from 156.62 gross acres to 191.68 acres; (2) reduce the size of PA 19 (Neighborhood Commercial) and amount of commercial development from 15.66 gross acres/115,000 sf to 2.68 acres/15,000 sf with the remainder of this PA (proposed PA 18) being designated Medium Density Residential (11.1 to 25 du/acre); (3) reduce the size of PA 21 (Great Park) from 58.86 gross acres to 37.38 gross acres to accommodate additional residential development; and (4) clarify the description of housing typologies and expand the number of PAs in which each typology is allowed to be developed to encourage a diversity of housing types within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project would also include amendments to the Parkside Specific Plan to modify the Residential Design Guidelines, text, tables, and graphics, as needed, to reflect the changes above. In addition, the proposed Project includes TTM No. 20487 and a Development Plan to implement proposed residential and commercial development in PAs 17 through 19. Applicable mitigation measures from the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR are incorporated by reference in each impact area discussion and are listed at the conclusion of this Addendum under the “Earlier Analysis” section.

On August 16, 2022, the City of Ontario adopted TOP 2050 Policy Plan. The proposed Project would allow for a maximum of 2,851 residential units to be developed within the Parkside Specific Plan area, which is less than the 3,858 residential units evaluated in the TOP 2050 Final SEIR for the Parkside Specific Plan area. The overall proposed density for the Specific Plan area (14.87 du/ac) is consistent with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan density for Medium Density Residential uses (11.1 to 25.0 du/ac). Additionally, the City’s water, recycled water, and sewer infrastructure would have sufficient capacity to serve the additional units with the proposed Project. Therefore, no proposed changes or revisions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR are required, and the proposed Project would not result in any additional impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR or the TOP Final SEIR. 615
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 22 of 76 ends

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that less than significant impacts on a scenic vista would result from implementation of proposed development within the Specific Plan area. The Policy Plan does not identify scenic vistas within the City; however, the TOP Final SEIR identifies the Euclid Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor as the primary scenic corridors in Ontario. Additionally, the Policy Plan (Policy CD-1.5) of TOP requires all major north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. North-south streets should be clear of visual clutter, including billboards, and be enhanced appropriately by framing corridors with trees. The Project site is not visible from the Euclid Corridor or Mission Boulevard Corridor; however, Archibald Avenue, which is a Principal Arterial extending in a north-south direction, forms the eastern boundary of the Project site. Pursuant to the Parkside Specific Plan Design Guidelines, Archibald Avenue would have a tree lined streetscape with landscape parkway adjacent to the proposed residential uses. Therefore, no adverse impacts related to scenic vistas would result from the proposed Project.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. 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? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that impacts to visual character of the Specific Plan area would not be degraded with the introduction of a well-planned and landscaped new residential community, resulting in a less than significant impact. The Project site is undeveloped and disturbed by previous agricultural operations. There is ongoing agricultural operations (row crops) in the western portion of the Project site. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units, and reduce the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment clarifies the housing typologies to facilitate implementation of the Residential Design Guidelines and allows for additional housing typologies to be developed in certain PAs. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The previously approved and proposed residential and non-residential uses would be designed and constructed consistent with the Design Guidelines and Development Regulations included in the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment, applicable provisions of the Ontario Development Code, and the applicable policies of the Community Design Element of the TOP 2050 616
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 23 of 76 ends

Policy Plan. The proposed Development Plan for residential and clubhouse units for PA 17 and 18, which is included as part of the proposed Project, adheres to the established regulations. As with the previously approved development, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, no adverse impacts related to the degradation of the existing visual character or quality would result from the proposed Project.

Development of the Project would not introduce new sources of light and glare beyond that anticipated in the previous environmental analysis. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, on-site lighting would be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures would be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project site and minimize light spillage.

Site lighting plans would 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, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

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 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? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of development allowed by the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland to nonagricultural uses. This is consistent with the TOP 2010 EIR determination that Citywide agricultural impacts were significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that TOP 2050 EIR determined that the implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the direct conversion of Farmland than what was identified in TOP 2010 EIR. 617
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 24 of 76 ends

According to the 2018 California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) California Important Farmland Finder (the latest information available), and consistent with the analysis presented in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the entire Project site is classified as Prime Farmland (CDC, 2018). The western portion of the Project site (west of the Channel) is currently in agricultural production (row crops); agricultural activities on the remainder of the Project site have ceased.

Therefore, the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses anticipated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR has already been initiated. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment addressing the amount and type of residential uses within the Project site (with an overall increase in residential area and units), the reduction of park and commercial use acreage, and the reduction of commercial square footage. The physical impact area for the proposed Project is completely within the impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses would remain as a significant and unavoidable Project and cumulative impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts.

Page 25 of 76 ends

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion of Effects: As previously discussed, the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of development in the Specific Plan area would convert Farmland to nonagricultural use resulting in a significant and unavoidable Project-level and cumulative impact. The western portion of the Project site remains in agricultural production; however, agricultural operations in the eastern portion of the Project site have ceased. The conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use anticipated in Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR has already been initiated. The proposed Project would not change the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The areas surrounding the Project site have been developed or planned for urban development as identified in previously approved Specific Plans and/or the Policy Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of off-site Farmland to non-agricultural uses that is not already anticipated. There is no forest land at or near the Project site so no conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur.

It should also be noted that in order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, MM Ag-1 requires a 100-foot separation between active agricultural operations and new, nonagricultural development or an equivalent easement that is approved by the City, and MM Ag-2 from the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR requires that all residential units in the Parkside Specific Plan be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, approved by the City Attorney, regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses. These requirements remain applicable to proposed development in the Project site and are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

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

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan would not impair implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would result in less than significant impacts. Since certification of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has updated the AQMP. The TOP Final SEIR, which anticipates development pursuant to the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment, concludes that additional population growth forecast with buildout of TOP would not conflict with the 2016 AQMP assumptions because the overall VMT per service population would be reduced. However, buildout of the proposed land use plan associated with TOP 2050 could contribute to an increase in frequency or severity of air quality violations and delay attainment of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) or interim emission reductions in the AQMP, and emissions generated from buildout would result in a significant air quality impact. Therefore, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that buildout of TOP 2050 would be inconsistent with the AQMP. As such, the TOP Final SEIR identifies a significant and unavoidable impact due to conflict with the AQMP.

It should be noted that the 2022 AQMP has been prepared by SCAQMD to address the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) strengthened ozone standard. The draft 2022 AQMP was released in August 2022 and public comment closed on October 18, 2022. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the draft 2022 AQMP at its December 2, 2022, meeting, following certification of the TOP Final SEIR. The draft 2022 AQMP requires CARB’s adoption 619
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 26 of 76 ends

before submittal for EPA’s final approval, which is expected to occur sometime in 2023.

Notwithstanding, the Project’s consistency finding with respect to the 2022 AQMP, once it is final, is anticipated to be the same as the consistency finding with respect to the 2016 AQMP. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in the Specific Plan area by 904, and decrease the amount of allowed commercial development by 100,000 sf. The proposed number of allowed units (2,851 units) would be 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. Although the proposed Project would decrease the number of units to be developed compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR, the proposed Project would contribute to the significant air quality impacts associated with buildout of the TOP 2050 and the significant and unavoidable impact due to conflict with the AQMP. The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts beyond that previously analyzed in the TOP Final SEIR. However, this would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

ROG/VOC and NOx are precursors to ozone (O3) for which the region (South Coast Air Basin [SCAB]) is in non-attainment. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

Relevant to air quality, the proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units and would decrease the total area and amount of commercial development and park uses, consistent with TOP 2050. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed.

With respect to Project-generated construction emissions, the proposed Project is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated within the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. However, as shown on the aerial photograph provided on Figure 3, previously approved land uses in the Parkside Specific Plan area have been constructed or are currently under construction. Therefore, the construction impact area for the Project would be less than anticipated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR anticipated that the construction would occur in phases, with Phase 1 including approximately 65 percent of the Specific Plan area. The remaining uses in the Specific Plan area would also be developed in phases, starting with construction of PAs 17 and 18. The types of construction activities associated with the proposed Project (grading, building construction, architectural coatings, and asphalt) would be the same as those evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR; therefore, the types of construction equipment would be similar. Federal and State requirements for cleaner diesel engines would further reduce construction emissions compared to estimates in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed Project, including ROG/VOC and NOx emissions (ozone precursors), would not exceed what was anticipated for a peak construction day as analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Additionally, MM Air-1 through MM Air-3, which identify requirements to reduce construction emissions, would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project. These mitigation measures are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe construction-related air quality impacts beyond that previously analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The City 620
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 27 of 76 ends

adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this previously identified significant and unavoidable impact.

TOP 2010 EIR identified significant and unavoidable operational impacts associated with volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, and particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). Despite the additional policies in TOP 2050, because VOC emissions would be substantially greater than TOP 2010, TOP 2050 is considered to result in an increase in magnitude of impacts for VOC compared to TOP 2010. Therefore, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that any project that contributes emissions to the SCAB would have a significant and unavoidable air quality impact related to criteria pollutant emissions, including pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact. The sources of operational air pollutant emissions from residential, commercial, and park uses include energy consumption (natural gas and electricity), area sources (such as use of consumer products), and mobile source emissions. As identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, mobile emissions are the primary factor associated with operational emissions. As with the approved Parkside Specific Plan, the Project would incorporate MM Air-4, which requires that local transit agencies be contacted to determine bus routing.

Based on the Parkside Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (July 2023) (Urban Crossroads, 2023c), buildout of the Specific Plan Amendment with 2,851 units, which is an increase of 904 units as compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, would generate a total of 22,198 daily trips, a net increase of 1,097 daily trips compared to development pursuant to the approved Parkside Specific Plan. However, the total number of units and associated vehicular trip generation for the Specific Plan area would be less than anticipated in TOP 2050 and evaluated in TOP Final SEIR for the Specific Plan area (3,858 dwelling units are anticipated in the TOP, compared to 2,851 dwelling units with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment). Additionally, because the proposed Project would involve the development of fewer units compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR the associated area source and energy source emissions would also be reduced. Notwithstanding, as required by TOP Final SEIR mitigation measure MM Air-1, an Air Quality Assessment was prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project to evaluate the operational emissions that would result from the net increase in residential units and decrease in commercial development with the proposed Project compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan (an increase of 904 residential units and a reduction of 100,000 sf of commercial development), and is included in Attachment B of this Addendum (Urban Crossroads, 2023a). The estimated net increase in operation-source emissions resulting from the proposed Project is summarized in Table 2 of the Air Quality Assessment. As shown in Table 2 of the Air Quality Analysis Assessment included in Attachment B, the net increase in operational emissions resulting from the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance (Urban Crossroads, 2023a).The proposed Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe operational air quality impacts beyond that previously analyzed in TOP Final SEIR. However, because the Project would contribute to the operational emissions generated by buildout of TOP 2050, this would remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact.

Applicable mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Discussion of Effects: As identified in TOP Final SEIR, land uses that are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. These land uses include residential, retirement facilities, hospitals, and schools. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that construction of the approved Specific Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest sensitive receptors identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR were planned residential uses to the north (adjacent to the Specific 621
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 28 of 76 ends

Plan area). Based on existing zoning and TOP 2050 land uses designations, the nearest sensitive receptors outside of the Specific Plan area would continue to be adjacent residential uses. As identified above, the Project would not increase the type or amount of construction activities occurring at the Project site, and therefore would not expose these sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction beyond that anticipated and evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

The proposed Project, which includes the development of residential, commercial, and park uses consistent with the approved Parkside Specific Plan, would not result in toxic air contaminants (TACs) during operation. The TOP Final SEIR, which evaluated regional emissions from mobile sources resulting from implementation of TOP 2050, concluded that the implementation of 2050 would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hotspot, and CO hotspots impacts would be less than significant. As identified above, the proposed Project would generate a slight increase in daily trips compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, but less daily trips compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized CO concentrations, consistent with the conclusion of the TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of Project operations.

The Project would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of pollutant concentrations resulting from implementation of development in the Parkside Specific Plan area.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is located within an area that has 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. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis identified the following impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species to be potentially significant: potential loss of burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) or active burrowing owl nests during construction; cumulative impacts to the white-tailed kite and Northern harrier due to loss of foraging habitat; and indirect impacts to foraging and nesting habitat for various raptor and bird species due to removal of agricultural land. With implementation of mitigation, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Specifically, MM Bio-1 requires a pre-construction survey be conducted 30 days prior to any ground disturbance activities to avoid direct take of burrowing owls in compliance with CDFW protocol, and identifies actions to take if burrowing owl are present; MM Bio-2 requires 622
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 29 of 76 ends

payment of City of Ontario open space mitigation fees; MM Bio-3 requires the removal of windrow trees to occur outside the raptor breeding season; and MM Bio-4 requires a pre-construction field survey if project construction activities involving heavy equipment and/or windrow tree removal occur during the nesting/breeding season, and identifies actions to take if active nests are present.

The Project site is currently undeveloped and there are active agricultural activities in the western portion of the Project site (west of the Channel). The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Based on the Biological Technical Report for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project (Biological Assessment) (VCS, 2023), included in Attachment C of this Addendum, the Project site supports the following vegetation communities/land cover types: disturbed/developed, nursery row crops, herbaceous non-native forbs and grasses, and tamarisk thickets. The Project site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities and no sensitive plant species were observed during the April 2022 biological field survey. Special status plant species are not likely to occur primarily based on the absence of suitable habitat and highly disturbed soils due to current and previous agricultural activities. Based on the results of burrowing owl focused surveys conducted, no burrowing owls or evidence thereof (i.e., whitewash, pellets, feathers, tracks, eggshell fragments, nest adornment materials, etc.) were detected during the surveys. As a result, the Project site is not considered to be occupied by burrowing owl; however, the Project site and surrounding areas include burrows suitable for burrowing owl and suitable burrowing owl foraging habitat. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with MM Bio-1 (VCS, 2023).

The Project site continues to provide habitat for nesting and foraging birds and raptors and implementation of the proposed Project would result in the loss of this habitat, as identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final SEIR. The fee payment required by MM Bio-2, and pre-construction surveys required by MM Bio-3 and MM Bio-4 would continue to be required and would reduce impacts to sensitive species and nesting/foraging birds and raptors to a less than significant level, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. These MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the federally listed Delhi sands Flower Loving Fly (DSFLF) (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) did not occupy the Specific Plan area. In 2022 Osborne Biological Consulting conducted a habitat suitability evaluation for the DSFLF. The entire Project footprint is considered unsuitable for DFSLF. The eastern portion of the Project site has extensive imported soils associated with ongoing development and has its native soils thoroughly intermixed with very fine silty Hilmar soils. The western portion of the Project site remains in irrigated agricultural use (as has been the case for decades) with a thin, approximately 3.45-acre waste area of ruderal vegetation on the northern edge of the site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not impact the DSFLF, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. (VCS, 2023)
Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental document are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
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 Wildlife 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?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that there was no riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands within the Specific Plan area and no impacts to these resources would occur with implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan. The 623
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 30 of 76 ends

Cucamonga Creek Channel, which extends in a north-south direction through the Specific Plan area is considered a water of the United States; however, impacts to the Channel were determined to be less than significant with adherence to regulatory permit requirements (i.e., Section 404 permit through the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Section 401 Water Quality Certification through the RWQCB, and CDFW notification per Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). It should be noted that impacts to the Channel have been completed and required permits were obtained.

Based on the Biological Assessment included in Attachment C of this Addendum, the Project site, which is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, still does not support riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands, and no impact to such resources would occur with implementation of the proposed Project (VCS, 2023).

Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the MBTA and CDFW requirements (refer to MM Bio-4, which is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document). Therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any species, with migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of a native wildlife nursery site, and impacts would be less than significant.

6.05.020 (updated in 2020) was established to further the preservation, protection, and maintenance of healthy heritage trees. The Project site does not contain any heritage trees; therefore, the preservation or protection of existing trees is not required for the Project. Additionally, Municipal Code Sections 10-1.25 and 10-2.05 prohibit the damaging or destruction of trees on City property, except under conditions specified in the Municipal Code. There are no existing trees planted in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Project site and the proposed Project would not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 624
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 31 of 76 ends

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause substantial adverse change to an historic resource because no historic resources are within the Specific Plan area. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and is currently undeveloped. A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project (Cultural Resources Assessment) (VCS, 2023b) was prepared for the proposed Project and is included in Attachment D of this Addendum. Based on the records search conducted during preparation of the Cultural Resources Assessment, no historic resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 have been recorded at the Project site, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No impact to historical resources would result from implementation of the Project.

Page 32 of 76 ends

document, would be followed and impacts would remain less than significant.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that development in the Specific Plan area would have less than significant impacts related to energy consumption (natural gas and electric consumption). The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of residential units in the Specific Plan area by 904, and decrease the amount of allowed commercial development by 100,000 sf. The proposed number of allowed residential units (2,851) would be 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. The proposed Project would not change the type of land uses anticipated for the Specific Plan area (residential, commercial and park) and would not change the anticipated construction and operational characteristics of the proposed development.

Therefore, the associated sources of energy demand for these activities would be similar to development pursuant to the approved Parkside Specific Plan.

Construction-related energy demand includes energy and fuel used by construction equipment, construction worker vehicles, and construction vendor / hauling vehicles, coupled with construction energy efficiency / conservation measures. The construction equipment, use of electricity, and fuel for the proposed Project would be typical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and construction equipment would conform to applicable CARB emissions standards, which promote equipment fuel efficiencies. It should also be noted that fuel efficiencies are improving for on- and off-road vehicle engines due to more stringent government requirements. Electrical energy would be available for use during construction from existing power lines and connections, precluding the use of less-efficient generators. Thus, construction energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.

With respect to operations, as with the approved Specific Plan, the residential, commercial and park uses that would be allowed by the proposed Project would use electricity for uses including heating, cooling, and ventilation of buildings; water heating; operation of electrical systems; lighting; 626
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 33 of 76 ends

and appliances. Title 24 energy standards have become more stringent since 2006. These regulations are regularly updated. The 2022 version of Title 24 was adopted by the CEC and became effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 Title 24 regulations are applicable to building permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2023. Further, the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code, which contains mandatory and voluntary requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings, became effective in August 2009, following certification of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The proposed residential and non-residential buildings would be constructed to achieve the building energy standards set forth in the Title 24 requirements in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, there would be additional reductions in energy consumption pursuant to the new and updated codes compared to those anticipated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Further, the types of trips and vehicle mix generated by the proposed Project would be consistent with other residential and commercial development of similar scale and configuration, including other development in the Parkside Specific Plan area. The proposed Project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation and the impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Discussion of Effects: The potential for development within the Parkside Specific Plan area to conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency was not specifically addressed in the Parkside Final EIR. However, federal and State agencies regulated energy use and consumption through various means and programs when the EIR was prepared and continue to do so. On the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. In addition to Title 24 energy standards and the CALGreen Code addressed above, relevant state energy‐related laws and plans are summarized below. • Integrated Energy Policy Report. Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing California’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety. The 2022 IEPR was adopted in February 2023, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. As with the uses allowed by the previously approved Parkside Specific Plan, the additional residential uses and the commercial uses proposed would be required to adhere to applicable Title 24 energy standards and CALGreen, which would reduce energy consumption, as described previously. The proposed Project would not involve any uses or activities that would conflict with or otherwise hinder or obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2022 IEPR.
• State of California Energy Plan. The CEC is responsible for preparing the State of California Energy Plan (State Energy Plan), which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The State Energy Plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the State Energy Plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators encouraging urban designs 627
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 34 of 76 ends

that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

The proposed Project takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems and promotes land use compatibilities through the development of residential uses on a site designated for such uses in the TOP and the Parkside Specific Plan. The previously approved Parkside Specific Plan and the proposed Project would support urban design and planning processes identified under the State Energy Plan and would not otherwise interfere with or obstruct implementation of the State Energy Plan.

The Project would also comply with the requirements of the City’s Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP), which is addressed in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions section of this Addendum.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and this impact would be less than significant.

7. GEOLOGY & 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.

Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is located outside the Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone) and there would be no impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Therefore, no impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault would result, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 35 of 76 ends

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that due to the consistency of the underlying soils and the deep groundwater levels, the potential for seismicinduced liquefaction was less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the potential for seismicinduced liquefaction remains the same (less than significant).

Page 36 of 76 ends

unstable. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the on-site soils have a negligible expansion potential. With implementation of mitigation measures MM Geo-2, which requires a geotechnical evaluation to analyze organic matter content of the soils and identifies actions to take if soils are unstable, and MM Geo-3 which requires testing of site materials, impacts related to unstable soils were determined to be less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and the underlying geologic conditions at the Project site remain the same, including the presence of soils that contain organic matter. Therefore, the potential for encountering unstable or expansive soils remains the same.

Implementation of TOP strategies, adherence to requirements outlined in the City’s building codes, the UBC, and Ontario Municipal Code, and implementation of MM Geo-2 and MM Geo-3, would ensure that impacts remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusions of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The applicable MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The Project site is undeveloped but has been disturbed by current and past agricultural activities.

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. As required by MM Cultural-3, a paleontological resource survey has been prepared for the proposed Project and is included in the Cultural Resources Assessment included in Attachment D of this Addendum. Consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, there is a potential to encounter paleontological resources if grading activities extend 5 feet below the ground surface. Therefore, MM Cultural-3, which requires that a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) be prepared and implemented, is applicable to the proposed Project. With implementation of MM Cultural-3, impacts would remain less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. MM Cultural-3 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

Page 37 of 76 ends

the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental document are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

The State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, after preparation of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and, as a result, increased attention has been paid to the impact of GHG emissions. The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) in 2010, adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines in a new Section 15064.4 entitled “Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, which require evaluation of GHG emissions. Therefore, GHG emissions were not specifically identified as such in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analyses. However, as described in the following paragraphs, courts have ruled that there is no requirement to address GHG emissions in an Addendum to an EIR that was completed prior to the adopted CEQA amendments. “Information on the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change” does not constitute “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 IS / MND was adopted.” (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 515, 531–532 (rejecting claim that such information triggered the need for a supplemental EIR and explaining that such information was known “long before the City approved the 1994 EIR” at issue)). Further, the impact of buildout of TOP on the environment due to GHG emissions was analyzed in the TOP Final SEIR. As previously discussed, the proposed buildout of the Parkside Specific Plan was previously analyzed in TOP Final SEIR, which was certified by the City and evaluated 1,007 more units in the Parkside Specific Plan area compared to the development anticipated with the proposed Project.

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 emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion of Effects: Limiting GHG emissions to combat climate change has been a governmental goal since the late 1970s. As explained by the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v.

EPA (2007) 549 U.S. 497: “In the late 1970s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to “assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications”. In 1987, Congress enacted the Global Climate Protection Act for the purpose of “establish[ing] a national climate program that will assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications” (15 United States Code [USC] 2902). The act required the establishment of various programs to further climate change research (15 USC 2904[d]).

In 1988, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific information regarding climate change to policymakers. In 1992, 154 nations, including the United States, entered into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement under which industrialized countries pledged to work to reduce GHG emissions. Five years later, in 1997, the parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set binding GHG reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community, with the objective of reducing their collective emissions by 5% below 1990 levels during the “commitment period” of 2008–2012.

As noted by the court in Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (supra, 196 Cal. App. 4th 515), by 1990, the potential impacts of GHG emissions were already the subject of litigation, with the “Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argu[ing that 631
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 38 of 76 ends

an] “increase in fossil fuel combustion … will … lead to a global increase in temperatures, causing a rise in sea level and a decrease in snow cover that would damage the shoreline, forests, and agriculture of California.” (Id. at 531, quoting City of Los Angeles v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [D.C. Cir. 1990] 286 U.S. App.D.C. 78.)
Thus, by the 1990s, California’s local governmental agencies were well aware of the importance of monitoring and limiting GHG emissions when approving projects. Since GHG impacts were known at the time that the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was conducted, information regarding the proposed Project’s potential to impact climate change does not constitute “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 IS / MND was adopted.” Accordingly, the inclusion of GHG impacts as a requirement of CEQA analysis does not trigger the need for any further environmental review. (See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (supra, 196 Cal. App. 4th at 531–532)). Notwithstanding this conclusion, the discussion below provides an analysis of the proposed Project related to GHG emissions.

TOP 2050 includes an update to the City’s 2014 Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP Update).

The CCAP is a plan to reduce GHG emissions and improve community resilience to hazardous conditions associated with climate change. The CCAP Update includes updated emissions inventories; updated emissions forecasts; identifies GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve the GHG reduction goals of the City of Ontario consistent with Senate Bill 32, Executive Order S03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals of Executive Order B55-18; and measures, that when quantified, achieve the GHG reduction targets for the City. The CCAP Update is intended to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 plan requirements for CEQA streamlining for development projects consistent with TOP 2050. The CCAP Update includes per capita targets for Ontario for year 2030 and year 2050 to be consistent with the GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and EO S-03-05, and substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. The CCAP Update underwent CEQA review (TOP Final SEIR) and was adopted after public hearings. Thus, the City’s CCAP is a qualified CAP that projects can tier off of for CEQA review. According to TOP Final SEIR, with implementation of the Ontario CCAP implementation of TOP 2050 would result in less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions.

GHG emissions associated with development projects would be less than significant if the project is consistent with the CCAP. The Project would comply with the City’s CCAP. Therefore, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a less than significant individual and cumulative impact for GHG emissions.

Further, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would increase the allowed number of residential units from 1,941 to 2,851 (an increase of 904 units) within the Specific Plan area, which is 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for the Specific Plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project was previously analyzed by the TOP Final SEIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this impact need not be analyzed further, because (1) the proposed Project would result in an impact that was previously analyzed in the certified TOP Final SEIR; (2) the proposed Project would not result in any greenhouse gas impacts that were not addressed in the certified TOP Final SEIR; and (3) the proposed Project is consistent with TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the TOP Final SEIR. No changes or additions to Certified TOP Final SEIR analyses are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the approved residential, commercial and park uses would not generate hazardous materials other than those typically associated with household products, and that there would be no transport of non632 CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 39 of 76 ends

construction related hazardous materials to or from the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units, and reduce the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment clarifies the housing typologies to facilitate implementation of the Residential Design Guidelines and allows for additional housing typologies to be developed in certain PAs. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the types of land uses proposed or the types of hazardous materials that would be used during construction and operations at the Project site. Development of the proposed residential, commercial and park uses at the Project site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

As identified above, there would be no change in types of land uses proposed to be developed within the Specific Plan area (residential, commercial and park), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Additionally, agricultural activities are limited to the western portion of the Project site under existing conditions and structures and associated foundations associated with previous agricultural uses have been removed. While the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR determined that previous uses at the Project site or transported to the site would result in less than significant impacts related to creation of a hazard to the public or the environment, MM Haz-1, Haz-2, Haz 3, Haz-5 and Haz-6 identify actions to take if hazardous materials associated with previous uses are discovered (soil contamination, septic tanks, hazardous waste, organic material, and fill materials). With the exception of the potential for exposure to asbestos containing materials and LBP (which is not applicable to the Project given that there are no remaining structures to be removed), potential impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials within the Project site would be the same as those identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and MMs Haz-1, Haz-3, and MMs Haz-5 and MM Haz-6 presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document would apply.

Development of the proposed residential, commercial and park uses would not expose the public or the environment to a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 40 of 76 ends

the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures. Applicable mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis indicated that closest existing schools are Phoenix High School (part of the Corona-Norco Unified School District, previously known as Horizon Continuation High School) located approximately 2.8 miles south of the Specific Plan area, and Colony High School (part of the Chaffey Joint Union High School District) located approximately 1 mile to the north of the Specific Plan area. There is also a proposed elementary school site in the Subarea 29 (Hettinga) Specific Plan area as well as a middle school site. Based on review of the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Plan, there are planned schools within 0.25 mile of the Project site to the north (within the Avenue Specific Plan) and the east (within the Grand Park Specific Plan).

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the type of land uses to be developed within the Specific Plan area, and as with the previously approved uses, development of the proposed residential, commercial and park uses within the Project site would not involve hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 41 of 76 ends

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? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that the Specific Plan area is within 2 miles of the Chino Airport, which is classified as a General Utility airport. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR indicated that based on the 1991 Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the Specific Plan area is within Safety Zone III; this zone does not place restrictions on residential development in this area. Additionally, the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR indicates that based on the 2003 Airport Master Plan for the Chino Airport, the western portion of the Specific Plan area (west of the Channel) is within Zone 6: Traffic Pattern Zone. Zone 6 allows residential uses included in the approved Specific Plan. Development within the Specific Plan area is required to adhere to MM Haz 7, which requires building heights comply with applicable regulations, and MM Haz 8, which requires notification to future buyers within the Parkside Specific Plan area of proximity to the Chino Airport, and impacts related to safety hazards were determined to be less than significant.

In April 2011, following certification of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the Ontario City Council adopted the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (ONT ALUCP) (Ontario, 2018). The basic function of the ONT ALUCP is to promote compatibility between Ontario International Airport and the land uses that surround it. The geographic scope for the ONT ALUCP is the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the area in which current or future airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection, and/or overflight factors may affect land uses or impose restrictions on those uses.

On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport (CNO) Overlay Zoning District (OZD) and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook.

Based on review of the TOP 2050 Figure LU-06, Airport Safety Zones & Influence Areas, the Parkside Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Chino Airport and the ONT. The Project site is approximately 4 miles south of the ONT and 1.4 miles northeast of the Chino Airport. However, the Project site is not within a designated Airport Safety Zone for the airports. Additionally, based on review of Figure 5.13-3, Airport Noise Contours, the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is not within a noise contour for the Chino Airport or ONT. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project, which would not change the types of land uses proposed within the Specific Plan area, would not pose a safety hazard to people residing or working at the Project site, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Notwithstanding the less than significant impacts related to airport-related safety hazards and excessive noise, as required by MM Haz 7 and MM Haz 8, allowed building heights would not be exceeded, and future buyers within the Project site would be notified of proximity of the property to the airports.

Page 42 of 76 ends

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that development pursuant to the Specific Plan would not impair implementation of or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan, and streets used for emergency access would not be impacted during construction. The City's Safety Element, as contained within the TOP Policy Plan, includes policies and procedures to be administered in the event of a disaster. TOP seeks interdepartmental and inter-jurisdictional coordination and collaboration to be prepared for, respond to, and recover from everyday disaster emergencies. As with the
approved uses within the Specific Plan area, the proposed Project, which does not change the type of allowed uses the Specific Plan area, would comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. No impact would result, consistent with the conclusion in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan could violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements during construction and operation; however, with implementation of mitigation measures (MM Hydro-1, MM Hydro-2 and MM Hydro-3) which require adherence to statewide NPDES General Industrial Activities Stormwater Permit, the San Bernardino County Area-Wide Urban Runoff Permit (MS4 permit) and the Ontario Municipal Code (Section 6, Title 6), potential impacts to surface water quality would be less than significant. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR also concluded that development within the Specific Plan area would improve the groundwater quality within the Chino II Groundwater Sub-basin because the agricultural uses that cause high levels of nitrates in the drinking water supply would be eliminated.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The construction activities within the Project site would be similar to those evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and would result in similar temporary water quality impacts during construction. It should be noted that construction related water quality regulations are more stringent than when the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was 636
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 43 of 76 ends

prepared. Consistent with the conclusion of the Final EIR, with adherence to MM Hydro-1, which requires compliance with regulatory requirements, including preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), water quality impacts during construction would be less than significant.

MM Hydro-1 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

As required by MM Hydro-2, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would be prepared for projects implementing the Parkside Specific Plan, including development within the Project site.

The proposed Project would not change the types of land uses to be developed and the types of urban pollutants that would be generated would be the same; therefore, the post-development best management practices (BMPs) would also be the same. The WQMP would be based on the regional model form provided by the City, and would identify and detail all Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs to be implemented or installed in order to reduce storm water pollutants and site runoff. Further, MM Hydro-3 requires that any loading docks within retail areas be designed with devices to trap oil and grease and ensure these pollutants are not discharged into the storm water runoff, and MM Hydro-6 identifies actions to take to reduce pollutants from maintenance and landscape activities. MM Hydro-2, MM Hydro-3, and MM Hydro-6 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

Consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, with adherence to the identified mitigation measures potential water quality impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be served by domestic water provided by the City, and direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater are not proposed. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and the proposed Project would not change the types of land uses to be developed within the Project site. There may be a slight change in the amount of impervious surface, which could reduce the potential for groundwater recharge; however, the Project site is not located in a designated groundwater recharge area (CBWCD, 2023). The potential for the proposed Project to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the proposed Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin is considered less than significant.

Notwithstanding, MM Hydro-5 is applicable to the proposed Project and requires that landscaping retain and percolate both applied irrigation water and stormwater. MM Hydro-5 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

Page 44 of 76 ends

mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; 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
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR identifies that no streams or streambeds are present within the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan could alter the drainage patterns of the site but would not substantially alter the rate or amount of stormwater runoff entering the Cucamonga Creek Channel, and ultimately Mill Creek (the southerly portion of the Channel). Further, the Final EIR identifies the Channel is designed to accept all water from the Specific Plan area and to accommodate the 100-year storm event at full buildout (urban development) of the watershed. Storm water from the Specific Plan area would be conveyed to the Channel via local streets, which would connect to underground storm drains and storm drains would be designed in compliance with applicable flood control requirement (MM Hydro-4). Therefore, flooding on- or off-site would not occur. Additionally, increases in the flows within the Channel as a result of urban development may cause erosion; however, the design of the storm drain system would ensure that the increase in the rate of flows into the Channel would be less than significant. With implementation of the on-site storm drain system and required Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures (MM Hydro-1 through MM Hydro 4, MM Hydro-6, and MM Hydro-7), which include requirements to adhere to applicable regulations, as discussed above, impacts would be less than significant.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and would not involve any construction activities or new land use types beyond that anticipated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Further, the storm drain system would remain the same, discharging to the Channel. As required by MM Hydro-4, the on-site storm drain system would meet the required flood control requirements. As with the approved residential, commercial and uses at the Project site, there would be a less than significant impact related to potential flooding and storm drain capacity. MM Hydro-4 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

As discussed under Threshold “a” above, as required by MMs Hydro-1 through Hydro-3, and MM Hydro-6, the proposed Project would be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations to minimize water quality impacts during construction and operation, including from erosion, and impacts related to erosion and polluted runoff would be less than significant.

As discussed under Threshold “d” below, the Parkside Specific Plan area is not within a flood hazard area; therefore, the proposed Project would not redirect flood flows.

Page 45 of 76 ends

mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that no structures within the Specific Plan area would be placed within a 100-year flood plain, and the Specific Plan area is not in proximity to a large body of water or the ocean, so the threat of an earthquake-induced seiche or tsunami would not occur.

Figure 5.10-3, Dam Inundation Zones, of TOP Final SEIR indicates that the Specific Plan area is within the eastern portion of San Antonio Creek dam failure inundation area; however, TOP Final SEIR concludes that because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and because the City is prepared in the event of such failure, impacts are considered less than significant. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR and would also have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to the risk of pollutant release from inundation of the Project site from seiche, tsunami or dam failure. Based on review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, the eastern portion of Project site is within a FEMA Zone X (Shaded), which is an area of one percent annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile and the western portion of the Project site is within FEMA Zone X which is an area with reduced flood risk due to a levee (FEMA, 2008). The Cucamonga Creek Channel, which extends north-south through the Specific Plan area is within the 100-year flood plain; however, as discussed above, the Channel is designed to accommodate the 100-year storm event at full buildout. Therefore, the Project would also have a less than significant impact related to the risk of pollutant release from flood inundation, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The proposed Project would not involve any change in the type of construction activities or type of uses to be developed in the Project site (residential, commercial, and park), and as discussed under Threshold “a” above, would be required to comply with applicable regulations addressing the protection of water quality. Therefore, the Project would comply with the Basin Plan, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

On September 16, 2014, subsequent to certification of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, Governor Brown signed into law the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The 2014 SGMA requires local public agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in “high-” and “medium”-priority basins to develop and implement Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or Alternatives to GSPs. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino Groundwater Basins as “very low” priority. Therefore, the Chino Groundwater Basins is not subject to the requirements of the SGMA (DWR, 2023). Accordingly, development within the Parkside Specific Plan area, including the Project site, would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan and no impact would occur. 639
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 46 of 76 ends

11. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the Specific Plan area is not located within a “community” and all major circulation routes would be maintained through the area; therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan would not interfere or adversely disrupt or physically divide an established community.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and is surrounded by existing development, or areas planned for future development pursuant to approved specific plans or the TOP 2050 Policy Plan.

Consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the proposed Project would not divide an established community and no impact would result.

Development would adhere to requirements outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan, TOP and Ontario Municipal Code, and with implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR for the respective environmental issue areas (i.e., air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities). Therefore, impacts related to land use policies would be less than significant.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The proposed Project is consistent with the land use and development assumptions in TOP 2050 and would not change the type of land uses allowed in the Specific Plan area. Further, the proposed Project would be designed to be consistent with the Development Regulations and Design Guidelines outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan, as amended. The proposed increase in residential development and decrease in commercial development and park area within the Project site, which is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR, would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and this impact would be less than significant.
640
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 47 of 76 ends

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? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to mineral resources because the Specific Plan area does not contain known mineral resources, is not located within an area of locally-important mineral resource recovery, and is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area. The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, does not contain known mineral resources, and is not located within an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource recovery site, or an area that has been classified or designated as a mineral resource area in TOP, Parkside Specific Plan or other land use plan. Therefore, no impacts would result, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

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?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan would result in project-level noise impacts during construction; however, these impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of identified mitigation measures.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. With respect to construction noise, the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Grading and building construction would be conducted as part of the proposed Project. The types of construction activities and construction equipment that would be used for construction in the Project site would be the same as that evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and the noise-sensitive receptors are the same as those evaluated. Construction activities would be subject to the mitigation measures outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, which require that construction activities comply with the City’s noise ordinance that restricts the days and hours of construction activities (MM Noi-1), and construction staging areas shall not be located within 150 feet of existing sensitive receptors and that noise-producing construction equipment be fitted with properly operating and maintained mufflers (MM Noi-2). Therefore, construction-related noise impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. MM Noi-1 and MM Noi-2 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.
641
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 48 of 76 ends

With respect to operations, the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that residential uses within the Specific Plan area would be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed established standards; however, these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MMs Noi-3 through Noi-6. While this does not represent an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA, the proposed Project does not change the types of uses that would be constructed within the Specific Plan area and these MMs would continue to apply. MM Noi-3 through MM Noi-6 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The noise sources associated with proposed residential, commercial and park uses would be the same as that anticipated and evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, and primarily include traffic-related noise. The TOP Final SEIR evaluated traffic-related noise impacts that would result from buildout of TOP 2050, which includes development in the Parkside Specific Plan area.

The TOP Final SEIR concluded that buildout of the uses anticipated by TOP would result in less than significant traffic-related noise impacts. As previously identified, the proposed Project would result in 1,007 fewer residential units compared to that evaluated for the Specific Plan area in the TOP Final SEIR (2,851 units compared to 3,858 units). Additionally, the circulation system for the Parkside Specific Plan and anticipated in the TOP Final SEIR traffic-related noise analysis would not change with the proposed Project. With a reduction in units and associated trip generation compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR, the proposed Project would reduce trafficrelated noise impacts, which were determined to be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a significant noise impact or substantial increase in traffic-related noise impacts compared to that evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the types of uses allowed to be developed in the Specific Plan area; therefore, excessive vibration would not occur during operation.

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Grading and building construction would be conducted as part of the proposed Project.

The types of construction activities and construction equipment that would be used for construction in the Project site would be the same as that evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR; therefore, potential sources of vibration during construction would also be the same. Therefore, construction-related vibration impacts from the proposed Project would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. 642
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 49 of 76 ends

As previously discussed, the Project site is approximately 4.0 miles south of the ONT, and 1.4 miles north of the Chino Airport. However, based on review of Figure 5.13-3, Airport Noise Contours, the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is not within a noise contour for the Chino Airport or ONT. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing at the Project site to excessive noise levels from airport operations and this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

14. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that growth associated with implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan is consistent with the regional growth forecasts and the regional job-housing balance projections resulting in less than significant direct impacts.

Indirect population and housing impacts were also determined to be less than significant.

Additionally, the TOP Final SEIR concluded that although the increase in population, housing, and employment under TOP 2050 would exceed SCAG’s regional forecasts for the City, TOP 2050 would improve the job-housing balance. Furthermore, TOP 2050 accommodates future growth by providing for infrastructure and associated public services to accommodate the projected growth of the City and is consistent with SCAG’s Connect SoCal. Consequently, while buildout of TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use Plan would substantially increase both population and employment in the City, TOP Final SEIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the maximum number of allowed units in the Specific Plan area by 904 units and reduce commercial development by approximately 100,000 sf. However, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for a maximum of 2,851 residential units to be developed within the Parkside Specific Plan area, which is 1,007 fewer units than the 3,858 residential unit development capacity established by TOP Policy Plan for the Parkside Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed the number of units or associated increase in population anticipated in TOP for the Specific Plan area and would continue to assist the City in improving its jobs-housing balance. Additionally, the Project would not involve the development of any roadways or infrastructure beyond that already planned to accommodate the previously approved Specific Plan. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the conclusions of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR.

Page 50 of 76 ends

in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not involve the displacement of any existing housing because no residential structures existed at the time the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared. The Project site remains undeveloped, and the proposed Project would not result in the displacement of people or housing. No impact would occur, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan, which includes development of Fire Station 9 (refer to MM Serv-7), and payment of Development Impact Fees, would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. Additionally, adherence to applicable regulations to reduce fire hazards (refer to MM Serv-2 through MM Serv-6) would also be required.

The Ontario Fire Department provides fire and Emergency Medical Services to the Specific Plan area, including the Project site, from Fire Station No. 9 located within the Specific Plan Area (PA 20), which was implemented as required by MM Serv-7. The proposed Project would increase the number of residential units allowed to be constructed in the Specific Plan area (an increase of 904 dwelling units) and would have an associated increase in the population within the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the proposed Project would increase the demand for fire protection services. However, the payment of required Development Impact Fees (which would contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment), and adherence to applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code (CFC), as adopted by the Ontario Municipal Code (Section 4-4.01) would ensure that impacts from the proposed Project remain less than significant. MM Serv-1 through MM Serv-6 require adherence to regulations for access, building materials, fire flow, etc., and MM Serv-8 requires the developer to pay development impact fees for fire service. MM Serv-1 through MM Serv-8 are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities that would cause a physical environmental impact. Impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 51 of 76 ends

ii) Police protection?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would add residential uses to the area and would increase demands upon police protection; however, no adverse physical impacts associated with the need for, or provision of, new or physically altered police facilities would result from the project, and this impact would be less than significant. MM Serv-8 requires the developer to pay development impact fees for police service.

Police services would be provided by the Ontario Police Department. Since police services are based upon per capita service levels, the proposed Project, which would increase the residential population at the Project site, would require an incremental increase in police services to maintain required service levels. The Project would incorporate MM Serv-8, which is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Property taxes and City fees, including payment of required Development Impact Fees (MM Serv-8), support the general fund to help offset the cost of additional personnel. The proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities that would cause a physical environmental impact. Impacts related to police protection services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

The Quimby Act requires local jurisdictions with parks responsibilities to provide parks and recreation opportunities through the receipt of fees or the acceptance of facilities/land. Each tract within the Specific Plan area could either provide adequate local park facilities or pay fees to the City in lieu thereof or some combination of both approaches. The Project would result in an increase in 904 dwelling units compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, and a reduction in overall public parkland acreage (a reduction from 58.86 gross acres to 37.38 gross acres). The reduction in public parkland acreage is anticipated by TOP 2050 and is intended 645
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 52 of 76 ends

to allow for an increase in residential areas to assist the City in meeting its housing requirements. The reduced public parkland provided within the Specific Plan area with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would still meet the required parkland amount for the future residents. MM Serve 10 has been modified to reflect the timing for implementation of the Great Park (PA 21) with the proposed Project. The Project site is within the limits of the project that was analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Project does not propose the construction of additional parkland outside the limits of the Specific Plan area. Impacts related to park services would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Impacts to library services would be less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that potential impacts related to increased use of existing parks would be less than significant. The Parkside Specific Plan includes a portion of the City’s Great Park, which is part of a 355-acre regional park system for Ontario Ranch, and private parkland space. The increase in population generated by the Project would increase the demand for park facilities. As with the approved Specific Plan, the proposed Project would include public park acreage, which would ensure that the increase in residential units and associated population would not 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. MM Serv-10 would be implemented to ensure the construction of the portion of the Great Park within the Specific Plan area occurs in a timely manner relative to the buildout of the proposed residential uses. MM Serv-10 is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. No additional new or expanded park facilities would be required beyond the onsite recreational facilities, and there would not be an accelerated physical deterioration of local or regional parks, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 53 of 76 ends

mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR will continue to apply to the Project.
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR included evaluation of the physical environmental impacts resulting from implementation of park and recreational facilities within the Specific Plan area and mitigation measures were identified to reduce these impacts, as feasible.

The Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. No physical environmental impacts associated with construction of park and recreational facilities would occur beyond that already addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and this Addendum.

17. TRANSPORTATION
As discussed under Threshold “b” below, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, the requirement for analyzing congestion impacts for CEQA purposes has been eliminated. Notwithstanding, off-site mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR requiring the completion of intersection improvements or fair share payments to address operational deficiencies (refer to MM Trans-1 through MM Trans-31) remain applicable unless determined to no longer be necessary based on the Parkside Specific Plan Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed Project (Urban Crossroads, 2023c). The requirements for off-site traffic improvements would be included as conditions of approval for the Project.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing circulation system resulting in a less than significant impact at the Project level.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. The proposed Project does not involve any changes to the Specific Plan related to the circulation system, and mitigation measures from the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR requiring onsite or site-adjacent transportation improvements would be implemented: MM Trans-1 through MM Trans-8 (address on-site improvements), MM T-9 through MM Trans-31 (address off-site improvements). The mitigation measures that have not already been implemented are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR identified that at the time the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared, Omnitrans Bus Service did not provide bus services in the Project vicinity; however, bus turnouts and shelters to serve future residents would be provided as required by Omnitrans and as approved by the City. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Under existing conditions, there is a planned Bus Rapid Transit route along Haven Avenue and Edison Avenue. Additionally, there are existing bus stops along Edison/Ontario Ranch Road, approximately 0.25-mile east of the Project site, and Archibald Avenue approximately

0.1-mile north of the Project site. These bus stops are within walking distance of the Project site and would facilitate use of transit. Additionally, as required by the City and as outlined in the Parkside Specific Plan, the proposed Project would include the construction of required pedestrian 647
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 54 of 76 ends

facilities and bikeways, which would connect to existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the Project site, and existing transit facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, this Addendum does not expand into new areas of analysis.

See CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064.3(b)(1) and 15007 (new guidelines apply prospectively); see also Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1320 (adoption of new guidelines for GHG evaluation was not significant new information requiring further CEQA review because GHG emissions were known information and could have been addressed in the original EIR); Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Dept. of Health Servs. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605 (new critical habitat regulation was not significant new information because impacts to the species had already been addressed in original EIR). Further, VMT associated with the proposed Project does not constitute new significant information requiring additional environmental analysis. The adoption of VMT as a metric for analyzing transportation impacts (and corresponding GHG impacts) pursuant to SB 743 is not new information, as VMT-related impacts were knowable and known when the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared. Therefore, no further analysis of the Project’s VMT for analyzing transportation impacts is required in this Addendum.

Notwithstanding, the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (July 13, 2023) (VMT Analysis) (Urban Crossroads, 2023b) was prepared to compare the VMT generated by the proposed Project to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, using methodologies established by the City in Resolution No. 2020-071. The VMT Analysis is included in Attachment E of this Addendum.

As previously discussed, the Project would increase residential units by 904 dwelling units as compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, which would result in an increase in vehicular trips and an associated increase in total Origin/Destination (OD) VMT. However, TOP 2050 anticipated that the Specific Plan area would be developed with up to 3,858 residential units.

Therefore, the proposed Project would result in 1,007 fewer residential units as compared to the TOP 2050 assumptions. Although the Project would result in an increase in vehicular trips compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan, the Project’s anticipated vehicle trips would be within the assumptions analyzed in the TOP 2050 Final EIR. As shown in Table 3 of the VMT Analysis, total OD VMT divided by the proposed Project’s service population (SP) results in a lower OD VMT/SP for the proposed Project as compared to the approved Parkside Specific Plan (13.31 648
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 55 of 76 ends

compared to 19.44). Similarly, the Boundary VMT/SP in both the City of Ontario boundary and 10- mile radii boundary of the Project location is lower with the proposed Project compared to the Parkside Specific Plan. Specifically, the City Boundary VMT/SP with the proposed Project would be 13.55 compared to 13.61 with the approved Specific Plan and the 10-Mile Boundary VMT/SP with the proposed Project would be 15.99 compared to 16.01 with the approved Specific Plan.

These results indicate a more efficient land use plan when incorporated with the complementary land uses in the surrounding area. This is consistent with the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, which indicates that “[i]ncreasing residential densities affect the distance people travel and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing residential density results in shorter and fewer trips by single-occupancy vehicles and thus a reduction in GHG emissions.” This analysis indicates that the Project is more efficient from a VMT perspective as compared to the approved Specific Plan.

Access to the Specific Plan area would be provided from Edison Avenue/Ontario Rancho Road, Carpenter Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Archibald Avenue as anticipated in the Specific Plan, and internal roadways, access driveways, and sight distance would comply with the City design requirements, and roadway standards outlined in the Specific Plan (refer to MM Trans-1 through MM T-6 presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document). This impact would be less than significant.

As with the approved Specific Plan, implementation of the Project would improve emergency access by completing roadway segments in the Specific Plan area, and development would adhere to City of Ontario standard conditions of approval and permits related to emergency access. Access 649
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 56 of 76 ends

to the Project site would be provided from Edison Avenue/Ontario Rancho Road, Carpenter Avenue, Eucalyptus Avenue, and Archibald Avenue as anticipated in the Specific Plan, and would comply with applicable requirements for emergency access. This impact would be less than significant.

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. The provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 are not applicable to the proposed Project. AB 52 applies “…only to a project that has a notice of preparation or a notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration filed on or after July 1, 2015.” AB 52, which became effective on July 1, 2015, established a consultation process with California Native American tribes, and established Tribal Cultural Resources as a new class of resources to be considered in the determination of project impacts and mitigation under CEQA. AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project, if they have requested such notice in writing. The project notification is required prior to the lead agency’s release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt an MND or ND, and is not required for Addendums. However, the analysis of impacts to cultural resources, including prehistoric archaeological sites, resulting from implementation of the Parkside Specific Plan is provided in the Cultural Resources section of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, as summarized previously in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR found that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with implementation of mitigation measures.

Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. The consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code 65450 et seq.), and not the CEQA process. The City completed the required Native American consultation pursuant to SB 18. One of the tribes contacted by the City requested consultation (Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation [Kizh Nation]). No information has been provided indicating that tribal cultural resources are presented within the Project site.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Discussion of Effects: As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum, the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR analysis concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in the destruction of historical resources and impacts would be less than significant.

The Project site is undeveloped, previously disturbed by existing and previous agricultural activities, and entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. There are no historic resources as defined in CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 at, or in the vicinity of the Project site and no impacts to tribal cultural resources 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) would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

Page 57 of 76 ends

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: The Project site is undeveloped, previously disturbed by existing and previous agricultural activities, and entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. There are no known tribal cultural resources within the Parkside Specific Plan Area, including the Project site. Consistent with the analysis conclusions for archaeological resources presented in the Cultural Resources section of this Addendum, there is a low potential for adverse environmental impacts to previously undiscovered resources. The Final EIR includes MM Cultural-1, which outlines actions to take in the event unknown resources are discovered during grading. MM Cultural-1, which is presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document, would be applicable to the Project, and impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

Notwithstanding, based on the results of the Native American consultation conducted by the City pursuant to SB 18, during construction of the proposed Project the Project Applicant would adhere to the provisions of the Native American Monitoring Services Agreement executed in June 2020 for the Parkside Condominium Project between the Project Applicant and the Kizh Nation. This Agreement is included in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Adherence to this agreement would expand on the requirements outlined in MM Cultural-1 and would ensure that impacts to previously unknown tribal cultural resources during construction, should such resources be present, would be less than significant.

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?
Discussion of Effects: The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR identifies the required infrastructure systems necessary to serve the proposed development within the Specific Plan area, and the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR addressed the utility demands associated with proposed development and potential environmental impacts associated with installation of the required infrastructure. Utility and service system impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The required mitigation focuses on requirements for design, funding, construction, and review of utility infrastructure.

Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be an associated increase in demand for water, electricity, natural gas, etc. and wastewater generation; however, the proposed Project does not involve any changes that would require new or expanded utility infrastructure beyond that already anticipated in the Parkside Specific Plan and evaluated in the associated Final EIR, and on-site utility infrastructure that would serve the Project. With respect to storm drain facilities, as discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this Addendum, the proposed Project would not 651
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 58 of 76 ends

substantially alter the post-development drainage characteristics of the Project site; therefore, the existing off-site storm drain system has sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from the Project site and the onsite storm drain system would connect to the existing drainage system. Further, MM Util-1 through MM Util-7 and MM Util-9 require that utility infrastructure be constructed and funded to the satisfaction of the City, require implementation of sustainable systems for water and energy, and coordination with utilities agencies. These MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document. Impacts related to the installation of utility infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Project would be less than significant, consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in the Specific Plan area (an increase of 904 units) and decrease the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 610 and SB 221, a Projectspecific Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, Parkside Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario (WSA) (Webb, 2022), was prepared for the proposed Project, and is included in Attachment F of this Addendum. The WSA identifies that the City of Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC) is the water supplier for the proposed Project.

According to the WSA, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) used the approved land use plans for each Specific Plan, including the Parkside Specific Plan, to calculate project water demands. The estimated water demands for the approved Specific Plan included in the 2020 UWMP was calculated to be a total of 1,301 acre-feet per year (AFY) (965 AFT potable water and 336 AFY recycled water). The estimated potable water demand for buildout of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is 1,225 AFY (915 AFY and recycled water demand of 310 AFY).

Because the City’s water demand projections for the same piece of land in the 2020 UWMP were higher than with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the Project-specific WSA concludes that the water demand for the Project was accounted for the most recently adopted 2020 UWMP.

Additionally, State mandated conservation efforts would reduce demand in the future. Impacts to water supplies are considered less than significant consistent with the conclusion of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. Notwithstanding, MM Util-6, which requires implementation of sustainable design features to reduce water consumption, and MM Util-7, which requires the construction of a dual pipe system to supply reclaimed water would be implemented. These MMs are presented under the discussion of “Earlier Analysis” at the end of this document.

Page 59 of 76 ends

including Regional Plant No. 5 (RP-5) to handle the wastewater flows discharging from the Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the TOP Final SEIR also identified that sufficient capacity would be available in the City and IEUA sewage system.

The Specific Plan area, including the Project site, is served by the City of Ontario sewer system, which has wastewater treated by the IEUA at RP-5. RP-5 is located in the City of Chino at 6063 Kimball Avenue, and serves the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario. RP-5 has a current capacity of 16.3 million gallons per day (mgd), which will increase to 22.5 mgd with its planned expansion project that is currently under construction (IEUA, 2023). According to IEUA’s 2020 UWMP, RP-5 treats 8.4 MGD and has an excess capacity of 7.9 MGD. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in the Specific Plan area (an increase of 904 units); however, as discussed above the overall water demand would be reduced. Therefore, because the amount of wastewater generated is based on water consumption, wastewater generation from the proposed Project would also be reduced compared to the previously approved uses analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and assumed in IEUA’s 2020 UWMP. The proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of RP-5 and this impact would be less than significant.

Since the certification of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the El Sobrante Landfill has increased its maximum permitted capacity from 6,000 tons per day (tpd) to 16,054 tpd (as of 2023) and the Badlands Landfill, which has a maximum permitted capacity of 5,000 tpd (as of 2023), also receives solid waste from the City. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would increase the allowed number of units in the Specific Plan area (an increase of 904 units); however, the proposed allowed number of units in the Specific Plan area would include 1,007 fewer units than what is anticipated in the TOP and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for the Specific Plan area. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed in the Specific Plan area (residential, commercial and park) or the sources of solid waste generation. The TOP Final SEIR concluded that build out of the TOP Policy Plan, which includes the proposed increase in units in the Specific Plan area, would result in less than significant impacts related to landfill capacity.

Further, considering the proposed Project's future residents’ participation in the source reduction and household hazardous waste programs offered by the City, and which are more stringent then when the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared, the solid waste stream generated by the additional residential uses may be reduced over time. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the generation of solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and this impact would be less than significant.

Page 60 of 76 ends

the Specific Plan area, the proposed residential, commercial and park uses that would be developed within the Project site with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also be required to comply with applicable regulations related to solid waste management, disposal, recycling, etc., and this impact would be less than significant.

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Discussion of Effects: As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of this Addendum, the Parkside Specific Plan area is not subject to wildfires. The State Responsibility Area (SRA) is the land where the State of California is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires. The SRA does not include lands within city boundaries or in federal ownership; therefore, the Project site is not within an SRA. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the City of Ontario, including the Project site, is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) (CalFire, 2023). As such, no impacts related to wildfires would occur.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion of Effects: The Project site is undeveloped, disturbed by existing and previous agricultural uses, and is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. As discussed in the Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of this Addendum, impacts to biological resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation, consistent with the conclusions of the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Page 61 of 76 ends

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.) Discussion of Effects: The potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR include agricultural impacts (loss of Farmland), air quality impacts, surface water quality (due to impaired receiving waters),operational traffic-related noise impacts, operational traffic (level of service), and utility and service systems (solid waste) impacts.

Substantial changes are not proposed with the Project and the proposed Project would not require revisions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of up to 1,947 single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (includes what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails within 26 PAs. Further, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan anticipates up to 3,858 units within the Specific Plan area, which was evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units, and reduce the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment clarifies the housing typologies to facilitate implementation of the Residential Design Guidelines and allows for additional housing typologies to be developed in certain PAs. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed (residential, commercial, and park), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. Additionally, there would be 1,007 fewer units than anticipated in TOP 2050 for the Specific Plan area and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. As evaluated throughout this Addendum, the Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts than previously evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts would also be the same.

Mitigation: None required. The proposed Project would not result in any new, substantially more severe, or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. No changes or additions to the previous environmental documents are necessary, nor is there a need for any additional mitigation measures.
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion of Effects: Substantial changes are not proposed with the proposed Project and the proposed Project would not require revisions to the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of up to 1,947 single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (includes what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails within 26 PAs. As previously identified, the proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units, and reduce the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment clarifies the housing typologies to facilitate implementation of the Residential Design Guidelines and allows for additional housing typologies to be developed in certain PAs. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed (residential, commercial, and park), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. Additionally, there would be 1,007 fewer units than anticipated in TOP 2050 for the Specific Plan area and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any adverse effects to human beings directly or indirectly that were not considered in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR.
655
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 62 of 76 ends

EARLIER ANALYSIS
(Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D)):
1) Earlier analyzes used. Identify earlier analyzes used and state where they are available for review. a) The Ontario Plan 2050 Final SEIR
b) The Ontario Plan 2050
c) The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR
d) The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program e) The Parkside Specific Plan
All documents listed above are on file with the City of Ontario Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, California 91764, (909) 395-2036. Other references used to prepare this Addendum are listed below.
2) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards.

Most of the checklist items were analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR evaluated the impacts associated with the development of 1,947 single- and multi-family residential units; approximately 11.8 acres of commercial/retail (115,000 sf); approximately 52 acres of parks (includes what is now referred to as the Great Park); the Cucamonga Creek Channel (approximately 13 acres); and recreation trails within 26 PAs. Further, the TOP 2050 Policy Plan anticipates up to 3,858 units within the Specific Plan area, which was evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR.

The proposed Project includes a Specific Plan Amendment that would primarily increase the total area to be developed with residential uses and the total number of residential units, and reduce the amount of commercial and park area, consistent with TOP 2050. Additionally, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment clarifies the housing typologies to facilitate implementation of the Residential Design Guidelines and allows for additional housing typologies to be developed in certain PAs. Minor changes to the text, graphics and tables in the Parkside Specific Plan associated with these changes are also proposed. There would be no change in the type of land use allowed (residential, commercial, and park), and the Project site is entirely within the physical impact area evaluated in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR and TOP Final SEIR. Additionally, there would be 1,007 fewer units than anticipated in TOP 2050 for the Specific Plan area and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR. Additionally, the City’s infrastructure systems would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not introduce any impacts beyond those previously analyzed in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR or TOP Final SEIR.

MITIGATION MEASURES (For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project):

As the proposed Project does not have any adverse environmental impacts beyond those identified in the previous environmental document, no mitigation beyond that previously imposed is required. The Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR mitigation measures applicable to the proposed Project are listed below. Mitigation measures that have been completed or that otherwise not applicable to the proposed Project are also listed, with the current status identified. 656
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 63 of 76 ends

Agricultural Resources
MM Ag-1: In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, each Specific Plan developed for properties within the NMC must comply with the Agricultural Overlay District requirements for urban development in proximity to existing agricultural operations. The proposed project shall establish a minimum 100-foot separation between active agricultural operations and new, nonagricultural development, or an equivalent easement that is approved by the City of Ontario.

MM Ag-2: In order to minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses, all residential units in the Parkside Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure, or similar notice, approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature, including odors, of neighboring agricultural uses.

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

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

MM Air-3: Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference.

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

Biological Resources
MM Bio-1: There may be a probability of owl colonization within the project site considering the presence of foraging habitat and previous records of presence. To ensure that no direct loss of individuals occurs, mitigation shall be completed prior to initiation of on-site grading activities for each development phase. A pre-construction survey for resident burrowing owls will be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey will be conducted 30 days prior to construction activities. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction survey, the site should be resurveyed for owls.

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

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

Passive relocation can be used to exclude owls from their burrows (outside the breeding season or once the young are able to leave the nest and fly) by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances.

These one-way doors allow the owl to exit the burrow, but not enter it. These doors should be left in 657
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 64 of 76 ends

place 48 hours to ensure owls have left the burrow. Artificial burrows should be provided nearby. The project area should be monitored daily for one week to confirm owl use of burrows before excavating burrows in the impact area. Burrows should be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Sections of flexible pipe should be inserted into the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any animals inside the burrow.

MM Bio-2: The project proponent shall be required to pay City of Ontario open space mitigation fees.

Fees collected will be used “to acquire and restore mitigation lands to offset impacts to species now living in the New Model Colony and impacts to existing open space,” according to the City of Ontario Development Impacts Fee Calculation Report and the Settlement and general Release Agreement.

Development is currently required to pay $4,320 per acre. Therefore, the proposed project will pay approximately $2,298,240 for open space acquisition based upon the current fee.

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

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

If active nests are located during the preconstruction surveys, no grading, heavy equipment, or tree removal activities shall take place within at least 500 feet of an active listed species or raptor nest, 300 feet of other sensitive bird nests (non-listed), and 100 feet of most common songbird nests.

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

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

MM Cultural-3: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to prepare a Paleontological Resources Survey of the project site, for approval by the City, to determine the site-specific potential of finding paleontological resources within the project site. If the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is unlikely that paleontological resources will be uncovered by earth-moving activities, grading and construction activities may proceed, subject to compliance with all other mitigation measures. However, if the approved Paleontological Resources Survey determines that it is likely that paleontological resources will be uncovered during earth-moving activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to develop a Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (PRMTP) for approval by the City. Following City approval of the PRMTP, grading and construction activities may proceed in compliance with the provisions of the approved PRMTP. The PRMTP shall include the following measures:
658
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 65 of 76 ends

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

Geology and Soils
MM Geo-1: To reduce impacts associated with erosion due to high winds, prior to construction, all tentative tracts and other construction activities will apply for and adhere to the permit given by the City of Ontario and enforced by the Building Official found in Title 6, Chapter 12, sections 6-12.01 –6-12.07.

The permit lasts for one (1) year, therefore, all construction lasting for a period of more than one calendar year from the date of issue will reapply for the permit and pay appropriate annual fees. At a minimum, the permit prohibits the disturbance of the surface or subsurface of more than one (1) acre of land without meeting permit requirements which can include such things as the application of soil stabilizers and limitations on grading activities during wind events. 659
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 66 of 76 ends

MM Geo-2: To properly assess and address the suitability of on-site soils to be used as fill, a geotechnical evaluation shall be performed by a qualified professional prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract map or site plan for a given phase of development. This evaluation will include an analysis of the organic matter content of soils on the site. If the organic matter content of the soils is greater than 2 percent when mixed with subsurface soils and/or imported fill, then manure will be removed from the site prior to grading operations.

MM Geo-3: Site materials should be continuously tested and excavated to a minimum of 4 feet where soils generally become denser. Actual removal depths will be determined during grading when subsurface conditions are exposed. Input of crop residues and application of organic fertilizers at this site could have resulted in high soil organic matter contents. The mitigation proposed in Section III-6, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, will also mitigate for the management of organic matter in the soil.

Hazardous Materials
MM Haz-1: During development of the Specific Plan, if soils are found to be contaminated with petroleum products or other hazardous materials, they will be excavated and properly disposed of. After removal of contaminated soils, confirmation samples will be collected from the excavation to confirm adequate removal of petroleum-impacted soils.

MM Haz-2: All septic tanks encountered on the project site will be properly removed and disposed of, per City and State procedures, prior to site development. All water wells on the project site which are proposed to be abandoned will be properly destroyed prior to site development in accordance with City requirements. These activities will be subject to the City of Ontario Building Safety requirements.

MM Haz-3: If, while performing any excavation as part of project construction, material that is believed to be hazardous waste is discovered, as defined in Section 25117 of the California Health & Safety Code, the developer shall contact the City of Ontario Fire Department and the County of San Bernardino Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Excavation shall be stopped until the material has been tested and the presence of hazardous waste has been confirmed. If no hazardous waste is present, excavation may continue. If hazardous waste is determined to be present, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control shall be contacted and the material shall be removed and disposed of pursuant to applicable provisions of California law.

MM Haz 4: Prior to demolition of all onsite buildings and remaining foundations that were built before 1978 shall be evaluated for the presence of asbestos, mercury and lead-based paint and those materials shall be removed according to the applicable regulations and guidelines established by the South Coast Management District, Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As per HM-2 in the GPA for the NMC Final EIR, page 5.10-6, the developer shall submit documentation to the City Building Department that asbestos, mercury and leadbased paint are not present on their site, ort that the above removal process has occurred.

Note: onsite buildings and foundations have been removed; therefore, MM Haz 4 is complete.

MM Haz-5: To properly assess and address the suitability of on-site soils to be used as fill, a geotechnical evaluation shall be performed by a qualified professional prior to the approval of the Tentative Tract map or site plan for a given phase of development. Fill material imported from other areas shall be tested prior to placement on-site to assess that it is suitable to be used as fill, including testing for unsafe levels of hazardous materials. This evaluation, on both on- and off-site soils, will include an analysis of the organic matter content of the soils. If the organic matter content of the soils is greater than 2 percent when mixed with subsurface soils and/or imported fill, then manure will be removed from the site prior to grading operations.

MM Haz-6: To reduce the risk of ground cracking, manure shall be removed from the site, such that the organic matter content of on-site soils shall not exceed 2 percent (a 2 percent total organic content is allowed, of which no more than 1 percent can be manure) in the building foundation areas when mixed with underlying clean soils and imported fill.
660
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 67 of 76 ends

MM Haz-7: To mitigate for any potential impacts related to proximity to the Chino Airport, all development within the Specific Plan will comply with the building height constraints identified in the GPA for the NMC (1998).

MM Haz-8: To disclose to the buyer or lessee of subdivided lands within the Parkside Specific Plan project of the proximity of this site to the Chino Airport as required by AB 2776, the City shall disclose, and ensure that the developer makes such disclosures, as required by law to all future buyers.

Hydrology and Water Quality
MM Hydro-1: In order to ensure that construction activities associated with the Parkside Specific Plan will not cause a violation of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements and to assure no substantial degradation of water quality occurs, and to implement the intent of mitigation measures included in the Final EIR for the GPA for the NMC, developments within the project area shall comply with all applicable provisions of the state’s General Permit for Construction Activities (Order No. 99-08- DWQ, or most recent version) during all phases of construction. A copy of evidence of the receipt of a Waste Discharge Identification Number from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board shall be filed with the City Engineer along with a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) maps and BMPs. The City Engineer shall review and approve the provisions of the SWPPP prior to implementation of any SWPPP provision or starting any construction activity.

MM Hydro-2: In order to ensure that development within the Specific Plan will not cause or contribute to violations of any water quality standard or waste discharge requirements, and to assure no substantial degradation of water quality occurs, the project will complete a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) pursuant to the MS4 permit (Order No. 2002-0012) adopted by the City of Ontario. The project shall incorporate Site Design BMPs and Source Control BMPs, and potentially Treatment Control BMPs. The following tables (Table III-7-F and G) provide guidelines and BMPs that shall be incorporated as appropriate into project design (on construction drawings) and/or project specifications and implemented in the field to reduce the expected pollutants from various types of development.

Table III-7-G correlates each BMP to the pollutants of concern which it removes/reduces and/or meets the design objectives for the BMP.

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

MM Hydro-4: In order to reduce the risk of flooding and to implement mitigation measures included in the GPA for the NMC Final EIR, prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Ontario shall coordinate with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to ensure that the project meets County flood control requirements.

MM Hydro-5: In order to conserve water and to mitigate for any potential unforeseen adverse impacts to a reduction in ground water recharge, the following measure has been recommended by the Chino Basin Water Conservation District. Landscaping within individual development projects and the 52-acre Great Park will retain and percolate both applied irrigation water and storm water in vegetated areas of parking lots and other areas, where appropriate; “depressed” planted areas bordered by shrubbery screens will be implemented rather than “mounded” grass and shrubbery planted screens.

Neighborhood Edges and parks will be irrigated via reclaimed water.

MM Hydro-6: In order to reduce pollutants in post construction run-off and to implement mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the NMC, the individual project owners and operators (e.g., homeowner associations, retail center owners, school district, parks department, etc.) shall ensure that all pest control, herbicide, insecticide and other similar substances used as part 661
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 68 of 76 ends

of maintenance of project features are handled, stored, applied and disposed of by those conducting facility maintenance in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state and local regulations. The city Engineer shall monitor and enforce this provision.

MM Hydro-7: To mitigate possible temporary run-off from undeveloped properties located north (upgradient) of the project site, drainage from properties north of the project site shall be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities, as approved by the City Engineer.

Noise
MM Noi-1: The construction activities of the proposed project shall comply with the City of Ontario noise ordinance that prohibits construction activities on Sundays, federal holidays, and other days between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

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

MM Noi-3: A sound wall at least 7 feet high (relative to pad elevation) shall be constructed along the project site boundary for all perimeter lots adjacent to Archibald Avenue. If any residential structures are two-stories high, then windows facing Archibald Avenue would need to have upgraded sound rated glazing products and the rooms would need to have supplemental ventilation. A final acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall heights based on final grading plans. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.

MM Noi-4: A sound wall at least 6 feet high (relative to pad elevation) shall be constructed along the project site boundary for all perimeter lots adjacent to Edison Avenue/Ontario Rancho Road. If any residential structures are two-stories high, then windows facing Edison Avenue/Ontario Ranch Road would need to have upgraded sound rated glazing products and the rooms would need to have supplemental ventilation. A final acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall heights based on final grading plans. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.

Note: Edison Avenue is now Ontario Ranch Road adjacent to the Project site.

MM Noi-5: A sound wall at least 7 feet high (relative to pad elevation) shall be constructed along the project site boundary for all perimeter lots adjacent to Eucalyptus Avenue. If any residential structures are two-stories high, then windows facing Eucalyptus Avenue would need to have upgraded sound rated glazing products and the rooms would need to have supplemental ventilation. A final acoustical report shall be submitted to address wall heights based on final grading plans. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits.

MM Noi-6: Architectural plans shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for an acoustical plan check prior to the issuance of building permits to assure the proper window and/or doors are upgraded for sound reduction and proper ventilation systems are incorporated in order to meet the interior noise level requirement.

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

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

MM Serv–3: To reduce fire hazards when water is provided to the site, adequate fire flow pressure shall be provided for residential areas and non-residential projects in accordance with currently adopted standards (2001 California Fire Code Appendix III-A).
662
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 69 of 76 ends

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

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

MM Serv-6: To reduce fire hazards, access roadways designed in accordance with Fire Department standards to within 150’ of all structures, shall be provided prior to the framing stages of construction.

This access is to be maintained in an unobstructed manner throughout construction.

MM Serv 7: A fire station located within the Specific Plan must be operational prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy in the Specific Plan.

Note: the required fire station has been constructed.

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

MM Serv-9: The developer shall pay school fees or otherwise meet project obligations to schools, as required by Mountain View Unified and Chaffey Joint Union High School Districts.

MM Serv-10: The portions of the Great Park (PA 2122) located east of Cucamonga Creek shall be constructed no later than the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last housing unit in PAs 1 - 4 and PAs 17 - 19. The portion of the Great Park located west of Cucamonga Creek in PA 22 21 east of Hellman Avenue shall be constructed no later than the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last housing unit in PAs 5-106 and PA 16. The remainder of PA 212 located west of Hellman Avenue shall be constructed no later than the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the last housing unit in PAs 7 – 10 and 11 – 1614.

Note: MM Serve-10 has been revised to reflect current PA numbers.

Transportation
As identified in the Transportation section of this Addendum, pursuant to SB 743, VMT has replaced the automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) for the purposes of determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA. Even though the analysis of LOS impacts is no longer required for CEQA analysis, the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR included an evaluation of potential intersection impacts based on LOS standards and identified mitigation measures for these impacts. Below is a list of transportation-related mitigation measures included in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR.

Intersection improvement requirements are listed in this Addendum for informational purposes. An “*” identifies the improvements that are identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR as requiring the Applicant to pay their proportionate share (prior to building permit issuance) or install (prior to occupancy of any structure). The City requires preparation of a current traffic study to identify intersection deficiencies resulting from proposed development and to ensure that necessary roadway improvements are implemented. As identified in the Parkside Specific Plan Final EIR, the determination of whether the payment of proportionate share or installation of the improvements is required shall be made by the City Engineer at the time of Tentative Tract Map approval and will be based on the current traffic study. The method for determining proportionate share is identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

MM Trans-1*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. Two right-turn lanes.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane. 663
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 70 of 76 ends

MM Trans-2*: Modify the intersection of future Carpenter Street/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One shared left-turn, through and right-turn lane.

Southbound: N/A
Eastbound: Two through lanes. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

Intersection: Control: Install Signal.

MM Trans-3*: Modify the intersection of future Carpenter Street/Merrill/Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: N/A
Southbound: One shared left-turn, through and right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One shared left-turn and through lane. One through lane.

Westbound: One through lane. One shared through and right-turn lane.

Intersection: Control: TWSC.

MM Trans-4: Construction of full width of internal roadways and part width of the following roadways shall comply with City of Ontario Standards:
• Construct partial width improvements on the westerly side of Archibald Avenue at its ultimate crosssection as a divided arterial parkway 1A with bikeway (165’ right-of-way) adjacent to project boundary line. Note: this improvement has been completed by others. • Construct partial width improvements on the southerly side of Edison Avenue at its ultimate crosssection as divided arterial parkway 1A (160’ right-of-way) adjacent to project boundary line. • Construct partial width improvements on the northerly side of Merrill Avenue at its ultimate crosssection as a standard arterial (108’ right-of-way) adjacent to project boundary line.

MM Trans-4a: Intersection, median opening, and traffic signal spacing shall be in accordance with the City of Ontario New Model Colony Access Guidelines.

MM Trans-5: Sight distance at the project entrance roadways should be reviewed with respect to standard City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans.

MM Trans-6: Signing/striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site.

MM Trans-7: The City should work with Omnitrans to develop additional routes and service for both local and regional service to the project area.

MM Trans-8: The City should establish a Transportation System Management (TSM) Program with the goal of reducing vehicle trips to and from land uses within the City, and particularly focusing on the reduction of drive-alone vehicle use in work commuting. The program should set the overall policy and goals for trip reduction measures within the City, and require new developments to implement programs and measures to ensure compliance with those goals, such as preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, flex-time work hours, compressed work week, and distribute on of information about ridesharing and transit services.

MM Trans-9: The project will participate in the cost of off-site improvements through fair-share payment of the Development Impact fee as established by the City of Ontario. These fees should be collected and utilized as needed by the City to construct the improvements necessary to maintain the required level of service.
664
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 71 of 76 ends

MM Trans-10*: Modify the intersection of Euclid Avenue/Riverside Drive to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One shared right-turn/through lane.

MM Trans-11*: Modify the intersection of Euclid Avenue/Chino Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One share right-turn/through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-12*: Modify the intersection of Euclid Avenue/ Schaefer Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Four through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One shared right-turn/through lane.

MM Trans-13*: Modify the intersection of Euclid Avenue/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. Two right-turn lanes.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-14*: Modify the intersection of Euclid Avenue/Merrill Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Four through lanes. Two right-turn lanes.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes.

Eastbound: N/A
Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-15*: Modify the intersection of Grove Avenue/ Riverside Drive to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One shared right-turn/through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-16*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Grove Avenue/ Chino Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane. 665
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 72 of 76 ends

MM Trans-17*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Grove Avenue/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-18*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Grove Avenue/ Merrill Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: N/A
Southbound: One shared left-turn and right-turn lane. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes.

Westbound: Two through lanes. One shared right-turn/through lane.

MM Trans-19*: Modify the intersection of Vineyard Avenue/Riverside Drive to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-20*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/SR-60 WB Ramps to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

Southbound: Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: N/A
Westbound: One left-turn lane. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-21*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/SR-60 EB Ramps to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: N/A
MM Trans-22*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Riverside Drive to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One shard right-turn/ through lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

MM Trans-23*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Chino Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.
666
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 73 of 76 ends

MM Trans-24*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Schaefer Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One shared right-turn/ through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. Two right-turn lanes.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

MM Trans-25*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. Two shared right-turn/ through lanes.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

MM Trans-26*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Merrill Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

MM Trans-27*: Modify the intersection of Archibald Avenue/Cloverdale Road to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Four through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Four through lanes.

Eastbound: N/A
Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-28*: Modify the intersection of Haven Avenue/Riverside Drive to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. Two right-turn lanes.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

MM Trans-29*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Haven Avenue/Edison Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One shared right-turn/through lane.

Southbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One through lane. One shared right-turn/through lane.

Westbound: One left-turn lane. One through lane. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.
667
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 74 of 76 ends

MM Trans-30*: Add traffic signal and modify the intersection of Hamner Avenue/ Eucalyptus Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes.

Southbound: Three through lanes. Two right-turn lanes.

Eastbound: Two left-turn lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: N/A
Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

MM Trans-31*: Modify the intersection of Hamner Avenue/Bellegrave Avenue to include the following geometrics:

Northbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Southbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Eastbound: One left-turn lane. Two through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Westbound: Two left-turn lanes. Three through lanes. One right-turn lane.

Note: the identified improvements have been completed.

Utilities and Service Systems
MM Util-1: All water and sewer pipelines within and adjacent to the project boundaries shall be constructed and/or funded for construction on a fair-share basis based on the NMC Infrastructure Master Plans and/or the interim sewer plan herein, and to the satisfaction of the City.

MM Util-2: The Archibald trunk sewer line off-site connection to the IEUA Kimball Avenue interceptor shall be complete and operational prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy for development located east of the Cucamonga Creek Channel. The applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in the development of the necessary sewer facilities.

MM Util-3: The planning areas located west of Cucamonga Creek Channel shall have sewer lines in place to connect, via master planned lines with the western area trunk sewer system in Euclid Avenue, or via the Carpenter Street interim connection to the eastern area trunk sewer system. The interim condition that may exist for the Specific Plan where the wastewater generated may be tied into the Eastern Trunk System (ETS) will be via a 36-inch line located in Vineyard Avenue, north of Merrill Avenue, a 15-inch line in Merrill Avenue from Vineyard Avenue to Carpenter Avenue, and a 15-inch line in Carpenter Avenue from Merrill Avenue to the ETS. This interim connection shall be constructed per the approved sewer master plan. Thus, should the approved master plan require larger size pipelines, the developer will be required to construct them. Installation of one of these connections shall be in place and operable prior to issuance of building permits for the development located west of Cucamonga Creek to the satisfaction of the City and IEUA.

MM Util-4: Off-site water lines, tanks, interconnectors and other facilities required in the Water Master Plan to provide water to the site shall be in place and operational prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in the development of these off-site facilities.

MM Util-5: Prior to obtaining grading permit(s), the project proponent shall coordinate with the applicable natural gas, electrical, and telephone utility providers for the project site to ensure that all existing underground and overhead lines are not damaged during project construction.

MM Util-6: To reduce the quantity of energy used and to conserve water resources, the project developer and City of Ontario should work to include sustainable systems for use of water and energy within the project design. One source of assistance in this regard is Southern California Gas Company Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000, which should be contacted at the time of development of the commercial center located within the project. 668
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 75 of 76 ends

MM Util-7: The project applicant shall plan and construct a dual pipe system to supply reclaimed water when available in the future (GP Policy 5.1.4). An Engineer’s Report approved by the City and the Department of Health Services is required prior to the use of recycled water.

MM Util-8: All existing agricultural wells on the project site will be destroyed and abandoned per the California Department of Health Services guidelines. A well use/destruction plan and schedule for all existing agricultural wells on the project site shall be prepared and submitted for approval, prior to the issuance of grading permits. This plan shall also include a temporary water supply plan, as applicable, in order to avoid potential significant temporary impacts resulting from the disruption of current water supply through the abandonment of on-site wells, the developer of any parcel located within the Specific Plan which contains a well that services one or more adjacent parcels that are not proposed to be developed in the current phase, shall provide the City Engineer with a temporary water supply plan for approval. Construction of any temporary pipes or facilities needed to provide water to the existing uses which are to temporarily remain shall be installed per City requirements at the developer’s expense.

Note: MM Util-8 has been completed.

MM Util-9: Prior to approval of the Specific Plan and EIR, a hydraulic analysis of the area served by the interim sewer main to be located in Carpenter Avenue shall be submitted to the City Engineer.

Note: MM Util-9 has been completed.
669
CEQA Environmental Checklist Form
File No(s).: PSPA21-006, PTTM22-024, PDEV22-037, PDEV22-029 & PDA05-002

Page 76 of 76 ends

REFERENCES
Cited As Reference
(CalFire, 2023) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2023 (November 13). Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Web. Accessed April 10, 2023. Available at:
https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b99 47bea1d4269997e86553
(CBWCD, 2023) Chino Basin Water Conservation District. 2023 (February 16). Percolation Basins.

Web. Accessed July 17, 2023. Available at:
https://www.cbwcd.org/129/Percolation-Basins
(CDC, 2018) California Department of Conservation. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder.

Web. Accessed March 22, 2023. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
(DTSC, 2023) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2023. EnviroStor Sites and Facilities Database. Web. Accessed: July 17, 2023. Available at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/?surl=imk7w
(DWR, 2023) Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2023. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. Web. Accessed: July 17, 2023. Available at :
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/
(FEMA, 2008) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008 (September 2). Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8639J. Web. Accessed: March 22, 2023.

Available at:
https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb5199644 4d4879338b5529aa9cd
(IEUA, 2023) Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). 2023. Facilities, Regional Water Recycling Plant No. 1. Web. Accessed July 17, 2023. Available:
https://www.ieua.org/facilities/regional-water-recycling-plant-no-1/ (LD King, 2022) LD King, 2022 (June). Parkside Specific Plan Amendment, City of Ontario – Impact of the Proposed Density Increase to the Master Plan Turner Storm Drain and WQMP’s.
(LD King, 2023) LD King 2023 (February). Parkside Specific Plan Amendment – Impact of Increased Dwelling Units to the proposed and existing Master Plan Sewer Systems. (OBC, 2022) Osborne Biological Consulting (OBC). 2022 (September 26). Habitat conditions for Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly on portion of the Parkside Specific Plan Ontario, California.
(Ontario, 2018) City of Ontario (Ontario). 2018 (July). Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Web. Accessed July 17, 2023. Available at:
https://www.ont-iac.com/airport-land-use-compatibility-plan/ (Urban Crossroads, 2023a) Urban Crossroads, 2023. (July 13). Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Operational Air Quality Assessment.
(Urban Crossroads, 2023b) Urban Crossroads, 2023. (July 13) Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis.
(Urban Crossroads, 2023c) Urban Crossroads, 2023 (July 13). Parkside Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (VCS, 2023a) VCS Environmental, 2023 (February 28). Burrowing Owl Breeding Season Survey Report and Biological Update for Parkside Specific Plan Amendment Project (Planning Areas 1 and 3); City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, California.
(VCS, 2023b) VCS Environmental, 2023 (July). Cultural Resources Assessment Parkside Specific Plan Project, Ontario California.
(Webb, 2022) Webb, 2022 (June 15). Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply.
670
Archibald Avenue
Ontario Ranch Road
Eucalyptus Avenue
20 22 Cucamonga Creek ChannelHellman Avenue Carpenter Avenue East Grand Park Drive East Gri th Court NTS
Exhibit 4-1: Land Use Plan
671
Net *
SF
111
156.62
191.68
131.79
162.67

14.77 14.87
1947
2851
Table 4-4: Parkside Land Use Summary
672
Net *
SF
1 1
1 1
13 13
250.89
248.46
216.2
214.31

14.77 14.87
1,947
2,851
673
DATE: July 17, 2023
TO: Sage McCleve, Lewis Management Corp.

FROM: Haseeb Qureshi, Ali Dadabhoy
JOB NO: 14759-04 AQ Assessment

PARKSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT OPERATIONAL AIR

QUALITY ASSESSMENT
As required by The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021070364) (TOP Final SEIR) mitigation measure MM AQ-1, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Operational Air Quality Assessment for the Parkside Specific Plan Amendment (Project), located in the City of Ontario.

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project proposes to amend the Parkside Specific Plan (Approved Specific Plan) to: (1) increase the overall unit count from 1,947 units to 2,851 units and the overall residential acreage from 156.62 gross acres to 191.68 acres; (2) reduce the size of PA 19 (Neighborhood Commercial) and amount of commercial development from 15.66 gross acres/115,000 sf to 2.68 acres/15,000 sf with the remainder of this PA (proposed PA 18) being designated Medium Density Residential consistent with the other PAs and The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050; and (3) clarify the description of housing typologies and expand the number of PAs in which each typology is allowed to be developed to encourage a diversity of housing types within the Specific Plan area. The analysis herein focuses on the net increase of 904 residential units and a reduction of 100,000 square feet of retail compared to the Approved Specific Plan.

It should also be noted that TOP 2050 anticipates development of up to 3,425 residential units within the Parkside Specific Plan area; therefore, the Project would allow 574 fewer units than what is anticipated in TOP 2050 and evaluated in the TOP Final SEIR for the Parkside Specific Plan area. 674
Sage McCleve
July 17, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

Ontario City CouncilDecember 19, 2023

Ontario City Council
December 19, 2023