Ontario City Council
April 16, 2024

BB&K 2020
SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SOFTWARE AS A SERVICES

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO

AND GRANICUS, LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment No. 1 as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF ONTARIO GRANICUS, LLC
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:

Approved By:

Scott Ochoa
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP
City Attorney
Attested By:

City Clerk
341
46700.00100\33287662.1

BB&K 2020
Attachment A
342
46700.00100
\33287662.1

BB&K 2020
343
46700.00100
\33287662.1

BB&K 2020
344
46700.00100
\33287662.1

BB&K 2020
345
46700.00100
\33287662.1

BB&K 2020
346
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Luis Batres
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 13
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE GROVE AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, FILE NO PSPA22-007, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2042 S. GROVE AVENUE (APN: 1050-491-11)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
April 16, 2024
SECTION:

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

A. A Resolution approving an addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the City of Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, in conjunction with File No. PGPA20-002; and B. A Resolution approving an amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan (File No. PSPA22- 007), to change the land use designation on 4.20 acres of land, from Office/Commercial to Business Park for property located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action. Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment would result in an increase in property taxes from future development and the one-time payment to the City for plan check fees and development impact fees.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Applicant, First Industrial Realty Trust, is proposing an Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 4.20 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park for property located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue. The proposed Amendment will bring the Specific Plan into compliance with The Ontario Plan Policy Plan (General Plan) land use plan designation of Business Park (0.6 FAR).

The Grove Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in 1993 to help facilitate the development of the Grove Avenue corridor as a light industrial and limited commercial business park. The specific plan covers approximately 250 acres of land along the east and west sides of Grove Avenue between 347
Mission Boulevard to the north and State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway) to the south. At the time of the specific plan’s establishment, there were several driving factors that helped form the specific plan, such as the direct connection to the Ontario Airport and the increasing growth of industrial development. These factors, along with others, continue to play a role in the development and improvement along Grove Avenue.

The land uses of the specific plan provide for airport-related uses including warehousing, light industrial, research and development, office development with a limited amount of support commercial use, and retail facilities, which support airport-bound visitors.

To allow for development flexibility, the specific plan is divided into three different land use designations - Business Park, Commercial, and Office/Commercial. The proposed Amendment will create consistency between the land use designation of the specific plan and the underlying Business Park land use designation established by The Ontario Plan (TOP). Over time, the Specific Plan has been amended in similar ways to help maintain consistency, while also keeping pace with changes in development trends and needs. The proposed Amendment will further this effort and help ensure the highest and best use is obtained on the project site without compromising the functionality and purpose of the Grove Avenue Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed Amendment will create a stronger connection and coordination between the parcels to the north and east, as they also have a Business Park land use designation.

PLANNING COMMISION REVIEW: On March 26, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the Addendum and the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report. The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan, modifying the existing land use of an existing parcel from Office/Commercial to Business Park. The Grove Avenue Specific Plan is intended to foster development of light industrial uses and office and commercial uses along Grove Avenue. The Specific Plan nor the project site are intended or suitable for residential development. As such, the proposed Amendment will not create a conflict with the Housing Element.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On April 19, 2011, the City Council approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT 348
ALUCP Map 2-2); [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3); [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4); and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, has been prepared. This Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of Project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference. 349
Case Planner: Luis E. Batres Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB 2/21/24 Approval File No.

PDEV22-040
PC 3/26/24 Recommend
Submittal Date: 8/24/22 CC 4/16/24 Final
FILE NO: PSPA22-007
SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider an Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 4.20 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park for property located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue. Submitted by First Industrial Realty Trust. City Council action is required.

PROPERTY OWNER: JAR Commercial Investments LLC.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and recommend the City Council: 1) Adopt a resolution approving the use of an Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364); and 2) Adopt a resolution approving File No. PSPA22-007, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and attached resolution, and subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached resolution as "Attachment A.” BACKGROUND: On August 24, 2022, the Applicant submitted an application for a Specific Plan Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan (File No. PSPA22-007) requesting to change the land use designation of 4.20 acres of land located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue from Office/Commercial to Business Park, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-040) to construct a new 61,867 square-foot industrial building with associated site improvements on the project site.

On February 21, 2024, the Development Advisory Board conducted a public hearing regarding the related Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-040) and approved the Project, subject to City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment.

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site consists of 4.20 acres of land, located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue, generally north of Philadelphia Street and west of Grove Avenue. The project site is in the Office/Commercial land use designation of the Grove Avenue Specific Plan, which is depicted in Figure 1: Project Location, below. The site is currently developed with an existing office and warehouse/storage building with surface parking and two points of vehicular access along Grove Avenue. The facilities are currently occupied by HHS Construction, which specializes in telecommunications infrastructure.

The Project site is bordered to the north and east by existing industrial developments that have a Grove Avenue Specific Plan land use designation of Business Park. The property 303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
March 26, 2024
Approval
350
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

to the south is developed with business park buildings and has a current Grove Avenue Specific Plan land use designation of Office/Commercial. Lastly, the properties to the west are not located within the Grove Avenue Specific Plan and are developed with industrial structures, outdoor storage yards and RV parking, and have a zoning designation of General Industrial (IG). The request to modify the current land use from Office/Commercial to Business Park on the subject property will align with the current land use designations to the north, south and east of the Project site. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in Table 1 below - "Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses".

Figure 1: Project Location
351
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site Industrial
Business Park (BP)

0.60 FAR
Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Office Commercial
North Industrial Business
Park
Business Park (BP)

0.60 FAR
Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Business Park
South Business Park
Business Park (BP)

0.60 FAR
Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Office Commercial
East Industrial Business
Park
Business Park (BP)

0.60 FAR
Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Business Park
West Industrial
Industrial

0.55 FAR General Industrial (IG) N/A
Tabe 1: Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses
PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Grove Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in 1993 to help facilitate the development of the Grove Avenue corridor as a light industrial and limited commercial business park. The specific plan covers approximately 250 acres of land along the east and west sides of Grove Avenue between Mission Boulevard to the north and State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway) to the south. At the time of the specific plan’s establishment, there were several driving factors that helped form the specific plan, such as the direct connection to the Ontario Airport and the increasing growth of industrial development. These factors, along with others, continue to play a role in the development and improvement of the Grove Avenue Specific Plan.

The Grove Avenue Specific Plan established the standards, regulations and design guidelines for development in the Specific Plan project area (see Figure 2: Grove Avenue Specific Plan Overall Land Use Map). The objectives of the Specific Plan are:
• To provide opportunities for the establishment of airport-serving light industrial land uses, airport-related businesses and office, and retail and support commercial development aimed at serving the needs of airport-bound visitors and nearby workers; and
• To create a distinctive identity for Grove Avenue in recognition of its importance as the primary transportation link between State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway) and the Ontario International Airport, by specifying design standards, as well as landscape and streetscape treatments for developments within the Grove Avenue Corridor; and • To obtain the highest and best use of the properties within the Grove Avenue Specific Plan area by maximizing the opportunities to intensify the existing and proposed land uses without compromising Grove Avenue’s function as the primary southern access to the Ontario International Airport via State Route 60. 352
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

The land uses of the specific plan provide for airport-related warehousing, light industrial, research and development, office development with a limited amount of support commercial use, and retail facilities, which support airport-bound visitors. To allow for development flexibility, the specific plan is divided into three different land use designations - Business Park, Commercial, and Office/Commercial. The proposed Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan will change the land use designation on the subject site from Office/Commercial to Business Park (see Figure 3: Grove Avenue Specific Plan Proposed Land Use Map).

This Specific Plan Amendment will facilitate the future development of a new 61,867 square foot industrial building along with associated site improvements on the 4.20-acre Project site. The requested land use change will coordinate well with the existing land uses to the north and east as they also have a Business Park land use designation and are developed with similar industrial buildings and/or uses.

Figure 2: Grove Avenue Specific Plan Overal Land Use Map 353
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

Over time, the Specific Plan has been amended in similar ways to help maintain consistency, while also keeping pace with changes in development trends and needs.

The proposed amendment will further this effort by changing the land use of the subject site to Business Park, which will help facilitate the development of a new light industrial use as envisioned by the Business Park designation. Additionally, the proposed amendment will help ensure the highest and best use is obtained on the project site without compromising the functionality and purpose of Grove Avenue or the Grove Avenue Specific Plan.

Traffic Analysis. To ensure the proposed Specific Plan amendment will not result in any impacts to traffic, a Trip Generation Assessment was prepared in accordance with the traffic study requirements of the City of Ontario and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The study determined all intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed land use change from Office/Commercial to Business Park. With the proposed project, roughly 1,269 new daily trips with 76 new AM and 81 new PM peak hour trips will be generated. This results in roughly 204 fewer two-way trips per day in comparison to the anticipated trip generations analyzed by the adopted TOP 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022. The report concluded that under these conditions, all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of

Figure 3: Grove Avenue Specific Plan Proposed Land Use Map 354
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

service. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan amendment and the anticipated project will not result in any new or additional impacts to traffic as the anticipated number of trips from the project site will not exceed the City’s daily vehicle trip threshold.

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

CORRESPONDENCE: As of the preparation of this Agenda Report, Planning Department staff has not received any written or verbal communications from the owners or occupants of properties surrounding the Project site or from the public in general, regarding the subject application.

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Decision preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolution as "Attachment A."
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (general plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan ("TOP"). More 355
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals.
 Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy  Operate in a Businesslike Manner
 Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods (2) Vision.

Distinctive Development:
 Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California. (3) Governance.

Decision Making:
 Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices.  G 1-2. Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision. (4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element:
 LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City.
 LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.  Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one 356
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report. The proposed project consists of an amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan, modifying the existing land use of an existing parcel from Office/Commercial to Business Park. The Grove Avenue Specific Plan is intended to foster development of light industrial uses, and office and commercial uses along Grove Avenue. The Specific Plan nor the project site are intended or suitable for residential development. As such, the proposed amendment will not create a conflict with the Housing Element.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: An Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), which was certified by the City Council on August 16, 2022, has been prepared. This Project introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of Project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference. 357
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
358
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

Exhibit B: Proposed Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-040) 359
RESOLUTION NO. PC24-008

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
ADDENDUM TO THE ONTARIO PLAN (TOP) 2025 SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2021070364), CERTIFIED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 16, 2022, ALL

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO. PSPA22-007.

WHEREAS, First Industrial Realty Trust (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA22-007, which consists of an Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan changing the land use designation of 4.20 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park, for property located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Grove Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in 1993 to help facilitate development of the Grove Avenue corridor as a light industrial and limited commercial business park. The specific plan covers approximately 250 acres of land along the east and west side of Grove Avenue between Mission Boulevard to the north and State Route 60 (Pomona Freeway) to the south. At the time of the specific plan’s establishment, there were several driving factors that helped form the specific plan, such as the direct connection to the Ontario Airport and the increasing growth of industrial development; and
WHEREAS, the Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) was certified by City Council on August 16, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as "Certified EIR"), in which development and use of the Project site was discussed; and
WHEREAS, File No. PSPA22-007 analyzed under the EIR Addendum, consist of a Specific Plan Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan requesting to change the land use designation of 4.20 acres of land located at 2042 S. Grove Avenue from Office/Commercial to Business Park, in conjunction with a Development Plan (File No.

PDEV22-040) to demolish an existing office and warehouse/storage building and construct a new 61,867 square-foot industrial building with associated site improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and 360
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum concluded that implementation of the Project could result in a number of significant effects on the environment that were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR, and that the Certified EIR identified mitigation measures that would reduce each of those significant effects to a less-than-significant level; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary to a project, but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from the Project, and that preparation of an Addendum to the Certified EIR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the lead agency on the Project, and the Planning Commission is the recommending authority for the requested approval to construct and otherwise undertake the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR Addendum for the Project, and has concluded that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent of supplemental EIR have occurred, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the EIR Addendum for the Project is on file in the Planning Department, located at 303 East B Street, Ontario, CA 91764, and is available for inspection by any interested person at that location and are, by this reference, incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
361
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), certified by the Ontario City Council on August 16, 2022, related to File No. PGA20-002; and
(2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022) that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022) was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the 362
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and (3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022) was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022); or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022); or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR (The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364) certified by City Council on August 16, 2022) would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

SECTION 3: Planning Commission Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2, above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council finds that based upon the entire record of proceedings before it, and all information received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR, and does hereby approve the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.
363
364
365
Planning Commission Resolution
File No. PSPA22-007
March 26, 2024

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2021070364).
(Addendum to follow this page)
366

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

1. Project Title/File Nos.: File Nos.: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007 First Grove

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

3. Contact Person : Luis E. Batres, Phone : (909) 395-2431, Email : [email protected]

4. Project Sponsor: First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc; 898 N. Pacific Coast Highway Ste. 175, El Segundo, CA 90245

5. Project Location: The Project site is located in southwestern San Bernardino County, within the City of Ontario. The City of Ontario is located approximately 40 miles from downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles from downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles from Orange County. As illustrated on Figures 1, Regional Location Map, and 2, Aerial Site Photograph, below, the Project site is located at 2042 South Grove Avenue (APN: 1050-491-11). The Project site is bordered by South Grove Avenue to the east, industrial uses to the west, and commercial/office uses to the north and south. Regional access is provided via State Route 83 (SR-83) and State Route 60 (SR-60).

6. Policy Plan (General Plan) Designation: Business Park

7. Zoning Designation: Existing – Specific Plan (Office/Commercial under the Grove Avenue Specific Plan); Proposed – Business Park

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

1. A Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-007) to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 4.2 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park; and

2. A Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-040) to construct a 61,867 square foot industrial building on 4.2 acres within the Business Park land use designation of the Grove Avenue Specific Plan. The Project is located at 2042 South Grove Avenue (APN: 1050-491-11).

Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA22-007)
The Grove Avenue Specific Plan was adopted in May 1993. The Specific Plan is located on 250.15 acres of land generally located north of the SR-60 and south of Mission Boulevard. The Specific Plan Amendment will include the following revisions to the Specific Plan:
• Exhibit 7, Land Use Plan, that currently identifies the 4.2 acres site, as of Office/Commercial and will be change to Business Park; and • Changes to Table 2, Grove Avenue Specific Plan Statistical Summary, to reflect land use change.
367
368
369
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Development Plan (File No. PDEV22-040)
The Project Applicant seeks to demolish the existing structures and re-develop the 4.2-acre site as a warehouse facility with approximately 61,867 square feet (s.f.) of building area as shown on Figure 3, Site Plan. Of the total building square footage, the Project would allocate 56,867 s.f. for warehousing/distribution and 7,500 s.f. for office uses. The Project would require demolition of the existing buildings and structures, associated on-site landscaping, and associated on-site parking.

Building Characteristics and Operations
As depicted in Figure 4, Building Elevations (North and West) and Figure 5, Building Elevations (South and East), the proposed building will be a one-story, 36-foot tall speculative warehouse/distribution and office facility, designed to be visually compatible with adjacent buildings and uses. The primary color scheme of the proposed building would include varying shades of white, grays, and dark grays and would be further accented with blue reflective glazing. The building is designed with 13 dock doors on the west-facing side of the building.

Although the ultimate end-user is unknown at this time, for purposes of conservative analysis, the Project is assumed to operate up to 24-hours daily, 7 days a week. Loading and unloading activities would occur at the back of the building at the west elevation.

Circulation and Parking
Vehicular access will be provided via 2 driveways on South Grove Avenue. The southern driveway would be restricted to passenger vehicles only. The Project includes surface parking with ±94 parking spaces. Of the ±94 spaces, there are ±90 standard automobile parking stalls, 3 standard accessible parking stalls, and 1 van accessible parking stall. Passenger vehicle parking stalls would be located in parking areas positioned at the eastern side of the proposed building, at the northwestern corner of the proposed building and along the western boundary of the Project site. Additionally, a bicycle rack would be provided at the northeastern corner of the building near the office space. The Project would further include 6 truck trailer parking spaces located along the western boundary of the Project site, closest to the 13 proposed dock doors.

Landscaping, Walls, and Lighting
As depicted in Figure 6, Landscape Plan, a variety of trees, shrubs, accent plants, and ground cover are proposed along the perimeter of the Project site and parking area. Landscaping will feature drought-tolerant plant materials for a total of 90 trees, including 53 15 gallon, 4 48” box, 8 36” box, and 25 24” box trees.

A proposed retaining wall would border portions of the northern, southern, and the entire western boundary of the site. Additionally, an 8-foot tall wrought iron tubular fence would border the Project’s northern, western, and eastern boundary.

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

Decorative architectural lighting as well as landscape lighting would also be installed to accent building entries as focal points throughout the site. Ornamental landscaping, lighting, walls and utility infrastructure improvements/connections would be installed per compliance with the City's Municipal Code.
370
371
372
373
374
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Infrastructure Improvements
Water service to the Project site will be provided by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As shown in Figure 7, Conceptual Utilities Plan, water would be accommodated via proposed water lines that would extend from the eastern portion of the building and proposed fire hydrants to an existing 6-inch water main on South Grove Avenue.

Sanitary sewer service to the Project site would be provided by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Sewer would be accommodated via proposed sewer lines that would extend from the northwestern and northeastern corners of the building to an existing 10-inch sewer main on South Grove Avenue.

Stormwater will be directed to the on-site underground infiltration/detention system between the parking stalls along the western boundary and the paved loading dock section. The overflow from the underground system will discharge through a proposed parkway drain onto South Grove Avenue. A system of catch basins laid around the site will collect and pre-treat stormwater before it enters the underground system via a network of PVC pipes. The existing drainage pattern of the rear bio-swale will be kept by including a pipe that runs along the west boundary of the site from north to south in order to collect stormwater from the northern property and convey it to the southern property.

Electricity will be provided by Southern California Edison. All new dry utility infrastructure would be installed underground and within the Project site.

Project Construction Characteristics:

Project construction would occur in one phase over approximately one year with an opening year of 2025. Construction activities and durations are as follows:
• Demolition
• Site Preparation & Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating & Landscaping
The Project will require demolition of the existing buildings and asphalt paving on site. As depicted in Figure 8, Conceptual Grading Plan, the Project would balance and no export/import of soils would be required.
375
376
377
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

9. Project Setting: As shown in Figure 2, the Project site is currently developed with two buildings (an office and a warehouse/maintenance building) including associated parking lots, stockpile areas and ornamental landscaping and occupied by a telecommunication company with vehicle maintenance operations on-site (southern building). Excavated material generated off-site is temporarily staged along the western and southern boundary of the Project site. Vehicular access to the Project site is from two driveways along South Grove Avenue. Sidewalks are currently not present along South Grove Avenue.

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

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

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

The Project site was analyzed in the Certified SEIR as Business Park to be consistent with the business park uses to the north and east of the Project site. The significant unavoidable adverse impacts that were identified in Certified SEIR included air quality, cultural resources, noise, and transportation.

10. CEQA Requirements for an Addendum: If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency may: (1) prepare a subsequent EIR if the criteria of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) are met, (2) prepare a subsequent negative declaration, (3) prepare an addendum, or (4) prepare no further documentation. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(b)). When only minor technical changes or additions to the negative declaration are necessary and none of the conditions described in section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred, CEQA allows the lead agency to prepare and adopt an addendum. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b).) Under Section 15162, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required only when:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
378
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

Substantial changes are not proposed by the Project and Project implementation will not require revisions to the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR analyzed the direct and physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP 2050; focusing on changes to land use associated with the buildout of the proposed land use plan. The Project site is located within the Business Park land use designation of the TOP 2050. As discussed in the Certified SEIR, maximum development of the Project site (4.2 acres) would not exceed 109,817 s.f. of industrial uses based on a maximum FAR of 0.60 under the TOP 2050 land use plan. As discussed above, the Project proposes the development of an approximately 61,867 s.f. warehouse building. The proposed building would be approximately 47,950 s.f. less than the 379
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the proposed Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 61,867 s.f. vs. 109,817 s.f.). Since the anticipated buildout resulting from the proposed project changes will be less than that originally analyzed in the Certified SEIR, no revisions to Certified SEIR are required. In addition, all previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by reference. This Addendum provides an analysis of the Project and verification that the Project will not cause environmental impacts such that any of the circumstances identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.

2) Required Finding: Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, that would require major revisions of the previous Environmental Impact Report due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

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

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

12. Conclusion: The Certified SEIR, as certified by City Council on August 16, 2022, was prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s Rules for the Implementation of CEQA and in accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). The Certified SEIR considered the direct physical changes and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment that would be caused by TOP 2050. Consequently, the Certified SEIR focused on impacts from changes to land use associated with buildout of the City’s land use plan and impacts from the resulting population and employment growth in the City. The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designations and with development in the surrounding areas. As described on page 12, the amount of development under the 380
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

13. Surrounding Land Uses:

Existing Land Use General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Specific Plan Land Use
Site: Office and
Warehouse Business Park (BP) Grove Avenue Specific Plan Office/Commercial North: Commercial/Office
uses
BP Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Business Park
South: Commercial/Office
uses
BP; General
Commercial (GC)
Grove Avenue
Specific Plan;
Community
Commercial (CC)
Commercial
East: Commercial/Office
uses
BP Grove Avenue
Specific Plan Business Park
West: Industrial uses Industrial Light Industrial (IL); General Industrial (IG) N/A

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

15. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? ☒Yes ☐ No
If “yes”, has consultation begun? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Completed

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.
381
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☐ Air Quality
☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Geology / Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise
☐ Population / Housing ☐ Public Services ☐ Recreation
☐ Transportation ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance
☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Wildfire ☐ Energy
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature: Date: November 21, 2023
Printed Name: Luis E. Batres For: City of Ontario
382
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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. 383
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
384
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
385
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
386
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
387
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
388
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

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

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 389
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k), or
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, 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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
390
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impacts
Previously
Analyzed
in TOP
2050 SEIR
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

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

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

County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

EXPLANATION OF ISSUES

1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that increased development under TOP 2050 would occur within the city limits and already urbanized areas of the City. The scale and design of the City under TOP 2050 would not deter views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. 391
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?) Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes goals and policies to ensure that new development would be compatible with the existing community and would be of quality design. Additionally, future development would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which is intended to improve consistency with existing regulations and conditions. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not have a significant impact with respect to being inconsistent with policies or regulations governing scenic quality and would 392
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project is in an urbanized area, therefore, this analysis is focused on whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Project-related changes to local visual character would be less than significant during near-term construction activities because construction activity is common in the City, would be temporary in nature, and would not substantially degrade the visual character of the area.

The Project site is zoned Grove Avenue Specific Plan and The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 4.2 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park. Design standards applicable to the Business Park zone under the Grove Avenue Specific Plan would remain the same under the Project and the Project is required to comply with the development standards established in the Grove Avenue Specific Plan. As part of the development review process, City staff conducted a thorough review of the Project’s design and determined that the Project would be consistent with the Business Park development standards and design guidelines from the Grove Avenue Specific Plan. Accordingly, there are no components of the Project that would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and surroundings beyond what was evaluated and disclosed in the Certified SEIR. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: Under existing conditions, the Project site is developed and primarily surrounded by industrial and commercial uses. Existing lighting includes security lighting on the two buildings and parking lot. Street lights are located along South Grove Avenue. New lighting will be introduced to the site with the redevelopment of the Project on the proposed building and surface parking lot, similar to lighting for the existing development. Pursuant to the requirements of the City’s Development Code, project on-site lighting will be shielded, diffused or indirect, to avoid glare to pedestrians or motorists. In addition, lighting fixtures will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the Project site and minimize light spillage.

Furthermore, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, site lighting plans will be subject to review by the Planning Department and Police Department prior to issuance of building permits (pursuant to the City’s Building Security Ordinance). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in a significant source of light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. 393
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

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

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The Project site is zoned Grove Avenue Specific Plan and would involve a Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of 4.2 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park. The Project’s proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not result in a loss of land zoned for agriculture.

Furthermore, as concluded in the Certified SEIR, there is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural uses are anticipated, nor will there be any conflict with existing or Williamson Act contracts. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
394
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: As previously discussed above, the Project site does not include 395
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required.

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

The analysis in this section is based on the First Grove Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) dated June 8, 2023. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A, of this Addendum.

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

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

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

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 1)
The South Coast AQMD also established localized significance thresholds (LSTs) that a project can emit without contributing to an existing or new air quality standard exceedance. LSTs are defined separately for construction and operational activities and are dependent on location, project size, and distance to sensitive receptors. The South Coast AQMD Localized Thresholds are provided in the analysis below.
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that buildout of TOP 2050 would be consistent with the AQMP under the first criteria. However, air pollutant emissions associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3-2 and 396
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2022 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in TOP 2050 is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result.
397
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

The TOP 2050 adopted by the City in August 2022, designates the Project site as “Business Park” land uses. The “Business Park” designation allows for a maximum FAR of 0.60 for employeeintensive office uses including corporate offices, technology centers, research and development, “clean” industry, light manufacturing, and supporting retail within a business park setting. As discussed in the Certified SEIR, maximum development of the Project site (4.2 acres) would not exceed 109,817 s.f. of industrial uses based on a maximum FAR of 0.60 under the TOP 2050 land use plan.

The Project includes the development of 61,687 square foot industrial warehouse building, which is 47,950 square feet less than the TOP assumed development potential. Therefore the Project consistent with the current TOP land uses and growth projections. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP.

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

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

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

Potential measures shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for a project and may include:
• Require fugitive dust control measures that exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 403, such as:
o Requiring use of nontoxic soil stabilizers to reduce wind erosion.
o Applying water every four hours to active soil disturbing activities.
o Tarping and/or maintaining a minimum of 24 inches of
398
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

AQ-1 Prior to discretionary approval by the City of Ontario for development projects subject to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review (i.e., nonexempt projects), project applicants shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project operation-phaserelated air quality impacts to the City of Ontario Planning Department for review and approval. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) methodology in assessing air quality impacts. If operation-related air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the South Coast AQMD–adopted thresholds of significance, the City of Ontario Planning Department shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during operational activities. The identified measures shall be included as part of the conditions of approval. Possible mitigation measures to reduce longterm emissions could include, but are not limited to the following:
• For site-specific development that requires refrigerated vehicles, the construction documents shall demonstrate an adequate number of electrical service connections at loading docks for plug-in of the anticipated number of refrigerated trailers to reduce idling time and emissions.
• Applicants for manufacturing and light industrial uses shall consider energy storage and combined heat and power in appropriate 399
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

Buildout in accordance with TOP 2050 would generate long-term emissions that would exceed South Coast AQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SCAB. Mitigation Measure 3-2 and AQ-1, in addition to the goals and policies of TOP 2050, would reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent feasible. The measures and policies covering topics such as expansion of the pedestrian and bicycle networks, promotion of public and active transit, and support to increase building energy efficiency and energy conservation would also reduce criteria air pollutants within the City. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable due to the increase in VOCs from residential 400
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

development associated with TOP 2050 compared to that of the TOP.

Discussion of Effects: As discussed above, the Project proposes a development of an approximately 61,867 s.f. warehouse building. The proposed building would be approximately 47,950 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project will result in less development of the site than the Certified SEIR analyzed at buildout (i.e., 61,867 s.f. vs. 109,817 s.f.). The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site with a land use that was planned by the TOP 2050 and evaluated in the Certified SEIR; therefore, the Project would not generate air pollutant emissions that were not already anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Notwithstanding, an Air Quality Assessment (Appendix A) was prepared to quantify air pollutant emission associated with the implementation of the Project. Accordingly, the Project’s daily regional emissions from construction have been estimated using South Coast AQMD’s CalEEMod 2022.1 model, as shown in Table 3-2, Regional Threshold Summary of Construction. As shown in Table 3-2, Project construction-source emissions would not exceed the regional numerical thresholds of significance established by the South Coast AQMD for any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s construction emission impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3-2 Regional Threshold Summary of Construction
Year
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
2024 3.74 36.04 34.41 0.06 7.49 4.21
2025 13.45 20.42 29.39 0.04 1.53 0.95
Winter
2024 3.62 34.44 31.47 0.06 4.39 2.38
2025 1.33 11.73 15.82 0.03 0.88 0.53
Maximum Daily Emissions 13.45 36.04 34.41 0.06 7.49 4.21 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 3)
Emissions associated with the Project’s operation were calculated using CalEEMod 2022.1.

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

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

Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. 401
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Table 3-3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer
Proposed Project 3.09 2.88 30.55 0.04 1.08 0.28
TOP 2050 5.57 5.33 44.33 0.07 1.89 0.47
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -2.48 -2.45 -13.78 -0.03 -0.81 -0.20 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Winter
Proposed Project 2.59 2.98 26.13 0.03 1.08 0.27
TOP 2050 4.67 5.54 35.97 0.06 1.89 0.47
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP 2050) -2.08 -2.56 -9.84 -0.03 -0.81 -0.19 South Coast AQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 6)
Mitigation: No additional mitigation required. Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, and AQ-1 would be applicable to the Project.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Buildout of TOP 2050 could expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Buildout could result in new sources of criteria air pollutant emissions and/or TACs near existing or planned sensitive receptors. Review of development projects by South Coast AQMD for permitted sources of air toxics (e.g., industrial facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities) would ensure that health risks are minimized. Policy ER4.9 would ensure mobile sources of TACs not covered under South Coast AQMD permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario.

Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD, and TACs would be less than significant. However, implementation of TOP 2050 would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin due to the increase in industrial land use allowed under TOP 2050. While individual projects would achieve the project-level risk threshold of 10 per million, they would nonetheless contribute to the higher levels of cancer risk in the SCAB; and therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Discussion of Effects: Some people are especially sensitive to air pollution. These groups of people include children, the elderly, individuals with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular illness, and athletes who engage in frequent exercise. Structures that house these persons or place where they gather to exercise are defined as sensitive receptors. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site in order to provide a conservative analysis. The receptor locations are shown in Figure 9, Sensitive Receptors Locations. 402
403
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

The South Coast AQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining the Project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the Project site has been used to determine localized construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is location R1, represented by the existing residence at 2125 South Cucamonga Ave, approximately 596 feet (182 meters) southwest of the Project site.

Consistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the Project site is used to determine construction and operational LST air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO is location R6, represented by Tech Industrial Machine Corp at 2124 S Grove Ave Unit J, adjacent south of the Project site.

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

Table 3-4 LST Summary of Construction
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.89 21.74 1.90 1.10
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 92 28
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Site Preparation
Maximum Daily Emissions 35.95 32.93 7.26 4.16
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 220 1,713 95 36
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Grading
Maximum Daily Emissions 34.29 30.17 4.12 2.31
South Coast AQMD Localized Threshold 237 1,873 106 38
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 9)
Operational Emissions
Project-related operational localized emissions are presented in Table 3-5, Summary of Operations. As shown, Project would not exceed the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds 404
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

for localized air pollutant emissions during operation. Therefore, Project operation would expose sensitive receptors near the Project site to less-than-significant localized criteria pollutant concentrations.

Table 3-5 LST Summary of Operations
On-Site Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.19 21.47 0.08 0.07
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 2,193 31 10
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Table 10)
CO Hotspots
An adverse CO concentration, known as a “hotspot,” would occur if an exceedance of the State one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. In response, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SCAB is now designated as attainment.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that industrial uses would be generally limited to the areas designated Industrial and future environmental review would be required for these types of industrial projects, which would ensure that sensitive land uses are not exposed to objectionable odors. Both residential and nonresidential land uses would be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. Therefore, impacts from potential odors generated from residential and other nonresidential land uses associated with TOP 2050 are considered less than significant. Moreover, any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. By the time such emissions reached any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Therefore, impacts associated with construction405 Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

generated odors are considered less than significant.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Biological Resource Assessment prepared by LSA Associates, Inc (LSA) dated November 2022 and is provided in their entirety as Appendix B of this Addendum.
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that no sensitive plant species have been observed in Ontario, and the only such species that are considered potentially present in the City have a low potential due to lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not have substantial adverse impacts on sensitive plant species. TOP 2050 includes policies to ensure that special-status species and habitat are protected through compliance with state and federal regulations (e.g., Policies ER-5.1 and ER-5.2). Projects under TOP 2050 that undergo independent CEQA review would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. Compliance with the requirements of the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, including requirements of the USFWS regarding critical habitat; mitigation fees paid by projects in Ontario Ranch; and acquisition and management of habitat using those fees would reduce impacts on sensitive animal species from implementation of TOP 2050. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently developed with two buildings (an office and a warehouse/maintenance building), including associated parking lots, stockpile areas and ornamental landscaping. The landscaping consists of ornamental trees and shrubs that primarily border the easterly edge of the Project site along Grove Avenue. Ruderal vegetation was also 406
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

noted along the stockpile areas on the southwesterly portion of the Project site. As concluded in the Project’s Biological Resource Assessment, two listed species, Delhi Sands flower‐loving fly and California black rail have the potential to occur on the Project site; however, the Project site lacks suitable habitat for these two species because the Project site is entirely developed. Therefore, the Project would have no effects to threatened and endangered species. Moreover, no U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat is present on the Project site. Therefore, the Project would have no effects to designated critical habitat (LSA, 2023). The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek channels and portions of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels, are owned and maintained by San Bernardino County; they are not subject to land use controls by the City of Ontario and would not be affected by TOP 2050. Remaining segments of the Lower Deer Creek, Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and West Cucamonga Creek channels in the City that are owned by the City of Ontario, would be designated Open Space–Non-recreation by TOP 2050 and would not be developed with other land uses. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in direct impacts to waters of the State 407
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

because TOP 2050 does not grant specific entitlements for development. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is potential habitat on-site for sensitive species. Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts to jurisdictional waters since TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity but would not result in development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: No wetland habitat is present on site (LSA, 2023). Therefore, Project implementation would have no impact on these resources. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: No surface water bodies; streams or waterways occur on the Project site. The Project site and adjacent areas are entirely developed with industrial and commercial uses. As a result, the Project site does not support regional wildlife movement or serve as a nursery site (LSA, 2023). There are a limited number of ornamental trees on site that would be removed and replaced with new trees and landscaping. The MBTA implements the United States’ commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. Nesting migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (United States Code, Title 16, Sections 703–712) and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 et seq.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR discussed this impact along with Threshold f below with emphasis on the impacts to the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSFLF) Ontario Recovery Unit. Projects proposed within the Ontario Recovery Unit would be required to 408
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

conduct focused surveys for DSFLF on the project site and consult with the USFWS regarding mitigation of impacts on any DSFLF found. TOP 2050 would not grant specific entitlements for development and would not conflict with FESA requirements and USFWS regulations regarding critical habitat. Furthermore, Policy ER-5.1 of TOP 2050 would support efforts to conserve highquality habitat for the DSFLF. Individual projects undergoing environmental review under CEQA would be required to determine whether there is a potential for habitat onsite for sensitive species.

TOP 2050 would have similar impacts regarding consistency with a habitat conservation plan.

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not located within the Ontario Recovery Unit; Project site is located approximately 4 miles northwest from the DSFLF Ontario Recovery Unit habitat conservation plan area. Section 10-2 of the Ontario Municipal Code addresses tree protection, maintenance, and replacement policies for trees within the City’s parkways and rights-of-way.

Additionally, the City has published landscape guidelines that must be followed when developing new or existing sites. All existing trees within the site will be removed as part of the Project. There is an existing 60” heritage tree (Eucalyptus Viminalis) onsite that will be removed as part of the Project. As shown in Figure 6, Landscape Plan, a total of 90 trees would be planted. As part of the City’s mitigation requirement for removal of the heritage tree, the proposed 15 gallon and 24” box size trees would be upsized. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is not part of an adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved habitat conservation plan (LSA, 2023). The Project site is located approximately 4 miles northwest from the HCP area. As a result, no adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
409
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that Ontario has eight historic districts, and four proposed and five potential historic districts are deemed eligible for listing. The City’s Register of Historic Resources shows 1,957 historic resources, 99 of which are designated Historic Landmark properties. The Development Code establishes criteria for Tier I, Tier II or Tier III properties, with Tier I and II being of the highest value. Given this strong policy of the City and the programmatic nature of TOP 2050, implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in significant impacts to Tier I and II resources. Tier III consists of all properties that are Designated Historic Landmarks, are contributing structures in Designated Historic Districts, or are Eligible Historical Resources, as defined by the Development Code. Demolition of these properties should be avoided where possible, but may be appropriate under certain circumstances. If demolition occurs, the City requires historic resources to be documented and historic features to be salvaged, and requires a demolition mitigation fee. The Development Code does not provide a high level of protection for Tier III resources. As a result, historical resources categorized under the ordinance as Tier III could potentially be impacted with implementation of TOP 2050. Mitigation Measure 5-1 would require historic or potentially historic resources to be evaluated for historic significance through the City’s Development Code tier system. Impacts to historical resources would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

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

Additionally, the existing buildings at the Project site were constructed in 1979 and 2022, respectively, and are not of historic-age. (PaleoWest, 2022a). Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5, and no impacts would occur. The Project would not result in any impacts to historical resources. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. 410
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded the records review at the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SSCIC) identified 17 archeological resources in the City.

Based on the results of the research, there is potential archaeological sensitivity throughout the City. Adoption of TOP 2050 would not directly affect archaeological resources. However, longterm implementation of TOP 2050 land use plan could allow development (e.g., new development, infill development, redevelopment, and revitalization/restoration), including grading, of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that requires more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archeological resources. Therefore, future development that would be accommodated by TOP 2050 could potentially unearth previously unrecorded resources. Mitigation Measure 5-2 would require preservation and curation of archeological resources if uncovered during development. Mitigation Measure 5-2 would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: A Cultural Resource Constraints Analysis, included as Technical Appendix C, was conducted for the Project by PaleoWest, LLC. (PaleoWest). A record search from the South-Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton was conducted for the Project which encompassed an area of one mile surrounding the Project site.

Based on the results of the records search, no resources were recorded in the Project site or within one mile of the Project site. (PaleoWest, 2022a)
While no adverse impacts to archeological resources are anticipated at this site due to its urbanized nature and extent of prior ground disturbance, the presence of previously undiscovered subsurface archaeological resources on the Project site remains possible, and these resources could be affected by ground-disturbing activities associated with grading and construction at the site. As a result, consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, Mitigation Measure 5-2 would be implemented to ensure the proper treatment of significant archaeological resources should they be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities in native soil. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

MM 5-2 In areas of documented or inferred from evident archaeological and/or paleontological resource presence, City staff shall require applicants for development permits to provide studies to document the
presence/absence of such resources. On properties where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. The mitigation plan shall include the following requirements:
a) Archaeologists and/or paleontologist shall be retained for the project and will be on call during grading and other significant grounddisturbing activities. 411
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

b) Should any cultural resources be discovered, no further grading shall occur in the area of the discovery until the Planning Director or designee is satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to protect these resources.
c) Unanticipated discoveries shall be evaluated for significance by a San Bernardino County Certified Professional Archaeologist/Paleontologist.

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
412
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the types of land uses accommodated under TOP 2050 would also be similar to the land uses accommodated under TOP. Thus, the construction processes for future development projects accommodated under TOP 2050 would be similar to the construction processes of current development projects and projects accommodated under TOP. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel use during construction.

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project would implement the TOP 2050 land use plan and the Project’s proposed land use and development intensity is consistent with the development regulations contained within the TOP 2050. The proposed building would be approximately 47,950 s.f. less than the maximum allowed under TOP 2050. Therefore, the development proposed by the Project – and its energy use – is within the scope of the project that was evaluated in the Certified SEIR. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

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

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

Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, the Project would be required to comply with the 413
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: Ground rupture is the visible offset of the ground surface when an earthquake rupture along a fault affects the Earth’s surface. Southern California, including the City of Ontario, is subject to the effects of seismic activity due to the active faults that traverse the area. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a State-designated AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, included as Appendix D, the Project site is not located with an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. (SoCal Geo, 2022) Fault rupture would not occur on the Project site since no active faults cross the Project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: Southern California is a seismically active area and properties in the City of Ontario, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity along nearby regional faults. The Project site is not at an increased risk relative to the surrounding areas. Consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, 414
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Project-related structures and buildings would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the California Building Code (CBC [California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2]), which contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the probable strength of ground motion, the Ontario Municipal Code, TOP 2050, and all other ordinances adopted by the City related to construction and safety. Therefore, as structures would be designed to meet or exceed CBC standards for earthquake resistance, redevelopment of the Project would not create significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: Seismic-related ground failure includes, but is not limited to, liquefaction. Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to fluids when subject to high intensity seismic events. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions coexist: 1) shallow groundwater, 2) low-density non-cohesive (granular) soils and 3) high-intensity ground motion. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the Project site is not located within an area of liquefaction susceptibility and groundwater is considered to have existed at depth in excess of 25 feet due to the lack of water encountered at all boring locations (SoCal Geo, 2022). Therefore, consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, the Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to seismic-related liquefaction. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the young alluvial sediment and wind-blown sand underlying the City are generally granular, poorly consolidated, and very susceptible to erosion. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans 415
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur. In addition, construction activities on project sites larger than one acre are required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that details best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the potential for erosion during construction activities. Furthermore, TOP 2050 includes the following policies regarding erosion and loss of topsoil: ER-1.6, ER 4.7, S-5.1, and S-5.2. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

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

Table 7-1 Examples of Construction-Phase Stormwater Pollution Prevention BMPs Category Goal Sample Measures
Erosion Controls Prevent soil particles from being
detached from the ground
surface and transported in runoff
Preserving existing vegetation;
soil binders; geotextiles and mats
Sediment controls Filter out soil particles that have
entered runoff
Barriers such as slit fences and
gravel bag berms; and street
sweeping
Tracking Controls Prevent soil from being tracked
offsite by vehicles
Stabilized construction roadways
and entrances/exits
Wind Erosion Control Prevent soil from being
transported offsite by wind
Similar to erosion controls above
Non-stormwater Management Prevent discharges of soil from site by means other than runoff
and wind
BMPs regulating various
construction practices; water
conservation
Waste and Materials
Management
Prevent release of waste
materials into storm discharges
BMPs regulating storage and
handling of materials and wastes
Future development within the Project site will be required to comply with the NPDES permit by preparing and implementing a SWPPP specifying BMPs for minimizing pollution of stormwater with soil and sediment during Project construction. Consistent with the findings in the Certified SEIR, adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from Projectrelated demolition, site preparation and grading, and construction activities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
416
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the thick alluvial deposits comprising the Chino Subbasin may be susceptible to compaction, with resulting subsidence at the surface, in the event of rapid groundwater withdrawal. Projects considered for approval under TOP 2050 could expose structures or persons to potentially significant hazards from ground subsidence. However, compliance with the CBC and review of grading plans for individual projects by the City Engineer would ensure no significant impacts would occur.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: As stated previously, the Project site is not susceptible to landslides or liquefaction. The potential for other geologic hazards on the Project site, including lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse is considered low (SoCal Geo, 2022). Furthermore, Projectrelated structures and buildings would be required to be designed and built-in compliance with the CBC and the Ontario Municipal code, which requires the Project to implement the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation. The recommendations require foundations to be constructed based on the expansion index and shear strength of onsite soils.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: Expansive soils are defined as soils possessing clay particles that react to moisture changes by shrinking or swelling. According to the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation, the near-surface soils consist of silty sands, sandy silts, and fine to coarse sands with 417
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

no appreciable clay content. These materials have been visually classified as non-expansive (SoCal Geo, 2022). Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that wastewater from the City is treated at wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the IEUA. Use of septic tanks would be limited to existing septic tanks, and new septic tanks would be constricted to areas not in practical proximity to existing sewer mains, dependent on approval by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, impacts related to septic tanks would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: According to the Project’s Paleontological Resource Assessment, included as Appendix E, ground disturbances less than 5 ft below ground surface are unlikely to result in impacts to significant paleontological resources; however, ground disturbances greater than or equal to 5 ft below ground surface may impact geologic units of high paleontological sensitivity, and therefore, may result in impacts to significant paleontological resources. (PaleoWest, 2022b) However, the Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 5-2 to ensure construction activities will not continue or will be moved to other parts of the Project site if paleontological resources are discovered during grading activities and a qualified 418
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

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

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that GHG emissions associated with TOP 2050 would be slightly higher compared to those of TOP in the absence of local measures identified in the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) and would not meet the 2050 GHG target of 2.0 MTCO2e per capita. With implementation of the CCAP, TOP 2050 would result in a decrease in emissions. The City would achieve the EO S-03-05 GHG emissions reduction targets, resulting in an 80 percent decrease in GHG emissions in the City by 2050 from existing conditions, and would make substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goals under EO B-55-18. Therefore, TOP 2050, which includes the CCAP, would reduce GHG emissions impacts compared to TOP. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. 419
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Discussion of Effects: The analysis in this section is based on the First Grove Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads) dated June 20, 2023. This report is provided in its entirety as Appendix A, of this Addendum.

The CCAP establishes an annual screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr to define small projects that are considered less than significant and do not require further GHG emissions calculations or analysis. Projects that do not exceed an annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr are therefore considered less than significant and would not require further analysis or mitigation.

The Project’s annual GHG emissions are summarized in Table 8-1, Project GHG Emissions. As shown in Table 8-1, the Project will result in total GHG emissions of approximately 929.68 MTCO2e/yr and would not exceed the annual 3,000 MTCO2e/yr threshold. Additionally, when compared to emissions generated by the TOP 2050 adopted Industrial land use designation, the Project would result in a net decrease of 685.20 MTCO2e/yr. As such, Project-related emissions would not have a potential significant direct or indirect impact on GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Table 8-1 Project GHG Emissions
Source
Emission (lbs/day)
CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2e
Annual construction-related
emissions amortized over 30 years 16.23 7.19E-04 3.42E-04 3.84E-03 16.35 Mobile Source 522.99 0.03 0.04 0.80 537.00
Area Source 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26
Energy Source 266.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 267.52
Water Source 20.26 0.47 0.01 0.00 35.28
Waste Source 6.85 0.68 0.00 0.00 23.95
Refrigerants Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.96
On-Site Equipment Source 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.37
Total CO2e (All Sources) 929.68
TOP 2050 1,614.88
Net Emissions (Proposed – TOP
2050) -685.20
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023a, Tables 13 and 15)
Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that development projects accommodated under TOP 2050 are required to adhere to the programs and regulations identified by the 2017 Scoping Plan and implemented by state, regional, and local agencies to achieve the statewide GHG reduction goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct implementation of the CARB Scoping Plan. Additionally, TOP 2050 would 420
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

provide for residents to both live and work in the City instead of commuting to other areas, which would contribute to minimizing VMT and reducing VMT per service population. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not interfere with SCAG’s ability to implement the regional strategies in Connect SoCal.

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

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

The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.

The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road ZeroEmission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Finally, the Project is consistent with the general plan land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in SCAG's Sustainable Community Strategy/ Regional Transportation Plan, which pursuant to SB 375 calls for the integration of transportation, land-use and housing policies to plan for achievement of the GHG-emissions target for the region. Thus, a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions from Project construction and operation would occur. (Urban Crossroads, 2023a) Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation Required: No additional mitigation required.

9. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) dated December 2022 and is provided in their entirety as Appendix F of this Addendum.
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
421
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR discussed thresholds a, b, and c together and concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would increase the number of businesses and residents in the City, thereby increasing the amount of hazardous materials being transported, stored, and manufactured, and the number of people exposed to these materials.

The City of Ontario has around 127 facilities or sites that generate, transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste, as recorded by the national RCRA Envirofacts Database. An increase in the transport of hazardous waste from an increased demand for transport, use, and disposal within or outside the City could result in more accidents leading to the release of hazardous materials. Demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations. Current federal and state regulations, City ordinances, and TOP 2050 policies would regulate the handling of hazardous substances to reduce potential releases; exposure; and risks of transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes. Therefore, additional hazardous waste transport, use, and/or disposal that would occur upon the buildout of TOP 2050 would be less than significant with adherence to the existing regulations and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

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

Project Construction
General Construction Hazardous Waste
Heavy equipment (e.g., dozers, excavators, tractors) would operate on the subject property during construction of the Project. Heavy equipment is typically fueled and maintained by petroleum‐based substances such as diesel fuel, gasoline, oil, and hydraulic fluid, which is considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. Also, materials such as paints, adhesives, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, and storage of hazardous construction‐related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), South Coast AQMD, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, with mandatory compliance with applicable hazardous materials regulations, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during the construction phase. 422
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Impacted Soils
Construction activities required to redevelop the Project site would involve the disturbance of on-site soils. There is the potential for the discovery of contamination during these activities due to staged material originating off-site, historical agricultural use, former gasoline and diesel Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), and vapor intrusion. Specifically, • Staged Material Originating Off-Site. During the site reconnaissance, a construction materials staging area was observed in the exterior western lot. According to the yard manager, construction materials, including dirt, asphalt, and concrete, are generated from trenching and excavation activities during the installation of fiber optic cables offsite. Considering the trenching and excavation activities take place at various locations around the Los Angeles area, including commercial and industrial properties, the condition of off-site construction material and wastewater is unknown. • Historical Agricultural Use. According to historical sources, the Project site was used for agricultural purposes as an orchard as early as 1946 through 1966. It is unknown if agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, have impacted soil on the Project site.
• Former Gasoline and Diesel USTs. According to records from the San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD), a permit application was submitted for the installation of one 1,000-gallon gasoline UST and one 1,000-gallon diesel UST at the Project site. A permit application to remove the two USTs was submitted on July 30, 1990. Following UST removal in August 1990, one soil confirmation sample was collected approximately 2 feet beneath each UST. The sample collected beneath the gasoline UST was analyzed for gasoline, and the sample collected beneath the diesel UST was analyzed for diesel. Soil confirmation results reported concentrations below laboratory reporting limits. • Potential for Vapor Intrusion. The northeastern General Electric Co – Jet Engine Test Cell Facility, located at 2264 East Avion Street (located approximately 1.82 miles northeast of the Project site) is an open – verification monitoring case as of February 5, 2010. According to the GeoTracker case (SL208133868), the facility has operated as an aircraft engine facility since 1965. Subsurface investigations have identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs), specifically trichloroethene (TCE) as the primary chemical of potential concern.

Remedial efforts include a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system with a total of 23 SVE wells from 1996 through 2005 and groundwater monitoring since 1991. Based on the Fourth Quarter 2021 Groundwater Monitoring Report, dated January 24, 2022, the nearest groundwater monitoring well (OW-11) is located approximately 300 feet southeast of the eastern boundary of the Project site. It is unknown if the presence of VOCs in groundwater in close proximity to the Project site and possible lateral and vertical migration pose a potential vapor intrusion concern.

A Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted for the Project site, in which a total of 31 soil samples (including 3 duplicate samples) were collected and analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), Title 22 metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), VOCs, and asbestos; and A total of 15 soil vapor samples (including 1 duplicate sample) were collected and analyzed for VOCs. Based on the results of the Phase II, VOCs, metals, PCBs, OCPs, and asbestos were not considered to be chemical of potential concern in soil. Limited detections of TPH in the diesel and motor oil ranges were found in shallow soil throughout the staging area on the western portion. These soils could be removed as non-hazardous waste and would be excavated and disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable regulations. Several 423
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

VOCs were detected in soil vapor above laboratory reporting limits but below applicable screening levels, with the exception of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in two samples. It is noted that no potential source of PCE or other chlorinated solvents was identified in association with current or historical operations.

A subsequent Human Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was conducted due to the chemical detected in the soils vapor. Based on the results of the (HRA), cumulative carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard to human receptors for commercial/industrial indoor air scenarios are within acceptable ranges and vapor intrusion mitigation is not warranted. (Roux, 2022) Therefore, the Project site does not contain any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs), nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials.

Demolition
The use of asbestos-containing materials (ACM, a known carcinogen) and lead-based paint (LBP) (a known toxic), both of which are considered hazardous materials, was a common building construction prior to 1978. Since the existing buildings on the Project site were constructed in 1985 and 2002, neither ACMs nor lead paint are determined to be a significant hazard on the Project site.

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

The operation of the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure the proper transport, use, and disposal of hazardous substances. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. 424
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

Discussion of Effects:

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

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

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

Operation
Regulatory requirements pertaining to upsets and accidents following during the construction phase would also be implemented during the operational phase. For the operational phase, both the federal government and the State of California (Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, §§ 25500–25520; 19 CCR, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3, Article 4, §§ 2729–2734) require all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials, termed a reporting quantity, to submit a hazardous materials emergency/contingency plan (also known as a hazardous materials business plan) to their local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). These requirements would ensure that all potentially 425
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

hazardous materials are handled in an appropriate manner and would minimize the potential for safety impacts. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, with mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is within 0.25 mile of an existing school. The closest school to the Project site is the Bon View Elementary School, located approximately 0.25 mile to the west of the Project site. As discussed above, with mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

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

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

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

Compared to TOP, TOP 2050 would have similar impacts because TOP 2050 would result in an increase in land use intensity rather than development of new, previously undeveloped areas of the City that would require substantial landform modification. Therefore, buildout of TOP 2050 would not expose people to substantial hazards from hazardous materials sites listed on environmental databases and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is listed in California Integrated Water Quality System 426
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

(CIWQS), HAULERS, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Non-generators (RCRA NONGEN/NLR), Facility Index System (FINDS), Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO), Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS), California Environmental Reporting System (CERS), HAZ WASTE, HazNet, San Bernardino County Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (CHIMRS) database. Due to the lack of additional information relevant to the environmental history of the facility and results of the subsurface investigation conducted on the Project site, these listing are not considered to represent a significant environmental concern. (Roux, 2022) As discussed in Response 9.a, the Project site does not contain any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: According to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the Chino Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2022a).

According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Specifically, the Project site is located outside of the 65 CNEL noise impact zones and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land uses, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Therefore, the Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area.

Moreover, according to the Land Use Element (Exhibit LU-06 Airport Safety Zones and 427
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Influence Areas) of TOP 2050, the Project site is not located within the ONT safety zones. Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

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

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

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

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8617J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Furthermore, construction of the Project would be generally confined to the Project site and would not physically impair access to the site or the Project area. During both construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and the Ontario Fire Department. In addition, the Project will comply with the requirements of the Ontario Fire Department and all City requirements for fire and other emergency access. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, the Ontario Fire Department reviews development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Therefore, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
428
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the there are many resources available to address wildland fires should they arise, including the CAL FIRE 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California, the California Fire Code, County of San Bernardino Multijurisdiction Hazard Management Plan, the Ontario LHMP, and fire services from the Ontario Fire Department. With adherence to these building practices, development and infrastructure associated with TOP 2050 would not exacerbate risk or result in post-wildfire hazards (e.g., landslides, mudflows, and flooding). Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

10. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

The analysis in this section is based on the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Huitt-Zollars, Inc. dated April 2023 and is provided in their entirety as Appendices G.1 and G.2 of this Addendum.
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with TOP 2050 have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff. To minimize these potential impacts, future development associated with TOP 2050 would require compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP) Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 006-DWQ. The CGP also requires that prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file permit registration documents (PRD) with the SWRCB prior to the start of construction. The PRDs include a Notice of Intent, risk assessment, site map, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), annual fee, and a signed certification statement. In addition, the City of Ontario requires that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted prior to grading plan approval and the issuance of a grading permit. Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP and the erosion control plan throughout the construction phase of the Proposed Project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern as a result of construction activities.

Pollutants from the post-construction phases of projects include sediment, metals, nutrients, pesticides, and hydrocarbons. TOP 2050 includes policies that direct the City to reduce pollutants in the City’s stormwater system. Projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from postconstruction activities under National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying BMPs for prevention of stormwater pollution during the 429
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

postconstruction phase, including site-design, source-control, and/or treatment BMPs. Therefore, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be exceeded, and surface water and groundwater quality would not be degraded. Impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

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

Construction activities would disturb the 4.2-acre site; therefore, the Project is subject to the requirements of the SWRCB GCP, as previously analyzed in the Certified SEIR. Mandatory adherence to the CGP and implementation of measures outlined in the SWPPP would ensure that the Project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Post-Development Water Quality Impacts
The site would be developed with a building up to 61,867 s.f. and associated parking and landscaping. To meet the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a WQMP. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin.

According to the Project’s Preliminary WQMP, included as Appendix G.1, the Project is designed to include on-site structural source control BMPs consisting of underground infiltration/detention system. In addition, operation source control BMPs would be implemented, including but not limited to, minimizing non-stormwater site runoff through efficient irrigation system design and controllers, vacuum sweeping of private streets and parking lots, landscape management BMPs, and providing education/training of site occupants and employees on stormwater BMPs. (Huitt-Zollars, 2023a) Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP and long-term maintenance of proposed on-site water quality control features would be required by the City to ensure the long-term effectiveness of all on-site water quality features.

In addition to the WQMP, the NPDES program also requires certain land uses, including the industrial land use proposed by the Project, to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program, unless an exemption is granted. Because the permit is dependent upon the operational activities of the building and the tenants are not known at this time, details of the SWPPP (including BMPs) or potential exemption to the SWPPP operational activities requirement cannot be determined at this time. However, based on the requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, the Project’s mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts 430
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

during long-term operation.

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would?
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future development associated with TOP 2050 would involve site improvements that require grading, excavation, and 431
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

soil exposure during construction, with the potential for erosion or siltation to occur. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways could temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles. To minimize this impact, the project would be required to comply with the requirements in the State’s CGP, including preparation of a notice of intent and SWPPP prior to the start of construction activities. In addition, the City of Ontario requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan and implementation of BMPs to control erosion, debris, and construction-related pollutants.

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

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

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

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is currently developed; redevelopment of the site would not increase impervious surfaces. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Huitt-Zollars, Inc., included as Appendix G.2, all runoff will be directed to the on-site underground infiltration/detention system between the parking stalls along the western boundary and the paved loading dock section. The overflow from the underground system will discharge through a proposed parkway drain onto South Grove Avenue. A system of catch basins laid around the site will collect and pre-treat stormwater before it enters the underground system via a network of PVC pipes. The existing drainage pattern of the rear bio-swale will be kept by including a pipe that runs along the west boundary of the site from north to south in order to collect stormwater from the northern property and convey it to the southern property. No runoff from the Project site will be allowed to drain onto adjacent properties. 432
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Moreover, the total 100-year peak flow rate tributary to the Project site at proposed condition is approximately 7.95 cfs, which is well below the 80% of existing peak flow (12.86 cfs) requirement for the City. (Huitt-Zollars, 2023b). Therefore, runoff discharge from the Project site would not have an adverse effect to the existing storm drain system downstream. The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

Discussion of Effects: As stated above, according to the Project’s Preliminary Hydrology Study, included as Appendix G.2, runoff from the implementation of the Project would be below the 80% existing peak flow requirement for the City. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system.

Consistent with the finding of the Certified SEIR, stormwater generated by the Project will be discharged in compliance with the statewide NPDES General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit and San Bernardino County MS4 permit requirements. With the full implementation of a SWPPP developed in compliance with the General Construction Activities Permit requirements, the BMPs included in the SWPPP, and a stormwater monitoring program would reduce any impacts to below a level of significance. Additionally, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from post-construction activities under NPDES Permit. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that only small portions of the City adjacent to flood control channels, detention basins, and creeks are in the 100-year floodplain. The western portion of Ontario Ranch is labeled Zone D—undetermined flood hazard— and no hazard analysis has been completed for this area. TOP 2050 include policies to reduce impacts of potential development within 100-year flood zones. Additionally, Chapter 13 of the Ontario Municipal Code requires that a development permit be obtained prior to development in a special flood hazard area to ensure that the site is reasonably safe from flooding and flood 433
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

hazards. With implementation of existing policies, the potential for the project to impede or redirect flood flows is considered less than significant. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map No. 06071C8617J, the Project site is located within Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA, 2016). Therefore, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and no impact would occur. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

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

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

Additionally, projects approved under TOP 2050 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and to control pollutants in discharges of stormwater from post-construction activities under NPDES Permit. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not obstruct or 434
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is located in an area that is currently developed with urban land uses. Existing commercial/office development borders the site to the north, south, and east with industrial uses to the west. The Project Applicant would redevelop the site with an warehouse building with associated parking and landscaping improvements, consistent with the TOP 2050 land use plan. The Project will be of similar design and size to surrounding development.

The Project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 435
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project site is designated for Business Park by the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. The Project Applicant would redevelop the Project site in accordance with the adopted land use designations. The Project would require a Specific Plan Amendment to the Grove Avenue Specific Plan to change the land use designation of 4.2 acres of land from Office/Commercial to Business Park. The Specific Plan Amendment would bring the land use under the Grove Avenue Specific Plan for the Project site into conformance with the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan, which lists the Project site as Business Park (0.6 FAR). Development standards and design guidelines applicable to the Business Park zone under the Grove Avenue Specific Plan would remain the same under the Project. The Project is consistent with the TOP and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 436
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As discussed above, the Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:

The analysis in this section is based on the Noise and Vibration Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated June 5, 2023 and is provided in their entirety as Appendix H of this Addendum.
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activities associated with buildout of TOP 2050 would result in temporary noise increases at sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure 12-4 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction activities could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 80 dBA Leq threshold. Therefore, construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. It should be noted that the identification of this program level impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

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

Discussion of Effects: A Project-specific Noise and Vibration Analysis has been prepared by Urban Crossroads for the Project and is included as Appendix H. Redevelopment of the Project site with a new building and associated improvement has the potential to generate elevated noise levels during both near-term construction activities and under long-term operational conditions. Near-term (i.e., temporary) and long-term (i.e., permanent) noise level increases that would be associated with the Project are described below. To assess the potential short-term construction and long-term operational noise impacts, Urban Crossroads identified 5 representative noise-sensitive receiver locations at which the Project’s anticipated noise generation was compared against as shown in Figure 10, Receiver Locations. 437
438
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

The City of Ontario has set restrictions to control noise impacts associated with construction. Section 5-29.09 of the Municipal Code states: No person, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition or any other related building activity, shall operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner that produces loud noise that disturbs a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, or a Police or Code Enforcement Officer, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. or on Saturday or Sunday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. While the City establishes limits to the hours during which construction activity may take place, it does not identify specific noise level limits for construction noise levels at potentially affected receiver locations for CEQA analysis purposes.

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

Table 13-1 Construction Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4
R1 61.2 80 No
R2 63.9 80 No
R3 59.4 80 No
R4 60.2 80 No
R5 54.8 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Figure 10. 2 Highest construction noise level calculations based on distance from the construction noise source activity to the nearest receiver locations as shown on Table 8-2 of the Noise Impact Analysis.
3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 4-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 8-3)
Operational Noise Impact
Future users of the proposed Project are currently unknown. Therefore, this analysis presents worst-case scenario noise conditions for typical warehouse activities, assuming that the Project would be operational 24-hours per day, 7 days per week. The Project’s proposed business operations would primarily be conducted within the enclosed building, except for traffic movement, parking, and loading/unloading of trucks at designated loading bays. The on-site 439
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

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

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

Table 13-2 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational
Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 55.7 55.6 63.7 59.2 No No
R2 58.0 57.9 61.8 60.0 No No
R3 48.6 48.5 72.1 67.2 No No
R4 54.0 53.9 67.2 64.8 No No
R5 48.5 48.4 67.0 65.4 No No
1 See Figure 10 for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Appendix H of the Noise Impact Analysis. 3 Section 5-29.04 of the City of Ontario Municipal Code. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 7-4)
Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

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

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

Construction contractors shall implement the following measures for construction activities in the City of Ontario. Construction plans submitted to the City shall identify these measures on demolition, grading, and construction plans. The City of Ontario Planning and Building Departments shall verify that grading, demolition, and/or construction plans submitted include these notations prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits.
• Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 440
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

6:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays and Sundays, as prescribed in Municipal Code Section 5-29.09. • During the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction shall use the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds). • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers and hoe rams) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive uses. • Stockpiling shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noisesensitive receptors. • Construction traffic shall be limited, to the extent feasible, to approved haul routes established by the City’s Engineering Department.
• At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
• Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. • During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noiseproducing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws. • Erect temporary noise barriers (at least as high as the exhaust of equipment and breaking line-of-sight between noise sources and sensitive receptors), as necessary and feasible, to maintain construction noise levels at or below the performance standard of 80 dBA Leq. Barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that 441
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier and may be lined on the construction side with an acoustical blanket, curtain, or equivalent absorptive material.

MM 12-4 has been met through preparation of First Grove Noise and Vibration Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. provided in Appendix H. No construction-related noise impacts have been identified in the technical report.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that construction activity at projects within TOP 2050 plan area would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and equipment. TOP 2050 would have similar impacts as the TOP because specific project-level data for individual developments for TOP 2050 (such as construction equipment) are not available, and construction could generate excessive vibration levels at sensitive receptor locations. Vibration-related noise impacts during construction that would accommodate buildout of TOP 2050 would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 12-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with construction vibration from individual development projects to the extent feasible. However, due to the potential for proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects occurring simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. It should be noted that the identification of this programlevel impact does not preclude the finding of less-than-significant impacts for subsequent projects analyzed at the project level.

Commercial and industrial operations would generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the operational procedures and equipment. The Certified EIR found that the majority of industrial uses would not be immediately adjacent to vibration-sensitive uses, the use of heavy equipment associated with industrial activities would occur indoors, and no significant vibration impacts would occur from vibration generated by industrial uses. TOP 20050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to that of TOP. Therefore, vibration impacts during operation would be less than significant and would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), vibration is the period oscillation of a medium or object. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquake, landslides, sea waves) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). To analyze vibration impacts originating from the operation and construction of the Project, vibration generating activities are evaluated based on Caltrans methodology. The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual provide guidelines for the maximum-acceptable vibration criteria. The nearest noise sensitive buildings adjacent to the Project site can best be described as “older residential structures” with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec).

Construction-Related Vibration Impacts
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Table 13-4, Project Construction Vibration Levels, presents the expected Project related vibration levels at the 442
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 439 to 1,521 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.001 in/sec PPV. Based on maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.3 PPV (in/sec) per the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, the typical Project construction vibration levels will fall below the building damage thresholds at all the noise sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts would be less than significant during typical construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the vibration levels reported at the sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter (Urban Crossroads, 2023b).

Table 13-4 Project Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)3 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded Trucks
Large
bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 596' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R2 439' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R3 824' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
R4 756' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.3 No
R5 1,521' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.3 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A of the Noise Impact Analysis. 2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary (Project site boundary). 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 8-4 of the Noise Impact Analysis). 4 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020, Table 19, p. 38. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Source: (Urban Crossroads, 2023b , Table 8-6)
Operational-Related Vibration Impacts
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include nor require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in substantial or perceptible ground-borne vibration. Trucks would travel to-and-from the Project site during long-term operation; however, vibration levels for heavy trucks operating at low to-normal speeds on smooth, paved surfaces, as expected on the Project site and surrounding roadways typically do not exceed the Caltrans vibration thresholds. As concluded in the Certified SEIR, industrial uses do not normally induce significant groundborne vibrations because they do not typically involve equipment or activities which result in large vibrations. Accordingly, long-term operation of the Project would not expose persons or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less than significant impact would occur.

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
443
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that implementation of TOP 2050 could expose noise sensitive uses to excessive noise levels from the Ontario International Airport. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 12-1, impacts to future sensitive receptors from excessive airport-related noise would be reduced to interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. While interior noise levels are required to achieve the interior noise limits of Title 24 and Title 25, exterior noise levels may continue to exceed the noise compatibility criteria for the City.

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

Discussion of Effects: According to the Ontario International Airport (ONT) Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area (City of Ontario, 2011). Moreover, the Project site is located outside of the 65 CNEL noise impact zone and is subject to the Noise Criteria established on Table 2-3 in the ONT ALUCP. According to Table 2-3 of the ONT ALUCP, industrial land uses located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contours of ONT, such as the Project, are considered normally compatible land use. For normally compatible land uses, either the activities associated with the land use are inherently noisy or standard construction methods will sufficiently attenuate exterior noise to an acceptable indoor community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Moreover, as discussed under Response 13a, the Project would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

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

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project would result in the development of an approximately 61,867 s.f. warehouse facility and does not include a residential component that would increase population growth. Based on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Employment Density Study of 1 employee per 1,195 square feet for warehouse use, the Project would generate approximately 61 direct jobs According to the California Employment 444
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Development Department (EDD), as of December 2022, the City of Ontario has a labor force of 94,700 persons and of that labor force, 3,300 are unemployed (unemployment rate of 3.2 percent)(EDD, 2022). According to SCAG’s 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, the City of Ontario is anticipated to employ approximately 169,300 persons by 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Additionally, the TOP 2050 projected 296,002 employees in 2050. Therefore, the Project is consistent with both the SCAG’s 2045 and TOP 2050 employment projections for the City. Project-generated jobs are well within the employment projections for the City of Ontario.

Operation of the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the Project area, either directly or indirectly and would not exceed regional or local growth projections.

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

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

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

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Fire prevention services are provided by the Ontario Fire Department (OFD). The Certified SEIR concluded that based on correspondence with the OFD, existing conditions would not be adequate to meet such increased demands from the implementation of TOP 2050. The OFD’s recommendation is that three additional fire stations would be needed in the Ontario Ranch to meet projected needs. While the construction of future facilities could result in potential environmental impacts, future environmental review would occur once specific locations have been determined. Without a definitive location for the development 445
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

of future facilities, the analysis of potential impacts is too speculative to conduct. Future projects would be reviewed by the City and the OFD on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued, including the payment of development impact fees (DIF) that contribute to funding for additional staffing, facilities, and equipment. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

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

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

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

Discussion of Effects: The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s demand for police protection services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. Additionally, the Project is not located within the Downtown Ontario and Ontario Ranch areas. The Project plans would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Building and Police Departments, which would ensure that adequate safety and crime prevention measures are provided within the Project’s design. The Project will not require the construction of any new police protection facilities or alteration of any existing police protection facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new police protection facilities. Consistent with the findings of the Certified SEIR, DIF would also be collected in order to build and supply necessary infrastructure for police protection 446
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

services, as necessary. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iii. Schools?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: As part of the development of this SEIR, the City reached out to the five school districts that serve residents of Ontario to obtain existing conditions information and information on potential impacts. Current enrollment for all three of these school districts is below capacity and the capacity of the schools in addition to any already planned construction projects would be able to accommodate the increased population due to the implementation of TOP 2050. However, it is possible that Ontario-Montclair School District and Cucamonga School District would need additional facilities. Developers would be required to pay the impact fees levied by each school district, set within the limits of SB 50. The Certified SEIR concluded that although the increased demand on school facilities would have the potential to impact one or more of the school districts that serve Ontario, payment of impact fees in compliance with SB 50 would reduce the impacts to an acceptable level. Therefore, impacts to school services would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The City is served by the Ontario-Montclair School District. The Project Applicant proposes to demolish the existing industrial buildings and redevelop the site with a single industrial building. Implementation of the Project does not have the potential to result in substantial direct growth in the population, nor an increase in the student population. The Project Applicant would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for public school services was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project would be required to pay school fees as prescribed by state law prior to the issuance of building permits. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
iv. Parks?
Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: Park service were discussed under the Recreation section of the Certified SEIR. The Certified SEIR concluded that impacts to recreation would be less than significant and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR. Details on the summary findings are discussed below in Section 16.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use plan and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional parks. The Project will not require the construction of any new parks or alteration of any existing parks or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new park facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary. v. Other public facilities?
447
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that the Ontario library system is currently not meeting the goal of 0.6 square feet of library facilities per capita. Buildout of TOP 2050 would result in an increase in demand for library services in the City of Ontario based on an increase in population. Environmental impacts could result from the construction of future facilities; however, the location and size of potential future facilities is currently unknown, and each project would have to complete applicable environmental review under CEQA when it is determined. Future projects would be reviewed by the City of Ontario on an individual basis and would be required to comply with requirements in effect at the time building permits are issued (i.e., payment of development impact fees). Since adequate services would be provided and payment of development impact fees would offset the costs associated with library services, impacts on library services would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with TOP 2050 land use and would not introduce new residents to the City necessitating the need for additional public facilities. The Project will not require the construction of any new public facilities or alteration of any existing public facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new public facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.

16. RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that future growth in the City in accordance with buildout of TOP 2050 would increase the demand for parks and increase existing park usage. TOP 2050 would designate approximately 900 acres for recreational uses under the Open Space – Recreation (OS-R) land use designation. Additionally, new development in Ontario Ranch provides an additional two acres per 1,000 residents for private parks in addition to the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents for public parks. There are also at least 180 acres of regional recreational facilities, joint-use agreements with school districts, and private recreational opportunities providing services that cannot be accommodated by existing facilities. As a result, development of park facilities would keep pace with the anticipated increase in population from buildout of TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project would develop the Project site in accordance with the TOP 2050 land use plan. Accordingly, the development activities proposed by the Project were planned by TOP 2050 and, thus, the Project’s indirect demand for parks was anticipated by the Certified SEIR. The Project is not proposing any significant new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.
448
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes planned park facilities; however, it is speculative to determine the location of proposed park facilities in the City and impacts arising from development of individual park projects. Existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as goals, policies, and actions in TOP 2050 would mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment that may result from buildout of TOP 2050, including expansion of parks, recreational facilities, and multiuse trails. Furthermore, subsequent environmental review would be required for development of park projects under the TOP 2050 Land Use Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects: The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Implementation of the Project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. The Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

17. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Summary of Certified SEIR Finding: The Certified SEIR concluded that TOP 2050 includes policies to encourage and provide access to the regional transit network, to enhance connectivity to the City’s nonmotorized transportation network, and proposes the changes to the Mobility Element that have the potential to affect infrastructure projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. Therefore, TOP 2050 would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and implementation of TOP 2050 would not result in new or a substantial increase in magnitude of impacts compared to the Certified EIR.

Discussion of Effects:

Project Trip Generation
Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted to and produced by a development project. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2021) includes a trip generation rate for general light industrial uses (ITE land use code 110). According to the Project’s Trip Generation Assessment, included as Appendix I.1, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 326 two-way trips per day with 46 Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) AM peak hour trips and 41 PCE PM peak hour trips. However, when accounting for existing conditions, the Project is anticipated to generate 101 fewer two-way trips per day with 6 fewer AM peak hour trips and 10 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing uses (in PCE). Per the City’s Guidelines, the trip generation comparison is based on PCE as the existing and proposed uses are truck-intensive uses and any operations analysis performed (if necessary) would utilize PCE values.

Additionally, when comparing to buildout of the site assumed under TOP 2050, the Project is 449
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007

anticipated to generate 182 fewer two-way trips per day with 34 fewer AM peak hour trips and 29 fewer PM peak hour trips (in PCE).

The City of Ontario adheres to the County’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines which has been used to determine whether additional traffic analysis is necessary for the proposed Project. The County’s Guidelines indicate that development projects that generate a net increase of 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips (without pass-by reductions) would require the preparation and submittal of a Transportation Impact Analysis. The Project is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 net new peak hour trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The Project on its own, without taking any credit for existing uses, also generates fewer than 100 new peak hour trips (both in actual vehicles and PCE). Lastly, the proposed Project uses are anticipated to generate fewer trips than the adopted TOP 2050 land use (Business Park). As such, additional peak hour traffic operations analysis is not necessary based on the thresholds and standards included in the County’s Guidelines (Urban Crossroads, 2023c). Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Project site is not located along a bikeway. The closest designated bikeway to the Project site is a Class I trail located at West Cucamonga Channel, approximately 0.5 mile to the east. The Project would be confined to the Project site and would not affect or conflict with existing or planned bikeways. In addition, the Project would provide bike rack to accommodate bicycle access to the Project stie.

The Project site features (buildings, parking areas, etc.) would be connected by ADA compliant sidewalks and striped crosswalks within the parking areas to the existing ensure pedestrian access throughout Project site. Additionally, the Project would install sidewalk on South Grove Avenue. Implementation of the Project would not interfere with the City’s Active Transportation Plan. No impacts would occur.

Transit
Transit service to the City is provided by OmniTrans. The closest bus route to the Project site is Route 87 with a bus stop located at the intersection of South Grove Avenue and East Francis Street, approximately 0.31 mile north of the Project site. The City of Ontario strives to provide a transit system that serves as a viable alternative to automobile travel. The Project would support transit use by improving existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Project area. The Project would not introduce new features to any public road that would affect transit in the Project area.

As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

As demonstrated, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Mobility Element, and impacts associated with conflict of an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not result in any new, increased or substantially different impacts, other than those previously considered and addressed in the Certified SEIR. No changes or additions to the Certified SEIR analyses are necessary.

Mitigation: No additional mitigation required.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 450
Addendum to The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report File No(s).: PDEV22-040 & PSPA22-007