Ontario City Council
August 20, 2024

notified thereof at Licensee’s expense by filing the bond required by law. Licensor is and shall be under no obligation to make any Alterations to any part of the License Area on account of this Agreement.

7. Utilities and Services.
(a) Licensor shall furnish (or cause to be furnished) to the Kiosks such utilities (which may include, without limitation, water, gas, heat, light, power, sewer and telephone) which are mutually agreed upon by Licensor and Licensee, each in its reasonable discretion. (b) Licensee shall pay for all water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone, and other utilities and services supplied to the Kiosks, together with any taxes thereon. If any such services are not separately metered to Licensee, Licensee shall pay a reasonable proportion to be reasonably determined by Licensor of all utilities or services jointly metered with other premises.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, during any period the operator of the Ontario Events Center is (and remains) the permitted sub-licensee of the License as to all of the Kiosks covered by this Agreement pursuant to that certain Naming Rights and Kiosk Sub-License Agreement entered into as of even date herewith by and between Licensee and Toyota Arena LLC, a California limited liability company (“Naming Rights Agreement”), Licensor shall pay for (or cause the payment of) all water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone, and other utilities and services supplied to the Kiosks, together with any taxes thereon.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, Licensor shall not be liable for any damages directly or indirectly resulting from cessation or interruption of use of water, gas, heat, light, power, telephone, and other utilities and services supplied to the Kiosks. In the event of any such cessation or interruption, Licensor shall use reasonable diligence to have the same restored and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to minimize interference with Licensee’s use of the Kiosks and License Area; provided, however, unless the operator of the Ontario Events Center is (and remains) the sub-licensee of the License as to all of the Kiosks covered by this Agreement pursuant to that certain Naming Rights Agreement, Licensee shall pay (or reimburse Licensor within twenty (20) days following written notice for) the reasonable out-of-pocket costs and expenses in connection with such restoration by Licensor.
(d) Except to the extent provided in Section 7(a) (Utilities and Services), Section 7(b) (Utilities and Services), and Section 8(b) (Repairs and Maintenance), Licensor is and shall be under no obligation to provide any services to any part of the License Area on account of this Agreement.

8. Repair and Maintenance.
(a) Licensee shall, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, maintain the License Area and Kiosks, and every part thereof, in a clean, safe, lawful and proper manner, and in good order, condition and repair at all times during the Term of this Agreement, including trash collection. If Licensee fails to maintain and/or repair the License Area and Kiosks, and every part thereof, promptly following written notice from Licensor, Licensor shall have the right (but not the obligation) to do so at Licensee’s sole cost and expense. Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for such costs within twenty (20) days after receipt of written request from Licensor. (b) In order to provide uniformity with regard to maintenance, if the operator 697

of the Ontario Events Center is not the permitted sub-licensee of the License as to all of the Kiosks covered by this Agreement pursuant to the Naming Rights Agreement, then Licensee shall, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, either, at Licensee’s option: (i) maintain the License Area to the same maintenance standard and using the same maintenance schedule that the then operator of the Ontario Events Center is using to maintain the Public Plaza, or (ii) engage the then operator of the Ontario Events Center to perform maintenance services with respect to the License Area, and Licensee shall pay a reasonable pro rata share of the maintenance services as reasonably determined by Licensor.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Agreement, during the period the operator of the Ontario Events Center is (and remains) the permitted sub-licensee of the License as to all of the Kiosks covered by this Agreement pursuant to that certain Naming Rights Agreement, Licensor shall, at Licensor’s sole cost and expense, maintain (or cause the maintenance of) the Kiosks and the License Area, and every part thereof, in a clean, safe, lawful and proper manner, and in good order, condition and repair at all times during the Term of this Agreement, including trash collection and security.

9. Disability Laws and Regulations. Licensee shall ensure that the License Area and Kiosks all activities, seating, signs, banners, and structures and installations within the License Area and Kiosks are accessible to qualified individuals with a disability. Licensee shall comply with all Disability Laws and Regulations applicable to the License Area and Kiosks including without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. section 12101 et seq.,), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 51), California Civil Codes sections 54 through 55.2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (California Physical Access Laws), California Government Code sections 11135-11139.8, (Accessibility to Government Programs) The Fair Employment and Housing Act (California Government Code Section 12900-12951 & 12927-12928 & 12955 - 12956.1 & 12960-12976). Compliance shall include, but is not limited to, the removal of all structural barriers, maintaining the accessibility of services and goods, and the modification of policies, practices and procedures and its auxiliary aids and services. Licensor will not be responsible for any costs or expenses related to Licensee’s compliance with the Disability Laws or Regulations. Licensee will defend, indemnify, and hold Licensor harmless from and against all claims, suits or causes of action and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) which arise out of any act or omission by Licensee, its agents, employees, guests, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees that violates or is alleged to violate any or all the Disability Laws and Regulations.

10. Assignment and Sub-licensing.
(a) Except as expressly permitted herein, Licensee shall not have the right to assign, sub-license, encumber and/or otherwise transfer this Agreement without Licensor’s prior written consent (which such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed).

Licensor hereby consents to (i) a sub-license of the License as to all of the Kiosks to the operator of the Ontario Events Center pursuant to the Naming Rights Agreement, (ii) sub-sublicense(s) of the License as to any of the Kiosks by the operator of the Ontario Events Center under the Naming Rights Agreement to any third party, (iii) an assignment of this Agreement to a Leasehold Mortgagee (as defined in the Ground Lease) to secure a Leasehold Mortgage (as defined in the Ground Lease), including an assignment of this Agreement to any holder of a mezzanine loan or preferred equity provider; and (iv) an assignment to (A) a new ground lease tenant of Lot A under 698

the Ground Lease provided such Assignment or Transfer (as defined in the Ground Lease) to the new ground lease tenant is expressly permitted or has been approved by the City of Ontario under the Ground Lease as and to the extent required by the Ground Lease, or (B) the fee owner of Lot A if Licensee purchases the fee interest in Lot A as provided in the Ground Lease; provided that any such new ground lease tenant or fee owner assignee executes the Assignment and Assumption Agreement (as defined in the Ground Lease) (or a substantially similar agreement if Licensee purchases the fee interest in Lot A as provided in the Ground Lease) and such Assignment and Assumption Agreement includes the assignment and assumption of this Agreement and a duly fully executed copy of such Assignment and Assumption Agreement has been delivered to City.

Within thirty (30) days after the receipt of written notice (the “Initial Notice”) from Licensee requesting Licensor approval pursuant to this Section 10(a), Licensor shall approve or disapprove any such request. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons for the disapproval and, if applicable, the conditions required to be satisfied by Licensee in order to obtain approval. If Licensor fails to deliver to Licensee a written approval or disapproval within such thirty (30) day period, Licensee shall provide Licensor a second written notice (the “Second Notice”) stating on the front page in bold, uppercase, 14 point font as follows: “THIS NOTICE

IS A FINAL NOTICE OF A PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER
UNDER SECTION 10(A) OF THE KIOSK LICENSE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ONTARIO AND [INSERT NAME OF
LICENSEE] ASSIGNING OR TRANSFERRING [INSERT NAME OF
LICENSEE]’S RIGHTS UNDER THE KIOSK LICENSE AGREEMENT AS DESCRIBED BELOW. IF THE CITY OF ONTARIO FAILS TO APPROVE

OR DISAPPROVE THE PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER
DESCRIBED BELOW WITHIN FIVE (5) DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT

OF THIS NOTICE, THE CITY OF ONTARIO SHALL BE DEEMED TO
HAVE APPROVED THE ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER”. If Licensor fails to deliver to Licensee a written approval or disapproval within such five (5) day period following Licensor’s receipt of such Second Notice, Licensor’s consent shall be deemed granted so long as the Initial Notice and the Second Notice was sent by (i) electronic mail to all of the individual Licensor addressees listed in Section 17 (Notices) and (ii) simultaneously delivered by (A) recognized overnight delivery service or (B) personal delivery to Scott Ochoa and Ruben Duran at the addresses set forth in Section 17 (Notices).
(b) Licensor may sell, assign or transfer its rights or interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of Licensee. Upon any such sale, assignment or transfer, other than merely as security, Licensee agrees to look solely to the assignee or transferee for the performance of all Licensor’s obligations under this Agreement and Licensor shall be released from any further obligations hereunder.

11. Insurance.
699

11.1. Licensee agrees to purchase (or cause the purchase of) all required insurance at Licensee’s expense and to deposit with the Licensor certificates of insurance, including all endorsements required herein, necessary to satisfy the Licensor that the insurance provisions of this Agreement have been complied with and to keep such insurance coverage and the certificates therefore on deposit with the Licensor during the entire Term of this Agreement. The Licensor reserves the right to request the declarations pages showing all endorsements and a complete certified copy of the policy.

11.2. Licensee shall use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that any Contractor (as defined below), architects, engineers, and other licensed professionals (collectively, hereinafter referred to as “Insured Parties”) performing work on behalf of Licensee pursuant to this Agreement shall maintain insurance subject to the terms and conditions as set forth herein unless such Insured Parties are covered under Licensee’s insurance. Licensee shall not allow any Insured Parties to commence work until the insurance requirements have been satisfied. It is the obligation of the Licensee to provide notice of the insurance requirements to all Insured Parties and to obtain evidence of insurance prior to allowing any Insured Parties to commence work.

Evidence of insurance must be maintained by Licensee through the entirety of this Agreement for inspection by Licensor at any reasonable time upon advance written notice.

11.3. Licensee will require Builders Risk insurance for new construction. The Builders Risk policy shall be written on a Special Causes of Loss Form with the exclusion of earthquake and flood. The limit of insurance shall be 100% of the completed project value with no coinsurance and replacement cost valuation.

11.4. All self-insured retentions (“SIR(s)”) or deductibles shall be clearly stated on the certificate of insurance. If no deductibles or SIRs apply, indicate this on the certificate of insurance with a zero (0) by the appropriate line of coverage. Any deductible or self-insured retention (SIR) in an amount in excess of $25,000 ($5,000 for automobile liability) carried by Licensee, shall specifically be approved by the City Risk Manager. Licensee shall be responsible for reimbursement of any deductible to the insurer. Upon notice of any actual or alleged claim or loss arising out of Insured Parties work hereunder, such Insured Party shall immediately satisfy in full the SIR provisions of the policy in order to trigger coverage for the Licensee and additional insureds.

11.5. Terms & Conditions Applicable to Licensee and All Insured Parties. (a) Qualified Insurer.
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and authorized to transact business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through a surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. (2) If the Licensee’s insurance carrier is not an admitted carrier in the State of California and does not have an A.M. Best rating of A:VII, the City Risk Manager retains the right to approve or reject a carrier after a review of the company’s performance and financial 700

ratings. Licensee is responsible to enforce this requirement with the Insured Parties. (3) The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the Licensee shall provide the minimum limits and coverage that are the greater of the limits and coverage as set forth below:

Coverages Minimum Limits
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate

Automobile Liability including $1,000,000 limit per occurrence coverage for owned, non-owned
and hired vehicles (if applicable)
Workers’ Compensation (if applicable) Statutory Minimum Employers’ Liability Insurance
(if applicable) $1,000,000 per occurrence

(4) The policy or policies of insurance maintained by the general contractor (“Contractor”) (to the extent not covered by the policy or policies of insurance maintained by Licensee) shall provide the minimum limits and coverage as set forth below:

Coverages Minimum Limits
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
Automobile Liability including $1,000,000 limit per occurrence coverage for owned, non-owned
and hired vehicles
Workers’ Compensation Statutory Minimum
Employers’ Liability Insurance $1,000,000 per occurrence Builders Risk for New Construction Completed Improvements value (5) The policy or policies of insurance maintained by architects, engineers, and other licensed professionals (to the extent not covered by the policy or policies of insurance maintained by Licensee) shall provide the minimum limits and coverage as set forth below for a period of 3 years following completion of the contact 701

Coverages Minimum Limits
Professional Liability For $2,000,000 per claim or occurrence Architects $3,000,000 aggregate
Professional Liability for Structural $1,000,000 per claim or occurrence Engineer and Others $2,000,000 aggregate
Workers’ Compensation Statutory Minimum
Employers’ Liability Insurance $1,000,000 per occurrence

(b) Commercial General Liability.
(1) Licensee and Contractor (to the extent not covered by Licensee’s insurance policy) shall take out and maintain, during this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Licensor.
(2) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(i) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(ii) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(iii) Premises/Operations Liability
(iv) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(v) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(vi) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(vii) Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract (viii) Broad Form Property Damage
(ix) Independent Consultants Coverage
(3) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (i) contractual liability; (ii) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (iii) products/completed operations liability; or (iv) contain any other exclusion contrary to this Agreement.
702

(4) The policy shall give Licensor, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City of Ontario designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City Risk Manager, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City of Ontario as an additional insured.
(5) The Business Auto Liability coverage shall be written on ISO form CA 00 01, or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. (c) Required Endorsements. The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain the following endorsements, which shall accompany the certificate of insurance:
(1) The additional insured endorsement(s) listed in subsection (b)(4), above.
(2) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Licensee or any of the Insured Parties from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit any indemnification obligations to the Licensor and shall not preclude the Licensor from taking such other actions available to the Licensor under other provisions of this Agreement or applicable laws. (3) The Workers’ Compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation endorsement waiving all rights of subrogation against the City of Ontario and members of the City Council, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents. (4) All insurance policies required by this Agreement shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City of Ontario and members of the City Council, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees when acting within the scope of their appointment or employment.
(5) The Commercial General Liability policy shall contain a severability of interests clause (standard in the ISO CG 001 policy). (d) Requirements Not Limiting. Requirement of specific coverage or minimum limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance.

11.6. Terms & Conditions Specific to Licensee.
(a) Licensee shall notify Licensor in writing prior to any lapse of insurance coverage and provide a copy of the cancellation notice to Licensor and adhere to this Section 11. (b) Intentionally omitted.
703

(c) The Licensee is granted the option of procuring insurance under a single policy or by a combination of underlying policies with the balance provided by an Excess or Umbrella policy with Follow Form coverage to the total per occurrence and aggregate limits required under this Agreement.
(d) Licensor will have the right, but not the obligation of prohibiting the Licensee from entering the License Area until such evidence of insurance has been submitted to the Licensor.
(e) Failure of Licensor to demand delivery of or identify deficiency with such evidence of insurance shall not be construed as a waiver of Licensee’s obligations under this Section.
(f) By requiring insurance, the Licensor does not represent that coverage and limits will necessarily be adequate to protect the Licensee. Insurance procured by the Licensee will not reduce or limit the Licensee’s contractual obligations. (g) Licensee shall not be relieved of its responsibility for any and all loss, damage or liability stemming from any risk or exposure that is not insured, or not covered within any deductibles or self-insured retentions, or not covered as a result of policy exclusions or limitations.
(h) Insurance certificates should be forwarded to:

City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Attn: Risk Manager, Human Resources/Risk Management Agency With a copy to:

Ruben Duran, City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 E Guasti Road
Ontario, CA 91761
(i) Licensor expressly retains the right to request a change in insurance requirements if in the reasonable judgment of the City’s Risk Manager it is the general commercial practice in the City of Ontario to carry such insurance and/or in the requested insurance limits for the subject activities taking into consideration the risks associated with such uses of the License Area or Kiosks, so long as any insurance required is available from recognized carriers. If so requested, Licensee and Licensor will strive to mutually agree to increase or decrease insurance of any of the above insurance types throughout the term of this Agreement and any increase or decrease in insurance will be as deemed by City of Ontario’s Risk Manager as appropriate to adequately protect Licensor.
704

(j) Following mutual agreement, Licensee will then deposit copies of acceptable certificates of insurance and endorsements with Licensor incorporating such changes within thirty (30) days of procuring such revised insurance. (k) The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Licensee’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions and requirements of this Agreement, nor act in any way to reduce the policy coverage and limits available from the insurer.

12. Indemnification of Licensor. Licensee shall be solely responsible for, and shall indemnify, defend (by counsel acceptable to the Indemnified Parties (as defined below) in question) and hold Licensor and its affiliates, partners, trustees, officers, directors, agents, employees and any other person acting for or on behalf of Licensor (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless from and against any and all costs, expenses, claims, losses, damages, causes of action, judgments, settlements and liability (including reasonable attorneys’ fees, disbursements and costs) which may arise directly or indirectly by reason of (i) any occurrence attributable to or arising out of any act, omission or failure of Licensee’s or any employee, director, contractor, agent, client, sub-licensee, occupant, invitee or guest of Licensee (collectively, “Agents”), including the failure to observe or perform any obligation of Licensee under this Agreement (including failure to surrender the Kiosks upon the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement); (ii) Licensee’s or its Agents entry upon and access to the License Area; (iii) the release and/or transportation of any Hazardous Materials; (iv) any accident or other occurrence in or about the License Area or that arise from the use, occupancy, management, repair, or maintenance of the Kiosks, or any portion thereof, except to the extent caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Licensor; and/or (v) the installation, presence, operation, maintenance, repair and removal of any personal property, trade fixtures, and equipment of Licensee or its sub-licensees and occupants; including, without limitation, any claim or cause of action for injury to or death of any person or damage to any property or business arising out of any such occurrence described above or any other loss or injury arising out of the installation, operation, maintenance or removal of such personal property or improvements. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration and termination of this Agreement.

13. Default; Remedies. If Licensee fails to perform or observe any covenant to be performed or observed by Licensee under this Agreement and Licensee shall fail to remedy the same within (i) ten (10) days with respect to a monetary covenant and (ii) thirty (30) days with respect to a non-monetary covenant after notice from Licensor to Licensee specifying such neglect or failure, Licensor shall have, in addition to any other remedy available hereunder, at law or in equity, the right to immediately revoke and terminate this Agreement upon notice to Licensee, and this Agreement shall forthwith be revoked and terminated. Upon such revocation and termination, Licensee shall remove all personal property, trade fixtures, and equipment of Licensee or its sublicensees and occupants and the provisions of Section 5 (Surrender) regarding surrender shall be applicable. Licensee agrees to pay to Licensor the amount of all reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred by Licensor arising out of or resulting from any breach by Licensee of its obligations hereunder.

14. Additional Termination Rights. Licensor shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in the event Licensee and any of its sub-licensees and occupants cease operation of the 705

Kiosks for a period of six (6) consecutive months after written notice from Licensor to Licensee, subject to Force Majeure Events (as defined in the Ground Lease) and excluding cessation of operations due to changes affecting the broader economy or capital, financial, credit, or securities markets.

15. Exculpation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, no member, officer, partner, shareholder, director, board member, agent, or employee of either party will be personally liable to the other party, and no party will have recourse against any of the foregoing, in an event of default by such party or for any amount which may become due to the other party or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement or any claim based upon this Agreement.

16. No Joint Venture. This Agreement shall not create a partnership, joint venture or landlord/tenant relationship between Licensor and Licensee. It is specifically understood that this Agreement is not a lease or a sublease.

17. Notices. Any notice which may be given or required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and sent by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, or by overnight courier service, and addressed to the other party at the following address:

Licensee: OTC Lot A Owner, LLC
388 Cordova Street, #280
Pasadena, California 91101
Attention: Patrick Chraghchian & Robert Montano

With a copy to:

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Attention: Misty M. Sanford, Esq.

Email: [email protected]
Licensor: City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
Attention: City Manager; Scott Ochoa
with a copy to:

Best Best & Krieger, LLP
2855 E Guasti Road
Ontario, CA 91761
Attention: Ruben Duran (City Attorney)
Email: [email protected]
Either party may, at any time, change its address for the above purposes by sending a notice to the other party stating the change and setting forth the new address. 706

18. CONDITION OF THE LICENSE AREA. LICENSEE ACKNOWLEDGES AND

AGREES THAT IT IS LICENSING PORTIONS OF THE LICENSE AREA WHERE THE KIOSKS WILL BE BUILT “AS IS, WHERE IS” AND “WITH ALL FAULTS”. NEITHER LICENSOR NOR LICENSOR’S AGENTS HAVE MADE ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR

PROMISES WITH RESPECT TO THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE LICENSE AREA,

THE RENTS, LEASES, EXPENSES OF OPERATION OR ANY OTHER MATTER OR THING

AFFECTING OR RELATED TO THE LICENSE AREA AND/OR KIOSKS AND NO RIGHTS

OR EASEMENTS LICENSES ARE ACQUIRED BY LICENSEE BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE. ALL UNDERSTANDINGS AND AGREEMENTS HERETOFORE MADE

BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO ARE MERGED IN THIS CONTRACT, WHICH ALONE

FULLY AND COMPLETELY EXPRESSES THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LICENSOR AND

LICENSEE, AND ANY EXECUTORY AGREEMENT HEREAFTER MADE SHALL BE

INEFFECTIVE TO CHANGE, MODIFY, DISCHARGE, WAIVE OR EFFECT AN

ABANDONMENT OF IT IN WHOLE OR IN PART, UNLESS SUCH EXECUTORY

AGREEMENT IS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CHANGE, MODIFICATION, DISCHARGE, WAIVER OR ABANDONMENT IS SOUGHT.

19. Estoppel Certificate. At any time and from time to time, within ten (10) business days after written request by either Licensor or Licensee (the “requesting party”), the other party (the “responding party”) shall execute and deliver an estoppel certificate addressed to the requesting party, and/or to such other beneficiary (as described below) as the requesting party shall request, certifying (i) that this Agreement is in full force and effect, if such be the case, (ii) that this Agreement is unmodified, or, if there have been modifications, identifying the same, (iii) that, to the actual knowledge of the responding party without any duty to investigate, there are no then existing and uncured defaults under the Agreement by either Licensor or Licensee, or, if any such defaults are known, identifying the same, and (iv) any other factual matters (which shall be limited to the actual knowledge of the responding party without any duty to investigate) as may be reasonably requested by the requesting party. Such certificate may designate as the beneficiary thereof the requesting party, and/or any third party having a reasonable need for such a certificate (such as, but not limited to, a prospective purchaser, transferee, or lender).

20. Nondiscrimination. Licensee covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to Licensee’s interest in this Agreement, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the License Area and/or Kiosks nor shall Licensee itself or any person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, sub-licensees or vendees of the Kiosks.

Licensee covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to Licensee’s interest in this Agreement, that Licensee shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale, lease or sub-license of the Kiosks on the basis of the race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry of any person. Licensee covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to Licensee’s interest in this Agreement, that all deeds, leases or contracts entered into relating to the sale, transfer, leasing or sub-licensing of the Kiosks or any interest therein shall contain or be subject to substantially the following nondiscrimination 707

or nonsegregation clauses:
(a) In deeds: “The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, license, sublicense, sub-sub-license, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, licensees, sub-licensees, subsub-licensees, or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land.”
(b) In leases: “The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the leasing, subleasing, renting, transferring, licensing, sub-licensing, sub-sub-licensing, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased, nor shall lessee itself, or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, licensees, sub-licensees, sub-sub-licensees, or vendees in the land herein leased.”
(c) In contracts entered into relating to the sale, transfer, leasing, licensing, sublicensing, or sub-sub-licensing of land or any interest therein: “There shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, license, sublicense, sub-sub-license, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, licensees, sub-licensees, sub-sub-licensees, or vendees of the land.”

21. Miscellaneous.
(a) This Agreement and the Ground Lease embodies the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and shall supersede all prior offers, negotiations and agreements, and in the event of any conflict between terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Ground Lease, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. This Agreement may be modified only in writing, signed by Licensor and Licensee. (b) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflict of laws principles thereof. (c) This Agreement shall extend to and bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. (d) Licensor and Licensee each represent that they had no dealings with any real estate broker, finder or other person, with respect to this Agreement in any manner. Each 708

party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other against and from any claim or demand for any brokerage commission or other fees, and all costs, claims, expenses and liabilities in connection therewith (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, disbursements and actual costs), arising out of any purported or actual dealings with any such broker. (e) The submission of this Agreement to Licensee shall not be construed as an offer, nor shall Licensee have any rights with respect hereto, unless and until both parties shall execute and deliver a copy of this Agreement to the other party. (f) The paragraph headings throughout this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. (g) In any action or proceeding brought to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable costs and expenses, including without limitation court costs and attorneys’ fees actually and reasonably incurred, as awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction. This Section shall survive the termination of Agreement.
(h) If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law; provided, that, the invalid or unenforceable term or provision shall be deemed replaced to the extent necessary by a term or provision that is valid and enforceable and that comes closest to expressing the intention of the parties with respect to such invalid or unenforceable term or provision.
(i) This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this Agreement transmitted by facsimile, email, DocuSign or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original executed copy of this Agreement for all purposes and shall create a binding document. [NO FURTHER TEXT ON THIS PAGE]
709
Kiosk License Agreement
S-1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Licensor and Licensee have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

LICENSEE:

OTC LOT A OWNER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________
LICENSOR:

CITY OF ONTARIO
By: __________________________________
Name: Scott Ochoa
Title: City Manager
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk, Ontario
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
Susan Apy, Special Counsel
710
Consent
Kiosk License Agreement

CONSENT
OTC Lot B Owner, LLC, OTC Lot C Owner, LLC, and OTC Lot D Owner, LLC each joins in the execution of this Agreement solely for the purpose of: (1) consenting to the grant of the License to Licensee and (2) acknowledging and agreeing that, as described in Section 4.2.2 of the Ground Lease, Licensee has exercised the option for all Kiosks contemplated by the Ground Lease in the Public Plaza on a “first come first served” basis, and no other ground tenant or owner of the other Lots (as defined in the Ground Lease), including OTC Lot B Owner, LLC, OTC Lot C Owner, LLC, and OTC Lot D Owner, LLC, shall have the right or ability to exercise the option for kiosks in the Public Plaza.

Date: August [__], 2024

OTC LOT B OWNER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________

OTC LOT C OWNER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________

OTC LOT D OWNER, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ___________________________
Name: ___________________________
Title: ___________________________

711

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LOT A
That portion of land lying within Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17978, in the City of Ontario, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per map filed in Book 216, Pages 44 and 45 of Parcel Maps, records of said county, more particularly described as follows:

BEGINNING at the northwesterly terminus of that certain course shown along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 1 as “N33°23’13” E 516.65’”;
Thence southwesterly along said southeasterly line, South 33°23’13” West a distance of 479.18 feet;
Thence leaving said southeasterly line, South 63°16’30” West a distance of 36.68 feet; Thence South 89°54’52” West a distance of 362.10 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northwesterly, having a radius of 491.74 feet, a radial bearing to said curve bears South 72°45’50” East;
Thence northeasterly along said curve, a distance of 86.84 feet through a central angle of 10°07’05”;
Thence non-tangent to said curve, North 17°43’54” West a distance of 36.09 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 168.73 feet, a radial bearing to said curve bears South 72°54’37” West;
Thence northerly along said curve, a distance of 53.66 feet through a central angle of 18°13’22”; Thence non-tangent to said curve, North 03°47’16” East, a distance of 44.47 feet; Thence North 79°39’21” West, a distance of 13.17 feet to a beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave westerly having a radius of 125.07 feet, a radial bearing to said curve bears South 81°26’03” East;
Thence northerly along said curve, a distance of 86.32 feet through a central angle of 39°32’39”, to the beginning of a reverse curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 268.72 feet, a radial bearing to said curve bears North 59° 01’ 18” East;
Thence northwesterly along said reverse curve, a distance of 25.50 feet through a central angle of 05°26’15”, to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 109.35 feet, a radial bearing to said curve bears South 67°02’24” West; Thence northwesterly along said curve a distance of 29.64 feet through a central angle of 15°31’56”;
712
Thence North 07°25’40” West a distance of 30.09 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave southeasterly, having a radius of 50.51 feet; a radial bearing to said curve bears South 79°55’53” West;
Thence northerly and northeasterly along said curve a distance of 89.18 feet through a central angle of 101°09’41”;
Thence non-tangent to said curve, North 00°24’32” East a distance of 19.27 feet to the northerly line of said Parcel 1;
Thence easterly along said northerly line, North 89°22’30” East, a distance of 424.99 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northerly, having a radius of 470.50 feet; Thence easterly along said curve a distance of 69.53 feet through a central angle of 08°28’01”; Thence continuing along said northerly line, North 89°09’29” East, a distance of 100.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave southerly, having a radius of 429.50 feet; Thence easterly along said curve, a distance of 37.57 feet through a central angle of 05°00’43” to the most Northerly, Northeasterly corner of said Parcel 1; Thence radial to said curve along the Northeasterly line of said parcel 1, South 02°49’48” East a distance of 10.50 feet;
Thence South 27°54’22” East a distance of 57.11 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 713

EXHIBIT B

DEPICTION OF PUBLIC PLAZA AREA
714
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A KIOSK LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY AND OTC LOT A OWNER GRANTING A LICENSE TO USE

CERTAIN LOCATIONS WITHIN AN AREA IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO

THE EVENTS CENTER TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONSTRUCT

AND OPERATE KIOSKS AND MAKING CERTAIN CEQA FINDINGS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH.

WHEREAS, the City of Ontario is the fee interest owner of certain real property, identified with Assessor’s Parcel Number 0210-205-01-0000, located at 4000 East Ontario Center Parkway, Ontario, CA, consisting of approximately 25.7 gross acres of land, (the “City Property”), which contains certain improvements, including a sports and entertainment arena with related office space for administrative use (the “Events Center”), commonly known as the Toyota Arena, which is situated on and generally within center point of the City Property, and presently with parking lots for use associated with the Events Center; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to design and construct certain improvements outside along the east side of the Events Center to create a public plaza or paseo (the “Plaza Area”) that will contain retail and concession kiosks (“Kiosks”), outside furniture, and outdoor entertainment space for use by the residents of Ontario and the regional community; and
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a Ground Lease with OTC LOT A OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“OTC Lot A Owner”), whereby OTC Lot A Owner will design, plan, and construct a development on a lot located on the east side of the Events Center (“Ground Lease”); and
WHEREAS, as contemplated by Section 4.2.2 of the Ground Lease, the City and OTC Lot A Owner have negotiated a draft Kiosk License Agreement to grant OTC Lot A Owner a license to use certain locations within the Plaza Area to construct, operate, manage, and maintain the Kiosks (“Kiosk License Agreement”), subject to and in accordance with all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Kiosk License Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resource Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.), the Kiosk License Agreement is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 (Class 11) Accessory Structures as construction and operation of the Kiosks pursuant to the Kiosk License Agreement consists of the construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities. None of the following exceptions to categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply:
715
“(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located--a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ONTARIO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

SECTION 2. Finding of Categorical Exemption. Based on substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, all information (including all written and oral evidence) presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the construction and operation of the Kiosks pursuant to the Kiosk License Agreement is categorically exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 (Class 11 Accessory Structures).
716
SECTION 3. Finding of No Exception to Categorical Exemption. Based on substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, all information (including all written and oral evidence) presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the construction and operation of the Kiosks pursuant to the Kiosk License Agreement is not subject to any of the exceptions to categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2.

SECTION 4. Approval of Amendment to the Kiosk License Agreement. The City Council hereby approves the Kiosk License Agreement in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to any non-substantive revisions which do not increase the City’s liability and are approved by the City Attorney, and authorizes the City Manager to sign and enter into the Kiosk License Agreement and perform the obligations of the City under the Kiosk License Agreement.

SECTION 5. Notice of Exemption. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby directed to file a Notice of Exemption for the Kiosk License Agreement under CEQA.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision of this Resolution or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution are severable. The City declares that the City would have adopted this Resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion of this Resolution.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
717
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
718

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 20, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 20, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
719
Exhibit A

KIOSK LICENSE AGREEMENT
[behind this page]
720
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Edmelynne V Hutter
Department:

Prepared By: Edmelynne V Hutter
Staff Member Presenting: Scott Murphy,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 25
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023020281), INCLUDING THE

ADOPTION OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSP22-001 - EUCLID MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN)

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
August 20, 2024
SECTION:

PUBLIC HEARINGS
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions:

A. Consider and adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) prepared for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, File No.

PSP22-001, which includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
B. Introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance approving the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (File No. PSP22-001).

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Invest in the City's Infrastructure (Water, Streets, Sewers, Parks, Storm Drains and Public Facilities)
Ensure the Development of a Well Planned, Balanced, and Self-Sustaining Community in Ontario Ranch
FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (EMUSP) would result in both shortand long-term fiscal impacts to the City. Short-term impacts include infrastructure improvements to serve the new Business Park and Mixed-Use development. The cost of these improvements is included in the Nexus Study and Development Impact Fees previously adopted by the City Council.

The developer will be required to install improvements or pay the Development Impact Fees ("DIF") associated with the various improvements. Long-term fiscal impacts include the ongoing operations and maintenance services (police, fire, maintenance, etc.) necessary to serve the new development. While the development will result in potential increased property tax revenue, the 721
increase is not sufficient to cover the cost of services associated with the project. To address the shortfall, the developer will be required to form and/or join a Community Facilities District ("CFD") to cover the additional public service costs. No Original Model Colony dollars will be used to fund this Ontario Ranch development.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Policy Plan (General Plan) provides the basic framework for development within the 8,200-acre area commonly referred to as Ontario Ranch. The Policy Plan requires City Council approval of a Specific Plan for new developments within Ontario Ranch, to ensure that sufficient land area is included to achieve cohesive, unified districts and neighborhoods. Additionally, a Specific Plan is required to incorporate a development framework that details land use, circulation, infrastructure improvements (such as drainage, sewer, and water facilities), provision for public services, and urban and design landscape standards.

The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (EMUSP) area is 84 acres in size and bordered by Schaefer Avenue to the north, Sultana Avenue to the east, Edison Avenue to the south and Euclid Avenue to the west.

The EMUSP establishes a comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations to guide and regulate site planning, landscape, and architectural character, and ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during Project development. The EMUSP establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site to ensure the Policy Plan goals and policies are achieved.

Land Use Plan - The EMUSP consists of five Planning Areas that will accommodate business park, light industrial, commercial, office and residential uses. The Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP 2050 by providing opportunities for employment in warehousing, research and development, service, professional office, and supporting retail at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions.

The EMUSP land use intensity anticipated in the five proposed planning areas (see Exhibit B: Land Use Plan) is consistent with TOP 2050. The EMUSP proposes a maximum 0.6 Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) within the Business Park land use district (Planning Areas 1, 2A and 2B); and 1.5 FAR for office uses,

1.0 FAR for retail uses and 35 DU/AC for residential uses within the Mixed-Use land use district (Planning Areas 3A and 3B). The proposed overall FARs and residential density for the EMUSP are consistent with the TOP 2050 Policy Plan Land Use designations for Business Park and Mixed Use – Great Park.

The EMUSP proposes the potential development of up to 1,676,886 square feet of business park, office and retail development, and 466 dwelling units. Planning Areas 1 and 2 are approximately

53.06 acres in size and can potentially be developed with 1,386,776 square feet of business park space. Planning Area 3 is approximately 19.03 acres in size and is anticipated to be developed with up to 290,110 square feet of office and retail space, and 466 dwelling units. Planning Areas 4 and 5 are 6.28 acres and 5.73 acres both include the extension of existing Southern California Edison transmission lines and are designated as non-recreational open space.

Design Guidelines - The design theme and concept for the project was created to ensure a high722 quality, attractive and cohesive design structure for the EMUSP. The guidelines provide the following objectives for all future development within the EMUSP area.

Demonstrates high-quality development that complements and integrates into the community and adds value to the City.

Creates a functional and sustainable place that ensures EMUSP is competitive regionally and appropriate in the Ontario Ranch community.

Illustrates the distinctive characteristics of the three land use districts: Business Park, Mixed Use and Open Space – Nonrecreational.

Establishes criteria for building design and materials, landscape design, and site design that provide guidance to developers, buildings, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals preparing plans for construction.

Provides guidance to City staff and the Planning Commission in the review and evaluation of future development projects in the EMUSP area.

Incorporates construction and landscape design standards that promote energy and water conservation strategies.

Implements the goals and policies of TOP 2050 and the intent of the Ontario Development Code.

The Design Guidelines have been established to promote high-quality architecture as required by the Ontario Development Code and TOP 2050. The proposed architectural theme of the EMUSP incorporates a Contemporary Architectural style, and the planning areas will be designed to be compatible with and complement one another. The EMUSP provides examples of the type of business park and mixed-use concepts that are envisioned to be constructed within the Specific Plan.

The EMUSP requires all buildings to be designed to highlight the primary entryways by incorporating special materials, visual relief, massing and shading. Additionally, the facades that front onto a public street must incorporate vertical and horizontal articulation and material changes that will assist in enhancing these elevations and providing visual interest from the public view.

Circulation Concept - The circulation plan reinforces the objective of moving vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit safely and efficiently through and around the Project and establishes the hierarchy and general location of roadways in and around the project boundary.

Future traffic signals are planned at the following intersections.

Schaefer & Sultana (future) Avenues
Edison & Sultana (future) Avenues
Schaefer Avenue – between Euclid and Sultana Avenues
Edison Avenue – between Euclid and Sultana Avenues
Euclid Avenue – between Schaefer and Edison Avenues
Primary access to developments within the EMUSP area will be provided along the perimeter streets of Schaefer, Sultana (future), Edison and Euclid Avenues. Final right-of-way section 723
improvements along these streets are provided in the EMUSP and are consistent with the City’s Master Plan of Streets. Euclid Avenue right-of-way will be 200 feet wide, while Edison Avenue will be 160 feet wide. Euclid and Edison Avenues will have 4 lanes in each direction, with raised medians that are 66 FT-wide and 26 FT-wide, respectively. Schaefer Avenue is planned to be 108 feet wide with 2 lanes in each direction, and no raised median. Sultana Avenue is categorized as a local industrial street with 66 feet wide right-of-way.

Each street will include a parkway, sidewalk and landscape buffer. Euclid, Edison and Schaefer Avenues will also be designed with a multi-purpose trail within the neighborhood edge, however the trail on Edison Avenue is planned on the south side of the street and will be addressed in a different specific plan.

Landscaping - The landscape design theme for EMUSP encourages durable landscape materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of the structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits. Table 5.1 in the EMUSP establishes a base palette and includes a variety of groundcovers, shrubs, ornamental grasses, and evergreen and deciduous trees. The selection complements the design theme of the EMUSP area and features water-efficient, drought-tolerant species native to the region. Similar plant materials may be substituted for the species listed in Table 5.1 – Plant Palette if the alternative plans are climate appropriate and enhance the thematic setting.

The minimum landscape coverage required for both Business Park and Mixed-use land use districts is 10 percent. As illustrated in Section 5.13 – Streetscapes of the Specific Plan, Euclid Avenue will be required to provide a 50-foot-wide neighborhood edge (15-foot-wide parkway plus an additional 35-foot-wide landscape buffer). Edison and Schaefer Avenues will be required to provide a 23-footwide landscape buffer. Sultana will be designed with a nine-foot-wide parkway that includes a fivefoot-wide sidewalk and a four-foot-wide landscape area adjacent to the curb.

Infrastructure and Services – The backbone infrastructure to serve all areas of the EMUSP will be installed by the developers in accordance with the Ontario Ranch Master Plans for streets, water (including recycled water), sewer, storm drain, and fiber optic facilities. Natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas Company and electricity by Southern California Edison (“SCE”).

Development of the Project requires that the developer install all infrastructure necessary to serve the Project as a standalone development, with phasing and ultimate details to be reviewed and approved via the Development Agreement (File No. PDA23-004).

Specific Plan Phasing – Development phasing within the EMUSP will be determined by the developer, based upon the real estate market conditions, infrastructure extensions, and associated Development Agreements. The EMUSP provides a Conceptual Phasing Plan and anticipated development to occur in at least two phases (see Exhibit E: Conceptual Phasing Plan). The Applicant is an interest holder of the Phase 1 area, and therefore is pursuing the associated proposed Tentative Parcel Map (File No. PMTT23-005) and Development Plan (File No. PDEV23-011) applications that the Planning Commission considered at a public hearing on July 23, 2024, and voted (6-0) to approve. The properties within the Phase 2 area are under different ownerships and no development is currently proposed for these properties. 724
Signage – The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan requires that signage within the Specific Plan area adhere to Section 5.2.2.5 (Signage) of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan and comply with Chapter 8 (Sign Regulations) of the Development Code.

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 2050.

The California Government Code (Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Section 65450-65457) permits the adoption and administration of specific plans as an implementation tool for elements contained in the local General Plan. Specific plans must demonstrate consistency in regulations, guidelines, and programs, with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. The EMUSP has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050. The policy analysis in Chapter 7 of the Specific Plan describes the manner in which the EMUSP complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050. The Project site is one of the properties listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and the proposed Project is consistent with the number of dwelling units (466) and density (35 du/ac) specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

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 File No.

PSP22-001 and the decision-making body for File Nos. PMTT23-005 and PDEV23-011, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, therefore, finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO 725
ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decision-making body for File No. PSP22-001 and the decision-making body for File Nos. PMTT23-005 and PDEV23-011, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection and Overflight. As a result, the City Council, 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 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Specific Plan is located in what was formerly the City of Ontario Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) area, which consists of roughly 8,200 acres at the south end of the City.

On January 7,1998, the City of Ontario adopted the New Model Colony (“NMC”) General Plan Amendment, setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the future development of the SOI. The NMC is bounded by Riverside Drive to the north, Hamner Avenue to the east, Euclid Avenue to the west, and Merrill Avenue/Bellegrave to the south.

Since the adoption of the NMC General Plan Amendment, the City has updated the General Plan on different occasions. On January 27, 2010, the City adopted The Ontario Plan and certified the accompanying Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008101140). On August 16, 2022, the City adopted The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), which was an update to The Ontario Plan adopted in 2010 and included the certification of an accompanying Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2021070364). The Policy Plan component of TOP 2050 serves as the General Plan for the entire City, including the NMC (now referred to as “Ontario Ranch”). TOP 2050 identified many areas that might have potentially significant impacts on the environment. These areas included 1) Aesthetics; 2) Biological Resources; 3) Geology and Soils; 4) Hazards and Hazardous Materials; 5) Hydrology and Water Quality; 6) Land Use and Planning; 7) Mineral Resources; 8) Population and Housing; 9) Public Services; 10) Recreation; and 11) Utilities and Service systems. Through the EIR process, these potential impacts were analyzed, revisions were incorporated into the plan, and/or mitigation measures were identified that reduced the potential environmental impacts to a level that was less than significant.

TOP 2050 also identified several potential impacts that, even with revisions and/or mitigation measures, could not be reduced to a level of less than significant. These areas included Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, and Transportation. While these impacts will be significant and unavoidable, the City determined that the benefits of the Ontario Ranch development outweigh the potential unavoidable, adverse impacts of the plan. As a result, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts that could not be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant.

The TOP 2050 EIR analyses focused on the program, or “big picture” impacts associated with development. With the submittal of the EMUSP, staff is charged with evaluating the potential 726
impacts of development at the project level, looking specifically at the project proposal and any potential environmental impacts associated with it. Staff completed an Initial Study for the Project and determined that an EIR should be prepared for the EMUSP. Through the Initial Study preparation and scoping meeting discussion, an EIR was prepared for the EMUSP addressing the following issues:

Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resource
Air Quality Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Energy
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
The EMUSP EIR evaluates each of these various areas and identifies mitigation measures and/or revisions to the plan to lessen the level of significance. The EIR analyzed EMUSP Phase 1 based on the proposed EMUSP land uses, development intensities, conceptual designs, infrastructure requirements, and onsite surveys and studies. However, access to properties within Phase 2 could not be obtained and, therefore, the level of impact cannot be known for categories such as Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials since onsite surveys could not be conducted. It is conceivable that, when development of Phase 2 is proposed and onsite access is obtained, the potentially significant impacts on Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Phase 2 can be mitigated to less than significant.

Nevertheless, since level of impact cannot be known for Phase 2 areas at this time, the EMUSP EIR conservatively concludes that there are significant and unavoidable impacts.

With the implementation of the various mitigation measures, many of the potential adverse impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant. Of the 17 areas considered by the EIR, all but seven areas were less than significant or mitigated to a level of less than significant. The seven remaining impact areas, even with the mitigation measures, could not be reduced to less than significant, resulting in some impacts remaining potentially significant and unavoidable. These areas are:

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources (Phase 2 only)
Cultural Resources
727
Geology and Soils (Phase 2 only)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Phase 2 only)
While mitigation of all potential impacts to a level of less than significant is desirable, the fact that seven areas will remain significant and unavoidable is not unexpected. The identification of these areas as significant and unavoidable also validates the work previously completed for TOP 2050.

Staff continues to believe that the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the potential impacts associated with it. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend certification of the EIR to the City Council and that a Statement of Overriding Considerations be adopted for the Project.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On July 23, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted (6-0) to recommend City Council approval of the project Environmental Impact Report including a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Specific Plan, File No. PSP22-001. 728
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO,

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2023020281) FOR THE
EUCLID MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN (EMUSP) FOR FILE NO. PSP22- 001 AND ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, INCLUDING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, EUCLID LAND INVESTMENT LLC (“Applicant”) has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan, File No. PSP22-001 (Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan), as described in the title of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “Application” or “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 84 acres of land with 18 parcels, bordered by Schaefer Avenue to the north, future Sultana Avenue to the east, Edison Avenue to the south, and Euclid Avenue to the west, within the SP(AG) (Specific Plan (Agricultural Overlay)) zoning district, and is presently improved with agricultural, dairy, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“TOP 2050 SEIR”) (SCH # 2021070364) in association with the 2050 General Plan Update (“GPU”) and certified the TOP 2050 EIR on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the TOP 2050 EIR is a Supplemental EIR, an update to the approved 2010 The Ontario Plan; therefore, TOP 2050 SEIR relies on the findings of the 2009 Draft EIR, 2010 Recirculated Draft EIR, and 2010 Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City originally issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan for which the public review period extended from February 10, 2023, through March 13, 2023. The NOP was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and was posted at the San Bernardino County Clerk's office on February 10, 2023. Copies of the NOP were made available for public review at the City of Ontario Planning Department and the City's website; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21083.9 and State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15082(c) and 15083, a public scoping meeting was held on Tuesday February 22, 2023, at 6:00pm where comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Project Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for File No. PSP22- 001 (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) has been prepared in accordance with the 729
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP, and determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, tribal cultural resources, and further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials; and WHEREAS, the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan anticipates development in two phases and that onsite access to properties in Phase 1 were obtained through which onsite studies and surveys for the EIR were conducted, and that onsite access to properties within Phase 2 were not obtained and certain studies and analyses could not be conducted; and
WHEREAS, after completing the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281), the City released the document for public review for a 45-day public comment period that began December 22, 2023, and ended February 6, 2024. A Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was circulated for the Draft EIR on December 22, 2023 and published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and posted at the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County. At that time, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice. Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR were made available for review at City Hall, the Ovitt Family Community Library, as well as on the City's website; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan ("EMUSP") Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) consists of the Draft EIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the EMUSP Final EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for File No. PSP22-001 have been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, copies of the Final EIR were distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the EIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the EIR was fully studied and concluded said hearing on that date. 730
After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission issued Resolution No.

PC24-031, recommending City Council certification of the Project EIR; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Final EIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Final EIR and supporting documentation, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The environmental impacts of this Project were reviewed in conjunction with Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (“EMUSP”) Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) that was prepared; and
(2) The Final EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(3) The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(4) The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 2: City Council Action. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the Final EIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) The EIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Project and finds that, if the EMUSP is adopted as proposed by this plan, and with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable: agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazards and hazardous materials; and (2) The City Council further finds that the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, demonstrates that the EMUSP's benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the City 731
would be justified in approving the EMUSP notwithstanding said significant and unavoidable impacts.

SECTION 3: Housing Element Compliance. Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 3, Article 10.6, commencing with Section 65580, as the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council finds that based upon the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation, at the time of Project implementation, the Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan 2050. The Project site is one of the properties listed in the Housing Element Sites Inventory contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Housing Element Technical Report, and the proposed Project is consistent with the number of dwelling units (466) and density (35 du/ac) specified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory.

SECTION 4: Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") Compliance. The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
(1) On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport (hereinafter referred to as "ONT"), 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 decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the City Council, 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 ALUCP. (2) On August 2, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted a Development Code Amendment to establish the Chino Airport ("CNO") Overlay Zoning District ("OZD") and Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("CNO ALUCP"). The CNO OZD and CNO ALUCP established the Airport Influence Area for Chino Airport, solely within the City of Ontario, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. The CNO ALUCP is consistent with policies and criteria set forth within the Caltrans 2011 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. The proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the CNO ALUCP. As the decision732 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 CNO ALUCP compatibility factors, including Safety, Airspace Protection, Overflight. As a result, the City Council, 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 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the Chino ALUCP.

SECTION 5: Concluding Facts and Reasons. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced hearing, and upon the specific findings set forth in Sections 1 through 4, above, the City Council concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Final EIR is consistent CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(2) The EIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(3) The Project EIR analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of Phases 1 and 2 of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, and finds that, if the Specific Plan is adopted and development occurs as proposed by this plan, and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable:
(a) Agricultural Resources – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and
(b) Air Quality – Impacts related to a net increase in criteria pollutants would remain significant and unavoidable with the implementation of recommended mitigation measures; and
(c) Biological Resources – Impacts related to development of Phase 2 could not be analyzed in that biological surveys could not be conducted in this area, and therefore there is potential for significant and unavoidable impacts; and
(d) Cultural (Historic) Resources – Impacts related to demolition of milk barns within the Project site is considered a significant and unavoidable impact; and
(e) Geology and Soils - Impacts related to development of Phase 2 could not be analyzed in that geological and soils surveys could not be conducted in this area, and therefore there is potential for significant and unavoidable impacts; and
733
(f) Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Project-specific impacts and cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable; and (g) Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Impacts related to development of Phase 2 could not be analyzed in that hazard and hazardous materials surveys could not be conducted in this area, and therefore there is potential for significant and unavoidable impacts. (4) The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 6: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Section 1 through 5 above, the City Council hereby certifies the Project EIR, included as Attachment A of this Resolution, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SECTION 7: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 8: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

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

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
734
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
735

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHEILA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 20, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2024- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 20, 2024. _____________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
736
ATTACHMENT A:

Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Environmental Impact Report and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program follows this page) 737
Draft Environmental Impact Report

EUCLID MIXED USE

SPECIFIC PLAN
for the City of Ontario
SCH No. 2023020281
Specific Plan PSP-22-001

LEAD AGENCY
City of Ontario
EDMELYNNE V. HUTTER, SENIOR PLANNER
303 EAST “B” STREET
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
(909) 395-2036

CONSULTANT
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

KEVIN THOMAS, CEP, ENV SP
3801 UNIVERSITY STREET, SUITE 300
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
DECEMBER 2023
738
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 i Table of Contents
Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Environmental Procedures............................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Project Overview.............................................................................................................. 1-3

1.4 Unavoidable Significant Impacts....................................................................................... 1-4

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives...................................................................................... 1-4

1.6 Issues to be Resolved....................................................................................................... 1-6

1.7 Areas of Controversy........................................................................................................ 1-7

1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures............................................ 1-7

2.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Notice of Preparation....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Scope of this Draft Environmental Impact Report............................................................. 2-6

2.4 Incorporation by Reference.............................................................................................. 2-7

2.5 Environmental Impact Report Process.............................................................................. 2-9

3.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Location and Settings........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses ........................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Project Objectives............................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Proposed Project.............................................................................................................. 3-6

3.5 Construction and Phasing...............................................................................................3-18

3.6 Agreements, Permits and Approvals Required................................................................ 3-19

4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis................................................................................................ 4-1

4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis................................................................................ 4-1

4.0.2 Cumulative Impact Methodology ..................................................................................... 4-2

4.1 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.1-2

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.1-4

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria......................................................4.1-9

4.1.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.1-10

4.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.1-10 739
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 ii Table of Contents

4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.1-16

4.1.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.1-17

4.1.9 References .....................................................................................................4.1-17

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.2-6

4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria......................................................4.2-9

4.2.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies............................................................................4.2-9

4.2.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.2-10

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.2-20

4.2.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.2-20

4.2.9 References .....................................................................................................4.2-20

4.3 Air Quality.....................................................................................................................4.3-1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.3-1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.3-1 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.3-6 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.3-11 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.3-15 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.3-16 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.3-45 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.3-46 References .....................................................................................................4.3-46

4.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.4-11

4.4.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.4-16

4.4.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.4-18

4.4.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.4-18

4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.4-32

4.4.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.4-32

4.4.9 References .....................................................................................................4.4-33 740
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 iii Table of Contents

4.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.5-6

4.5.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.5-21

4.5.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.5-25

4.5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.5-25

4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.5-32

4.5.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.5-33

4.5.9 References .....................................................................................................4.5-33

4.6 Energy...........................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.6-3

4.6.4 Impact Thresholds of Significance Criteria.........................................................4.6-8

4.6.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies............................................................................4.6-9

4.6.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.6-10

4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.6-16

4.6.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.6-16

4.6.9 References .....................................................................................................4.6-16

4.7 Geology and Soils..........................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.7-3

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.7-9

4.7.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.7-12

4.7.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.7-13

4.7.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.7-13

4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.7-27

4.7.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.7-28

4.7.9 References .....................................................................................................4.7-28

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.8-3 741
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 iv Table of Contents

4.8.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.8-14

4.8.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.8-15

4.8.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.8-17

4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.8-38

4.8.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.8-39

4.8.9 References .....................................................................................................4.8-39

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................4.9-9

4.9.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.9-23

4.9.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.9-25

4.9.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.9-26

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................4.9-41

4.9.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts.....................................................................4.9-41

4.9.9 References .....................................................................................................4.9-41

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.10-2

4.10.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.10-5

4.10.4 Impact Thresholds and Significant Criteria .................................................... 4.10-10

4.10.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies........................................................................ 4.10-11

4.10.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.10-12

4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.10-23

4.10.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.10-24

4.10.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.10-24

4.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.11-3

4.11.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.11-7

4.11.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.11-8

4.11.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.11-8

4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.11-30 742
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 v Table of Contents

4.11.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.11-31

4.11.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.11-31

4.12 Noise ..........................................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.12-6

4.12.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria.................................................. 4.12-13

4.12.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies........................................................................ 4.12-15

4.12.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.12-16

4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.12-30

4.12.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.12-33

4.12.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.12-33

4.13 Population and Housing ..............................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.13-5

4.13.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.13-8

4.13.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.13-9

4.13.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation.......................................................................4.13-9

4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.13-15

4.13.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.13-16

4.13.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.13-16

4.14 Public Services ............................................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.14-4

4.14.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria.................................................. 4.14-11

4.14.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies........................................................................ 4.14-12

4.14.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.14-12

4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.14-21

4.14.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.14-22

4.14.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.14-22

4.15 Transportation and Traffic...........................................................................................4.15-1

4.15.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.15-1 743
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 vi Table of Contents

4.15.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.15-1

4.15.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.15-5

4.15.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria.................................................. 4.15-10

4.15.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies........................................................................ 4.15-11

4.15.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.15-11

4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.15-26

4.15.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.15-26

4.15.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.15-27

4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.16-2

4.16.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria....................................................4.16-7

4.16.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies..........................................................................4.16-9

4.16.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................4.16-9

4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.16-10

4.16.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.16-11

4.16.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.16-11

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.......................................................................................4.17-1

4.17.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................4.17-1

4.17.2 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................4.17-1

4.17.3 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................4.17-8

4.17.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria.................................................. 4.17-18

4.17.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies........................................................................ 4.17-18

4.17.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................. 4.17-19

4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4.17-29

4.17.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................... 4.17-30

4.17.9 References ................................................................................................... 4.17-30

5.0 Other CEQA Considerations .....................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes .........................................................5-1

5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts.................................................................................................5-3

6.0 Alternatives.............................................................................................................................6-1 744
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 vii Table of Contents

6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Alternatives to the Project ............................................................................................... 6-2

6.3 Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible................................................................................... 6-3

6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............................................................. 6-4

6.5 Comparison of Alternatives............................................................................................ 6-19

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative............................................................................. 6-21

7.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant .......................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 7-1

7.3 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 7-2

7.4 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 7-3

7.5 References....................................................................................................................... 7-6

8.0 EIR Consultation and Preparation............................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 EIR Consultation............................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 List of Preparers............................................................................................................... 8-2 List of Tables
Table 1-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.................................... 1-8 Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary ....................................................................................... 2-3 Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-2: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan............................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required...................................................................... 3-20 Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects............................................................................... 4-5 Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion................................................ 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value).......................... 4.2-3 Table 4.2-3: Existing Farmland in Ontario........................................................................................... 4.2-4 Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns .............................................. 4.3-3 Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants..................................................... 4.3-5 Table 4.3-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................... 4.3-6 Table 4.3-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.............................. 4.3-9 745
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 viii Table of Contents
Table 4.3-5: SCAQMD Emission Thresholds...................................................................................... 4.3-12 Table 4.3-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations .......................................... 4.3-13 Table 4.3-7: SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds..................................... 4.3-13 Table 4.3-8: Phase I – Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions............................................ 4.3-20 Table 4.3-9: Phase I - Maximum Daily Operation Emissions.............................................................. 4.3-21 Table 4.3-10: Phase II - Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions ......................................... 4.3-23 Table 4.3-11: Phase II - Maximum Daily Operation Emissions........................................................... 4.3-24 Table 4.3-12: Project Buildout – Total Maximum Daily Operation Emissions.................................... 4.3-25 Table 4.3-13: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates.............................................................................. 4.3-31 Table 4.3-14: Phase I - Localized Significance of Construction Emissions.......................................... 4.3-31 Table 4.3-15: Phase I - Localized Significance of Operational Emissions............................................ 4.3-32 Table 4.3-16: Phase I - Operational Dispersion Modeling ................................................................. 4.3-32 Table 4.3-17: Phase II – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Construction Emissions.................... 4.3-39 Table 4.3-18: Phase II - Unmitigated Localized On-Site Operational Emissions ................................. 4.3-39 Table 4.3-19: Mitigated Project Buildout - Localized Operational Emissions..................................... 4.3-41 Table 4.3-20: Buildout - Operational Dispersion Modeling ............................................................... 4.3-42 Table 4.3-21: Combined Project Carcinogenic Risk........................................................................... 4.3-43 Table 4.3-22: Project Chronic Hazard Assessment............................................................................ 4.3-43 Table 4.4-1: Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity ............................. 4.4-4 Table 4.4-2: Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Site Vicinity ......................... 4.4-6 Table 4.4-3: Project Site Vegetation Community Impacts................................................................. 4.4-25 Table 4.5-1: Cultural Resources and Reports Within One Half-Mile of the Project Site ..................... 4.5-22 Table 4.5-2: Historic-Period Resources............................................................................................. 4.5-23 Table 4.6-1: Construction-Related Fuel Usage.................................................................................. 4.6-10 Table 4.6-2: Electricity Consumption ............................................................................................... 4.6-12 Table 4.6-3: Natural Gas Consumption............................................................................................. 4.6-13 Table 4.6-4: Operation-Related Fuel Usage...................................................................................... 4.6-13 Table 4.6-5: Consistency with the TOP............................................................................................. 4.6-14 Table 4.8-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases................................................................................... 4.8-2 746
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 ix Table of Contents
Table 4.8-2: Phase I Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................. 4.8-18 Table 4.8-3: Phase I - Operational GHG Emissions............................................................................ 4.8-19 Table 4.8-4: Phase II Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................ 4.8-20 Table 4.8-5: Phase II - Operational GHG Emissions........................................................................... 4.8-20 Table 4.8-6: Project Buildout - Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................. 4.8-22 Table 4.8-7: Project Buildout Operational GHG Emissions................................................................ 4.8-22 Table 4.8-8: Community CAP Consistency........................................................................................ 4.8-25 Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Ontario Development........................... 4.8-28 Table 4.8-10: 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency................................................................................. 4.8-34 Table 4.10-1: Construction BMPs................................................................................................... 4.10-13 Table 4.11-1: Land Use Designations................................................................................................ 4.11-5 Table 4.11-2: Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals.................................................. 4.11-10 Table 4.11-3: Consistency with the City of Ontario General Plan (TOP) 2050.................................. 4.11-11 Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels.................................................................................................... 4.12-4 Table 4.12-2: Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels............................................................... 4.12-5 Table 4.12-3: Noise Level Exposure and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines..................................... 4.12-7 Table 4.12-4: Exterior Noise Standards – City of Ontario.................................................................. 4.12-8 Table 4.12-5: Exterior Noise Standards for Residential Properties – City of Chino ............................ 4.12-9 Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels...................................................................................... 4.12-10 Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements................................................................................... 4.12-11 Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptor Locations.................................................................................... 4.12-13 Table 4.12-9: Ground borne Vibration Criteria - Architectural Damage .......................................... 4.12-14 Table 4.12-10: Typical Construction Noise Levels........................................................................... 4.12-17 Table 4.12-11: Phase I Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor........................................... 4.12-18 Table 4.12-12: Phase II Construction Noise Levels at Nearest Receptor.......................................... 4.12-21 Table 4.12-13: On-Site Composite Noise........................................................................................ 4.12-24 Table 4.12-14: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels..... 4.12-25 Table 4.12-15: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) Opening Year and Opening Year Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ....................................................... 4.12-26 Table 4.12-16: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................................... 4.12-28 747
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 x Table of Contents
Table 4.12-17: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Predicted Traffic Noise Levels – Project Buildout.................................................... 4.12-31 Table 4.13-1: Population Trends in the City of Ontario and San Bernardino County ......................... 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2: SCAG Projections – City of Ontario and San Bernardino County .................................. 4.13-3 Table 4.13-3: Housing Units – City of Ontario and San Bernadino County (2022).............................. 4.13-3 Table 4.13-4: Employment by Industrial Sector – City of Ontario (2022)........................................... 4.13-4 Table 4.13-5: Jobs-Housing Balance................................................................................................. 4.13-5 Table 4.13-6: Phase I Project Generated Employment ................................................................... 4.13-11 Table 4.13-7: Combined Phase I and II, Projected Jobs-Housing Balance........................................ 4.13-12 Table 4.14-1: Project Area Fire Services........................................................................................... 4.14-2 Table 4.14-2: OFD Response Times.................................................................................................. 4.14-3 Table 4.15-1: Citywide VMT Per Service Population....................................................................... 4.15-21 Table 4.15-2: Project Population and Employment Estimates ........................................................ 4.15-22 Table 4.15-3: Project Generated Total OD VMT Per Service Population.......................................... 4.15-22 Table 4.15-4: General Plan Buildout (2050) Boundary VMT Results................................................ 4.15-23 Table 4.17-1: Water Supplies Summary ........................................................................................... 4.17-2 Table 4.17-2: Landfills Serving Ontario............................................................................................. 4.17-7 Table 4.17-3: Water Demand of the Project Site Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP....................... 4.17-24 Table 4.17-4: Water Demand Estimate for the Project................................................................... 4.17-24 Table 4.17-5: Estimated Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................... 4.17-27 List of Figures
Figure 3-1: Regional Location.............................................................................................................. 3-22 Figure 3-2: Local Vicinity Map............................................................................................................. 3-23 Figure 3-3: Project Boundary .............................................................................................................. 3-24 Figure 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................................. 3-27 Figure 3-7: Land Use Plan ................................................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-8: Circulation Plan................................................................................................................. 3-29 748
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 xi Table of Contents
Figure 3-9: City of Ontario Roadway Classification System.................................................................. 3-30 Figure 3-10: Street Sections................................................................................................................ 3-31 Figure 3-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan............................................................................................. 3-32 Figure 3-12: City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan...................................................................... 3-33 Figure 3-13: City of Ontario Ultimate Water System ........................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-14: Domestic Water Plan ...................................................................................................... 3-35 Figure 3-15: City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System................................................................ 3-36 Figure 3-16: Specific Plan Recycled Water Plan................................................................................... 3-37 Figure 3-17: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System............................................................................ 3-38 Figure 3-18: Sewer Plan...................................................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3-19: City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System .................................................................. 3-40 Figure 3-20: Storm Drain Plan............................................................................................................. 3-41 Figure 3-21: Fiber Optic Plan............................................................................................................... 3-42 Figure 3-22: City of Ontario Ultimate Fiber Optical System ................................................................. 3-43 Figure 3-23: Conceptual Phasing Plan ................................................................................................. 3-44 Figure 4.7-1: Analyzed Site and Stockpile........................................................................................... 4.7-2 Figure 4.9-1: Chino Airport Compatibility Zones................................................................................. 4.9-6 Figure 4.9-2: Airport Safety Zones...................................................................................................... 4.9-7 Figure 4.9-3: Ontario Airport Compatibility Map................................................................................ 4.9-8 Figure 4.12-1: Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations............................................ 4.12-12 749
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 xii Table of Contents
Appendices (Provided under separate cover)
Appendix A | Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Public Scoping Meeting Materials Appendix B | Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reports • Appendix B1 | Air Quality Emissions Model Data
• Appendix B2 | Health Risk Assessment Data
• Appendix B3 | Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data
• Appendix B4 | Energy Calculations
Appendix C |Biological Resources Report
Appendix D | Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment Appendix E | Geotechnical Reports
• Appendix E1| Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report and Organic Soil/manure Evaluation Report
• Appendix E2 | Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Soil Stockpile Appendix F | Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments • Appendix F1 | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
• Appendix F2 | Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Appendix G | Hydrology Reports
• Appendix G1 | Preliminary Hydrology Calculations
• Appendix G2 | Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix H | Noise Data
Appendix I | Transportation Reports
• Appendix I1 | Traffic Analysis
• Appendix I2 | Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix J | Water Supply Assessment
750
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-1 1.0 | Executive Summary

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document in order to (1) inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the direct and indirect potentially significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible or potentially feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]), this Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) has been prepared for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15123, this section of the Draft EIR provides a brief description of the Project; identifies significant effects and proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce or avoid those effects; and describes areas of controversy and issues to be resolved.

CEQA requires that projects subject to approval by a State of California (State) public agency, and that are not otherwise exempt or excluded, undergo an environmental review process to identify and evaluate potential impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15050 states that environmental review shall be conducted by the Lead Agency, defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 as the public agency with principal responsibility for approving a project. The Project is subject to approval actions by the City of Ontario (City), which will, therefore, act as the Lead Agency.

This Draft EIR has been prepared as a “Program EIR” pursuant to the requirements Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and the City’s CEQA procedures, as this EIR addresses the proposed Specific Plan (the “Project”) and is intended to cover anticipated future discretionary approvals. The Draft EIR considers the environmental impacts of the Project, as well as the additive effects of growth throughout the City and the region. These latter impacts are referred to as cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluates a range of potential feasible alternatives anticipated to reduce significant impacts of the Project, including a No Project/No Build Alternative. This Draft EIR has been prepared for the City, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice that an EIR for the Project was being prepared. The NOP was distributed on February 10, 2023, to solicit comments related to the proposed construction of the Project. The NOP was circulated with a 30-day public review period ending on March 13, 2023. This process and the comments submitted in response to the NOP are discussed in Section 2.0: Introduction, and Section 1.7: Areas of Controversy, below.

After receiving public comments on the NOP, the Project was analyzed for its potential to result in environmental impacts. Impacts were evaluated in accordance with the significance criteria presented in Appendix G, “Environmental Checklist Form,” of the CEQA Guidelines. The criteria in the Environmental Checklist Form (checklist), was used to determine if the Project would result in, “no impact,” “less than 751
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-2 1.0 | Executive Summary
significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation measures,” or “potentially significant impact” to a particular environmental resource. In some instances, a project may use the checklist to provide an initial discussion of a project and to screen out certain topics from a full discussion in the Draft EIR. This Draft EIR discusses all environmental resources in CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G. A table listing the significant Project impacts and any associated mitigation measures is included at the end of this summary in Table 1-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures.

This Draft EIR describes the existing environmental resources on the Project site and in the vicinity of the site, analyzes potential impacts on those resources that would or could occur upon initiation of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of those impacts determined to be significant. The environmental impacts evaluated in this Draft EIR concern several subject areas, including aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy/energy conservation, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. As noted in the preceding paragraph, public comment was received during the NOP process and included written letters provided to the City. A copy of the letters with the NOP are provided in Appendix A to this Draft EIR. The comments were used, as intended, to help inform the discussion of this Draft EIR and help determine the scope and framework of certain topical discussions.

The Draft EIR is subject to further review and comment by the public, as well as responsible agencies and other interested jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for a period of 45 days after completion.

Following the public review period, written responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR will be prepared. Those written responses, and any other necessary changes to the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR and will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. If the City finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete” in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City may certify the EIR. The Board of Supervisors would also consider the adoption of Findings of Fact pertaining to the EIR, specific mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the hearing body would take action concerning the Project.

Regarding the MMRP, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires public agencies to set up monitoring and reporting programs to ensure compliance with mitigation measures, which are adopted or made as a condition of project approval and designed to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in environmental impact reports. A MMRP incorporating the mitigation measures set forth in this EIR will be considered and acted upon by the City decision-makers concurrent with adoption of the findings of this EIR and prior to approval of the Project.

1.2 Environmental Procedures
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to assess the environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project, as well as anticipated future discretionary actions and approvals.

CEQA established six main objectives for an EIR:
752
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-3 1.0 | Executive Summary

1. Disclose to decision makers and the public the significant environmental effects of proposed activities.

2. Identify ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage.

3. Prevent environmental damage by requiring implementation of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.

4. Disclose to the public reasons for agency approval of projects with significant environmental effects.

5. Foster interagency coordination in the review of projects.

6. Enhance public participation in the planning process.

An EIR is the most comprehensive form of environmental documentation in CEQA; it is intended to provide an objective, factually supported analysis and full disclosure of the environmental consequences of a proposed project and its potential to result in significant, adverse environmental impacts.

An EIR is one of various decision-making tools used by a lead agency to consider the merits and disadvantages of a project that is subject to its discretionary authority. Before approving a proposed project, the lead agency must consider the information in the EIR; determine whether the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; determine that it reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency; adopt findings concerning the project’s significant environmental impacts and alternatives; and adopt a statement of overriding considerations if significant impacts cannot be avoided.

1.3 Project Overview
Project Location
The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) is made up of 18 existing parcels totaling 84.1 acres in the City of Ontario (City). The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 7 miles northeast from the Orange County line.

Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route 83 (SR-83; Euclid Avenue), which connects to State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north; Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 5.5 miles to the east; and State Route 71 (SR-71) approximately 4.3 miles to the west. SR-71 connects the Project to State Route 91 (SR-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.

The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately east of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The proposed Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue on the north, Sultana Avenue on the east, Edison Avenue on the south, and Euclid Avenue on the west. The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for this Project are 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08; 1053-081-01, -02, -03, -04.

Project Description
The proposed Project consists of a Specific Plan to allow for a business park and mixed-use development on 18 parcels covering 84.1 acres in the City. The development would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and approximately 1,386,777 square feet of 753
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-4 1.0 | Executive Summary
business park uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, as described further below. The Project site is anticipated to be developed in two phases within five planning areas (PAs), with only Phase I proposed at a project-level entitlement.

Phase I would include PAs 1, 2A, and 3A, proposing the construction of up to 13 buildings. The 13 Phase I buildings would provide up to 1,473,026 square feet of business park and commercial retail/office mixed uses (the maximum development allowed in the proposed Specific Plan). A conceptual site plan for Phase I envisions a less dense site, at approximately 1,000,595 square feet of development (depicted in Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan). However, the EIR conservatively evaluates the maximum development potential for Phases I and II as permitted in the proposed Specific Plan. Note that the applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I Project following processing of the Project Specific Plan. Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032.

The EIR also evaluates, at a “programmatic” level, potential future development of Phase II, comprised of PA 2B and PA 3B. Phase II is being evaluated at the programmatic level for a number of reasons, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR). These reasons include: 1) the Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PA 2B and PA 3B); 2) the Applicant does not have access to the Phase II area; 3) no specific development proposals have been identified for the Phase II area at this time; and 4) the Phase II area will be developed at an unknown, later date following Phase I. Therefore, this EIR appropriately evaluates the Phase II area at a programmatic level. Consistent with TOP 2050, the Specific Plan proposes the Phase II area with a maximum development potential of 203,861 square feet of business park uses, in addition to up to 466 dwelling units.

Combined, the Phase I and Phase II portions of the Specific Plan would allow up to 1,676,887 square feet of non-residential business park and commercial retail/office mixed uses in addition to up to 466 residential units, as shown in Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout.

1.4 Unavoidable Significant Impacts
The Project’s potentially significant impacts are defined in Section 4.1: Aesthetics through Section 4.17:

Utilities and Service Systems of this Draft EIR. As noted in these sections, most of the potentially significant impacts identified can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of Project design features, standard conditions, and feasible mitigation measures. There are unavoidable significant impacts associated with Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, GHG emissions, and Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]) state that an EIR must address “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The alternatives were based, in part, on their potential ability to reduce or eliminate the impacts determined to be significant and unavoidable for the proposed project. The following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range 754
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-5 1.0 | Executive Summary
of alternatives which have the potential to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but which may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in Section 6.0: Alternatives to the Project, of this Draft EIR. • No Project/No Build Alternative
• No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
• Reduced Intensity Alternative
An EIR must identify an “environmentally superior” alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is then required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only impacts found significant and unavoidable are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. Impacts involving agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions were found to be significant and unavoidable. Section 6.6: Environmentally Superior Alternative identifies the environmentally superior alternative.

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative for decision-makers the ability to compare the impacts of approving the Project with impacts or not approving the Project, thus leaving the Project site in its current developed condition. The No Project analysis is required to discuss the existing conditions as they were at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation (February 10, 2023) and analyze the potential impacts of the Project site if the land were to continue under applicable existing plans, policies, and designations. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur; however, the existing conditions would remain in operation. The existing environmental conditions would not be necessarily preserved, as some form of redevelopment of the site for future business park and mixed-use development could still occur pursuant to The Ontario Plan 2050.

Alternative 2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the current General Plan land uses, and zoning would remain in effect. Development in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning would occur. According to Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan of The Ontario Plan 20501 , the Project site is currently
designated for development of Business Park (BP) (0.6 FAR) and Mixed-Use (MU) at 14.0 to 65.0 du/ac;

1.5 FAR office; 1.0 FAR retail. The existing zoning designation is Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District with an Agricultural (SP AG) Overlay.2 The SP District designation requires approval of a specific plan by the City 1 City of Ontario. 2022. LU-01 TOP 2050 Land Use Map. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/99e7a1effa0242218701ac06ca387f9b. (accessed October 2022). 2 City of Ontario. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20220415_Rev1.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 755
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-6 1.0 | Executive Summary
for urban development of the Project site. The Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050.

The proposed Project’s FARs are within what is allowed in TOP 2050; as such, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative under TOP 2050 would generate approximately 1,386,777 square feet of business park development, 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, 1,655 employees, and 1,571 residents. Additionally, the southern portion of the Project site is within the Great Park Corridor. Sites within the Great Park Corridor are currently zoned Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District with an Agricultural Overlay (SP-AG), but no specific plan has been adopted, and they will be rezoned to SP-AG Affordable Housing (AH) for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District described within the City’s Housing Element.3 The SP-AG-AH Overlay will establish a minimum density of 20 du/ac, and allow the TOP 2050 designation to govern the maximum densities for each site. The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with the TOP 2050 and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential. Sites in this area would have TOP 2050 designations of Medium Density Residential and Mixed-Use. Medium-Density Residential will allow a range of 20-30 du/ac for projects with at least 25 percent of units being affordable to lower incomes, and a range of 20-25 du/ac for all other projects. Two different MU areas are proposed in this opportunity area, Mixed-Use Eucalyptus/Chino Airport (MU-EU) allowing 20-45 du/ac and Mixed-Use Great Park allowing 20-65 du/ac. With the TOP 2050 and zoning changes noted in Program 13, all sites identified support densities necessary to facilitate lowerand moderate-income housing development.4

Alternative 3: Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative proposes a 25 percent reduction in building area of the proposed mixed-use and business park uses. Under this alternative, a total of 1,040,083 square feet of business park uses, and 217,582 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, and up to and approximately 350 residential units. The development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. This alternative would generate approximately 1,242 employees. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a reduction in the number of parking spaces. Given the infrastructure costs, including off-site improvements, a 25 percent reduction was considered aggressive and further reduction is likely not financially feasible.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
State CEQA Guidelines requires that an Environmentally Superior Alternative be identified; that is, an alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. The No Project Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would avoid many of the proposed Project’s impacts. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior Alternative, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2) requires that another alternative that could feasibly attain most of the Project’s basic objectives be chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Therefore, in compliance with 3 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Housing Element, page H-282. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/housing. (accessed July 2023). 4 Ibid.
756
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-7 1.0 | Executive Summary
CEQA requirements, this Draft EIR also identifies an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Based on analysis conducted in Section 6.0: Alternatives, Alternative 3 was chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. These alternatives are further discussed in Section 6.0:

Alternatives.

1.6 Issues to be Resolved
Section 15123(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. With regard to the Project, the major issues to be resolved include decisions by the lead agency as to:

1. Whether this Draft EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project.

2. Whether the benefits of the Project override those environmental impacts which cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance.

3. Whether the proposed land use changes are compatible with the character of the existing area.

4. Whether the identified goals, policies, or mitigation measures should be adopted or modified.

5. Whether there are other mitigation measures that should be applied to the Project besides the Mitigation Measures identified in the Draft EIR.

6. Whether there are any alternatives to the Project that would substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project and achieve most of the basic Project objectives.

1.7 Areas of Controversy
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b)(2) and (3) require that a Draft EIR identify areas of controversy known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether, or how to mitigate the significant effects.

The issues of concern have been identified during the review period of the distribution of the NOP (from February 10, 2023, to March 13, 2023) and public meetings (public scoping meeting was held during the 30-day public review period, on February 22, 2023, at 5:30 PM via Zoom). A summary of comments received on the NOP are provided in Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary. The table provides references to the sections of the Draft EIR in which these issues are evaluated. No other areas of controversy are known to the Lead Agency.

1.8 Summary of Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures The following table is a summary of significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with the Project as identified in this EIR. Refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.17, for a detailed description of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. Impacts are identified as significant or less than significant, and mitigation measures are identified for all significant impacts. The level of significance after implementation of the mitigation measures is also presented. Impacts not represented in this table are found in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant in this Draft EIR. 757
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-8 1.0 | Executive Summary
Table 1-1: Summary of Significant Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Section 4.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact 4.2-1
Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent. The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, nightlight, and chemical spraying.

Impact 4.2-5
Would the Project 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?
Significant and
Unavoidable
Refer to MM AG-1.

Section 4.3: Air Quality
Impact 4.3-1
Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Ontario Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans specify that all architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.

MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized onsite for daily warehouse and business operations. The Project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electricpowered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.

Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/business entity, the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a signed document (verification document) noting that the Project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only electricpowered equipment for daily operations. This verification document shall be signed by authorized agents for the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business 758
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-9 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) entities. In addition, if applicable, the tenant/business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electric-powered.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario Building Department shall confirm that if emergency generators are proposed, the Project applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible due commercial availability or the energy requirements of the project, the Project applicant shall provide written justification to be approved by the City’s Building Department.

MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
 Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the Project site;
 Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day;
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ridematching service; and  Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
 The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction 759
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-10 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

MM AQ-5 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
 Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use.  Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
 Truck travel is restricted to truck routes identified in Figure M04 of the Mobility Element in TOP 2050.

In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.

MM AQ-6 The installation of wood-burning and natural gas equipment shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, CO, particulate matter, and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

MM AQ-7 The installation of cold storage logistics (warehouse) space is prohibited. Should cold storage logistics (warehouse) space be considered in the future, a separate discretionary approval would be required.

Impact 4.3-2
Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-7.

Impact 4.3-3
Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Refer to MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-7.

MM AQ-8 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit documentation to the City of Ontario that demonstrate that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards.

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 760
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-11 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

Section 4.4, Biological Resources
Impact 4.4-1
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Phase I Project) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Phase II
Only)
MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird and Raptor Preconstruction Survey. Regulatory requirement for potential direct/indirect impacts to nesting common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the CDFG Code Section 3503.

Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and January 31st) do not require pre-removal nesting bird surveys. If construction is proposed during nesting season (February 1st and August 31st), a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds within or directly adjacent (200 ft -500 ft for raptors) to the Project site.

The survey(s) will focus on identifying any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. If active nests are documented, the qualified biologist will prepare and implement specific measures to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a minimum, grading in the vicinity of a nest will be postponed until the young birds have fledged. The perimeter of the nest setback zone will be fenced or adequately demarcated with stakes and flagging at 20-foot intervals, and construction personnel and activities will be restricted from the area.

The biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer around each active nest. The buffer area will be determined by the biologist based on the species present, surrounding habitat, and type of construction activities proposed in the area. The survey report will be submitted by the qualified biologist to the City of Ontario for review and approval prior to initiation of grading in the nest-setback zone.

Additionally, the qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. A final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, will be submitted to the City of Ontario documenting compliance with the CDFG Code. Any nest permanently vacated for the season would not warrant protection pursuant to the CDFG Code.

MM BIO-2 Focused Bat Survey. Prior to implementation of Project activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to determine whether potential roosting sites for bats may be affected. For large ornamental trees suitable for bat roosting/nursery, exit counts and acoustic surveys shall be performed prior to initial ground disturbance, vegetation or structure removal to determine whether the Project Site and a 300-foot buffer supports a nursery or roost, and by which species.

This work will occur between late -spring and late summer and/or in the fall (generally mid-March through late October).

If the results of the bat survey find a total of a single roosting individual of a special status bat species or 25 or more individuals of a non-special status bat species with 761
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-12 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) potential to be present in the Project Site (i.e., western Mastiff bat, big free-tailed bat, or pallid bat), a Bat Management Plan shall be developed to ensure mortality to bats does not occur. For each location confirmed to be occupied by bats, the plan will provide details both in text and graphically where exclusion devises/and or staged tree removal will need to occur, the timing for exclusion work and the timeline and methodology needed to exclude the bats. The plan will need to be reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to disturbance of the root(s).

MM BIO-3 Focused and Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Surveys. Focused surveys for burrowing owl will be conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2022, CDFG staff report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Specifically, A total of 4 surveys will be conducted: 1) at least one site visit between February 15th and April 15th, and 2) a minimum of three (3) surveys, at least three weeks apart, between April 15th and July 15th, with at least one visit after June 15th. A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

A 14-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will also be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction to ensure protection for this species. The survey will be conducted in compliance with CDFW guidelines (CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Ontario prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities.

If burrowing owls are detected on-site during the focused surveys or 14-day preconstruction survey efforts, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are compete or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl relocation plan will be developed and approved by the City of Ontario, CDFW and USFWS.

MM BIO-4 Programmatic Assessment Area CEQA Analysis. The Programmatic Assessment Area located within the southwest region of the Specific Plan Boundary, including APN’s 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, 07 and – 08, was not evaluated for biological resources as part of this analysis. To ensure that potential adverse effects to sensitive species and resources are reduced to a less than significant level, a focused biological resources assessment and impact analysis shall be conducted in the un-surveyed portion of the Specific Plan Boundary prior to approval of development within this region. In addition to completing CEQA review, any focused surveys and required mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to project approval and initiation of construction.

Impact 4.4-2 Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Refer to MM BIO-4.
762
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-13 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Phase I Project) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Phase II
Only)
Impact 4.4-3
Would the Project 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?
Less than Significant
(Phase I Project) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Phase II
Only)
Refer to MM BIO-4.

Impact 4.4-4
Would the Project 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? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Phase I Project) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Phase II
Only)
Refer to MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-4.

Impact 4.4-5
Would the Project conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Phase I Project) and
Significant and
Unavoidable (Phase II
Only)
MM BIO-5 Tree Inventory. Prior to implementation of Project site clearing or grading, a qualified biologist shall provide a tree inventory to ensure compliance with Ontario MC Section 6.05.020, Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures. Healthy Heritage Trees that are approved for removal shall be replaced with new trees with a total trunk diameter equal to the tree(s) removed, or as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority based on lot size and available planting space. Replacement trees are to be in addition to the quantity of trees required for landscaping. The Approving Authority is responsible for reviewing the landscape plan and approving appropriate species for tree replacement (The Ontario Plan 2050).

Section 4.5: Cultural Resources
Impact 4.5-1
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Significant and
Unavoidable
MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition building permit, every effort shall be made to relocate the Milk Parlor (front portion). The building shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate off site. Advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to relocate the building shall be placed for a minimum of 30 days: on-site with temporary signage, in at least three local publications (newspapers, magazines, local organization newsletters), and on local bulletin boards.

MM CUL-2 Full documentation, including but not limited to as built drawing, historical narrative and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) photographs, of the historic resource pursuant to HABS Level 3 standards shall be submitted to the Planning Department for subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room prior to issuance of demolition building permit.

MM CUL-3 A mitigation fee pursuant to Section 7.01.030 of the Ontario Development Code shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to issuance of 763
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-14 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) building permit for demolition. Mitigation fee is equal to 30% of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current International Code Council Building Valuation Data. The fee amount will be provided by the Planning Department at the time of payment. Funds will be deposited into the City’s Historic Preservation Trust Fund.

MM CUL-4 A determination whether items within or on the resource should be salvaged shall be made by the Planning Department. The applicant shall be responsible for the removal, relocation and donation of such items selected for salvaging. An inventory of salvaged items shall be provided by the applicant to the Planning Department prior to be to issuance of building permit.

MM CUL-5 The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or construction.

MM CUL-6 Develop a historic context report for significant persons in the dairy farm industry such as the Grant family.

MM CUL-7 Conduct a comparative study of other dairy areas within California such as the San Joaquin Valley, Arcata Bottoms in Humboldt County, and the Fresno region to further understand the significance of dairy farming at a local, regional, and statewide level.

MM CUL-8 Produce a short video documentary on the operations of a functioning dairy located within the Ontario Ranch area. The 12-15 minute documentary should focus on the dairy history, themes, site, building, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context and recent dairy surveys.

Impact 4.5-2
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
MM CUL-9 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project area, a Cultural Awareness Training Program shall be provided to all construction managers and construction personnel prior to commencing any ground disturbance work within the Project area. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a Qualified Archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed. Construction personnel shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training. A copy of the training transcript and/or training video, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgment forms shall be submitted to the City Planning Department for their review and approval.

MM CUL-10 Should any cultural resources be discovered during Project implementation; the City Planning Department and a Qualified Archaeologist shall be notified to assess the nature and significance of the find. Should any cultural resources be deemed significant, the Qualified Archaeologist shall draft a treatment plan for review and approval by the City Planning Department. Tribes listed on the City’s contact list for the Project shall be notified of any significance discovery that is Native American in origin and be given the opportunity to comment on the treatment plan prior to implementation. All final site records, reports, etc. 764
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-15 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) associated with the discovery, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources discovered during Project implementation shall be submitted to the South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

Section 4.7: Geology and Soils
Impact 4.7-3
Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Phase I Project) and
Significant Unavoidable
(Phase II Only)
MM GEO-1 As specified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation & Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project by Converse Consulting, cut/fill transitions should be eliminated from all level portions of the building pad areas. This should be accomplished by over excavating the entire “cut” portion of the building pad area by at least 5.0 feet below proposed grade and replacing the excavated materials as properly compacted fill, so that all footings for structures and walls are founded into engineered fill with a minimum of 3.0 feet of fill below footings for proposed structures and 2.0 feet below footings for proposed walls.

No fill should be placed until excavations and/or natural ground preparation have been observed by the geotechnical consultant. The native soils encountered within the project sites are generally considered suitable for re-use as compacted fill.

Excavated soils should be processed, including removal of roots and debris, removal of oversized particles, mixing, and moisture conditioning, before placing as compacted fill. On-site soils used as fill should meet the following criteria.  No particles larger than 8 inches in largest dimension.  Rocks larger than 4 inches should not be placed within the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils.
 Free of all significant organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material.
 Expansion index of 50 or less.
 Sand Equivalent greater than 15 (greater than 30 for pipe bedding).
 Contain less than 30 percent by weight retained in 3/4-inch sieve.
 Contain less than 40 percent fines (passing #200 sieve).

Impact 4.7-5
Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
(Phase I Project) and
Significant Unavoidable
(Phase II Only)
MM GEO-2 Stockpiled fill soils would be placed in deeper fills (at least 5 feet below proposed grade), landscaped areas, or non-structural fills, or blended with sandier soils on site outside of the subject fill stockpile in order to reduce the expansion potential of the stockpiled soils. The expansion potential of the finishgrade soils shall be tested at grading completion.

Slabs-on-grade shall have a minimum thickness of 5 inches for support of nominal live loads and be reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches or less on-centers both ways. Slab reinforcement shall be supported on concrete chairs so that the desired placement is properly placed per the design engineer. Structural design elements of slabs-on-grade, including but not limited to thickness, reinforcement, and joint spacing of more heavily loaded slabs shall be dependent upon the anticipated 765
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-16 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) loading conditions and the modulus of subgrade reaction (200kcf) of the supporting materials and shall be designed by a structural engineer.

Subgrade for slabs-on-grade shall be firm and uniform. All loose or disturbed soils, including under-slab utility trench backfill shall be recompacted. Prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils below all floor slabs shall be pre-watered to achieve a moisture content that is equal to 100 percent of the optimum moisture content of the subgrade soils. The moisture content should penetrate to a minimum depth of 12 inches. This should promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks.

MM GEO-3 Corrosive Materials. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director of the City Public Works Department, or designee, shall verify that the Project Applicant/Developer has retained the services of a licensed corrosion engineer to provide detailed corrosion protection measures. Where steel may come in contact with on-site soils, project construction shall include the use of steel that is protected against corrosion. Corrosion protection may include, but is not limited to, sacrificial metal, the use of protective coatings, and/or cathodic protection.

Additional site testing and final design evaluation regarding the possible on-site presence of significant volumes of corrosive soils shall be performed by the Project Geotechnical Consultant to refine and enhance these recommendations. On-site inspection during grading shall be conducted by a qualified corrosion consultant and City of Director of Public Works/City Engineer, or designee, to ensure compliance with geotechnical specifications as incorporated into Project plans.

Impact 4.7-7
Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
MM GEO-4 In areas of documented or inferred 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 based on the recommendations of a qualified cultural preservation expert. Additionally, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. Periodic paleontological spot checks would be conducted when excavation exceeds depths of 5 feet to determine if older, paleontologically sensitive sediments are present. If present, monitoring would be implemented. Prior to the start of construction, a paleontological resource monitoring plan (PRMP) would be prepared and implemented. The Project’s PRMP would implement the following procedures:
 A trained and qualified paleontological monitor would perform spot-check and/or monitoring of any excavations on the Project that have the potential to impact paleontological resources in undisturbed native sediments below five feet in depth. The monitor would have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources.
766
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-17 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s)  The Project paleontologist may re-evaluate the necessity for paleontological monitoring after examination of the affected sediments during excavation, with approval from Lead Agency and Client representatives.
 Any potentially significant fossils observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology professional standards.  Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations.
 A report documenting the results of the monitoring, including any salvage activities and the significance of any fossils, shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate personnel.

Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact 4.8-1
Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated
Refer to MM AQ-2 through AQ-6 in Section 4.3: Air Quality.

MM GHG-1 Project development proposals with building permit applications on file with the City shall implement Screening Table Measures that achieve at least 100 points per the Screening Tables. The City shall verify that Screening Table Measures achieving the 100-point performance standard are incorporated in development plans prior to the issuance of building permit(s) and/or site plans (as applicable). The City shall verify implementation of the selected Screening Table Measures prior to the issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy. At the discretion of the City, measures that provide GHG reductions equivalent to GHG emissions reductions achieved via the Screening Table Measures may be implemented. Multiple development proposals may, at the discretion of the City, be allowed to collectively demonstrate achievement of at least 100 points per the Screening Tables.

Impact 4.8-2
Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions?
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 in Section 4.3: Air Quality and MM GHG 1 (refer to Impact Threshold 4.8-1).

Section 4.9-1: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.9-1
Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated (Phase I
Project) and Significant
and Unavoidable (Phase
II Only)
MM HAZ-1 Construction period testing. Construction at the Project site shall be conducted under a Project-specific Construction Risk Management Plan (CRMP) to protect construction workers, the general public, and the environment from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified and to address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface.

The CRMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the Project sites during past investigations and during site investigation activities; 767
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-18 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) delineate areas of known soil and groundwater contamination, if applicable; and identify soil and groundwater management options for excavated soil and groundwater, in compliance with local, state, and federal statutes and regulations.

The CRMP shall:
 Provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during Project excavation and dewatering activities, respectively.
 Require the preparation of a Project-specific Health and Safety Plan that identifies hazardous materials present, describes required health and safety provisions and training for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
accordance with State and Federal worker safety regulations, and designates the personnel responsible for Health and Safety Plan implementation.
 Require the preparation of a contingency plan that shall be applied should previously unknown hazardous materials be encountered during construction activities. The contingency plan shall include provisions that require collection of soil and/or groundwater samples in the newly discovered affected area by a qualified environmental professional prior to further work, as appropriate. The analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by the qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency. The
environmental professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these
recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the County or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
 Designate personnel responsible for implementation of the CRMP. The CRMP shall be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to the issuance of construction and
demolition permits.

MM HAZ-2 Soil Management Plan. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant to prepare a Soil Management Plan that details procedures and protocols for on-site management of soils containing potentially hazardous materials. The SMP would be implemented during grading activities on-site to ensure that soils containing 768
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-19 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) residual levels of hydrocarbons or arsenic are properly identified, monitored, and managed on-site, and include the following:
 A certified hazardous waste hauler shall remove all potentially hazardous soils. In addition, sampling of soil shall be conducted during excavation to ensure that all petroleum hydrocarbon and arsenic impacted soils are removed, and that Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses are not exceeded. Excavated materials shall be transported per California Hazardous Waste Regulations to a landfill permitted by the State to accept hazardous materials.  Any subsurface materials exposed during construction activities that appear suspect of contamination, either from visual staining or suspect odors, shall require immediate cessation of excavation activities. Soils suspected of contamination shall be tested for potential contamination. If contamination is found to be present per the Department of Toxic Substances Control Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (DTSCSLi) and the U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels for industrial/commercial land use (EPARSLi), it shall be transported and disposed of per state regulations to an appropriately permitted landfill.
 The SMP shall include a Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that addresses potential safety and health hazards and includes the requirements and procedures for employee protection; each contractor will be required to have their own HSP tailored to their particular trade that addresses the general project safety requirements. The HSP shall also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
 The SMP shall be prepared and executed in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1166, Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Decontamination of Soil. The SMP shall require the timely testing and sampling of soils so that contaminated soils can be separated from inert soils for proper disposal. The SMP shall specify the testing parameters and sampling frequency. Anticipated testing includes total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another 769
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-20 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) approved vapor suppressant or covered with sheeting during periods of inactivity of greater than an hour, to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne. Under Rule 1166, contaminated soils shall be transported from the project site by a licensed transporter and disposed of at a licensed storage/treatment facility to prevent contaminated soils from becoming airborne or otherwise released into the environment.
 All SMP measures shall be printed on the construction documents, contracts, and project plans prior to issuance of grading permits.  The SMP would also include procedures for the safe handling and transportation of soils on the Project Site that may impact sensitive receptors such as schools.

MM HAZ-3 Prior to the commencement of any construction-related site activities (clearing, demolition, grading etc.), all above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs) shall be removed. ASTs storing diesel shall be disposed of by a State of California licensed contractor and in compliance with the required San Bernardino County Fire Department (SBCFD) Hazardous Materials Division regulations for tank removals. For stained soils in the vicinity of diesel containing ASTs, as identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) dated July 29, 2021 soil samples shall be collected, as directed by the SBCFD inspector, for chemical analysis at a laboratory licensed by the State of California. If contaminated soils are encountered, a soil management plan shall be prepared to manage the stained soils during redevelopment. USTs shall be removed through reviewing available files at the SBCFD and ensuring the proper removal of the UST and a subsurface investigation to determine if the UST had impacted the subsurface.

MM HAZ-4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall conduct testing for the presence of methane on the Project site, in accordance with DTSC methane assessment guidelines. The Project applicant shall prepare a methane gas soil survey and implement grading activity recommendations to the satisfaction of the City Building Department. This survey and recommendation shall include a post-construction soil gas investigation and installation of methane gas mitigation systems where post-grading methane levels exceed 5,000 ppmv, should any such levels occur.

MM HAZ-5 Following drainage of the on-site ponds, the Project applicant shall conduct a limited Phase II subsurface assessment of sediments to evaluate the sediments for chemical risks to human health and the environment. If contamination from dairy and animal-related wastes is encountered at a level above Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for non-residential uses, the appropriate 770
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-21 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) environmental agency (Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substance Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District) shall be notified.

Any contamination identified as a result of such testing/sampling shall be investigated and removed or remediated to the satisfaction of the environmental agency and established Regional Screening Levels with evidence provided to the City, such that there are no residual significant impacts following mitigation. Prior to allowing the commencement of any soil removal or hauling activities at the Proposed Project, the City will review and/or evaluate potential air quality impacts (criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants from equipment exhaust, earthmoving, and other on-site remedial activities, as applicable) to verify that impacts are properly assessed and disclosed in accordance with CEQA.

MM HAZ-6 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any buildings or structures on-site, the Project applicant shall conduct comprehensive ACM and mercury contamination surveys to identify the locations and quantities of ACM and mercury in above-ground structures. The Project applicant shall retain a licensed or certified asbestos consultant to inspect buildings and structures on-site. The consultant’s report shall include requirements for abatement, containment, and disposal of ACM, if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.

Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the onsite structure, preparation of a demolition plan for the safe dismantling and removal of building components and debris including a plan for lead and asbestos abatement shall be required. The demolition plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to commencement of construction activities.

Impact 4.9-2
Would the Project 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?
Less Than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated (Phase I
Project) and Significant
and Unavoidable (Phase
II Only)
Refer to MM HAZ-1 through MM HAZ-6.

Impact 4.9-3
Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant
Impacts with Mitigation
Incorporated (Phase I
Project) and Significant
and Unavoidable (Phase
II Only)
Refer to MM HAZ-2.

Impact 4.9-4
Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Less Than Significant
Impacts with Mitigation
Incorporated
Refer to MM HAZ-5.
771
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 1-22 1.0 | Executive Summary
Resource Impact Level of Significance Mitigation Measure(s) Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.16-1
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 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:
i) 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 5020.1(k), or ii) 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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Refer to Section 4.5: Cultural Resources for MM CUL-6 and MM CUL-7. 772
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-1 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The EIR is a public document designed to provide decision-makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental impacts and to identify alternatives to the project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth-inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

CEQA requires each EIR to reflect the independent judgment of the “Lead Agency.” The Lead Agency is “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (PRC Section 21067). The City of Ontario (City) has the principal responsibility for approval of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (“Project” or “proposed Project”). For this reason, the City is the CEQA Lead Agency for this Project.

The Lead Agency exercises its independent judgment on questions, including but not limited to the thresholds of significance used to analyze project impacts, analyses, and conclusions regarding the level of significance of impacts both before and after mitigation, the identification and application of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce project-related impacts, and the consideration of alternatives to the proposed Project. In preparing this EIR, the City has employed CEQA and environmental technical specialists, but, the City, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed and revised all submitted drafts, technical studies, and reports as necessary to reflect its own independent judgment, including reliance on City technical personnel from other departments and review of all technical subconsultant reports. Therefore, the analyses and conclusions set forth in this EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City as Lead Agency.

The intent of the Draft EIR is to provide sufficient information on the potential environmental impacts of the Project to allow the City to make an informed decision regarding approval of the Project. The Draft EIR is also intended to inform responsible agencies, decision-makers, and the general public about the potential environmental effects of the development and operation of the Project. Specific discretionary actions to be reviewed by the City are described in Section 3.0: Project Description.

2.2 Notice of Preparation
The City determined that an EIR would be required for this Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (see Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Materials). CEQA Guidelines §15063 provides that if a lead agency determines that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, an Initial Study is not required; therefore, an Initial Study was not prepared for this project. Comments received during 773
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-2 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
the public review period, from February 10, 2023, to March 13, 2023, are provided in Appendix A. In addition, a public scoping meeting was held on February 22, 2023, via Zoom. Members of the public, the Project applicant and its consultants, and staff were able to participate in the meeting via Zoom. The meeting was recorded, and the meeting presentation is contained in Appendix A.

A total of eight letters were received in response to the NOP. The comment letters received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A.

Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary compiles the comment letters received from commenting agencies/persons during the NOP process and identifies the section(s) of the Draft EIR where the issues are addressed.
774
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-3 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Table 2-1: NOP Written Comments Summary
Commenting Agency/Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:

Native American
Heritage
Commission
Cameron Vela,
Cultural Resource
Analyst
February 14, 2023
• Tribal Consultation recommendation for Californian Native American Tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project.
• AB 52 and SB 18 compliance and additional requirements.

Section 4.5: Cultural
Resources and Section 4.16:

Tribal Cultural Resources
Council of
Carpenters
Mitchell M. Tsai,
Attorneys for
Southwest Regional
February 22, 2023
• The City should require the use of a local workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment.
• The City should impose training requirements for the project’s construction activities to prevent community spread of Covid-19 and other infectious diseases.

Not Applicable
Riverside County
Airport Land Use
Commission
Jackie Vega, Urban
Regional Planner I February 27, 2023
• Project is located outside Riverside County and therefore not within our jurisdiction.
• Request to reference Chino Airport Compatibility plan and noted that Ontario Airport is another surrounding airport.

Section 3.0: Project
Description; Section 4.11:

Land Use; Section 4.9:

Hazards
Southern California
Gas Company
Will Liao, Region
Planning Supervisor March 2, 2023 • Request that the builder contact USA / Dig Alert prior to any excavation activities, so that personnel can go out to perform Locate & Mark. Not Applicable Southern California
Association of
Governments
Frank Wen, Ph.D.,
Manager, Planning
Strategy Department
March 9, 2023 • Request further environmental documentation for review.

Section 4.15:

Transportation and Traffic;
Appendix I
South Coast Air
Quality
Management
District
Sam Wang, Program
Supervisor, CEQA IGR March 10, 2023
• Recommends that South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and website be used as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses.
• Use the CalEEMod2 land use emissions software.
• Quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds and localized significance thresholds to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts.
• Identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources related to the Proposed Project.
• Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.
• Emissions from the overlapping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.

Section 4.3: Air Quality;
Section 4.8: Greenhouse
Gas Emissions;
Appendix B
775
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-4 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Commenting Agency/Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:
• If diesel emissions generated from long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, perform a mobile source health risk assessment.
• In the event of significant adverse air quality impacts, all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize impacts; any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be analyzed.

City of Chino Chris Cortez,
Assistant Planner March 13, 2023
• Any intersection in Chino where project trips are likely to reach 50 peak hour trips will be included for evaluation within the Project’s EIR per Chino TIA Guidelines.
• Access points along Euclid should be minimized to meet/maintain the roadway classification of an expressway when considering the project’s internal roadway network alignment.
• The project is in the vicinity of the City of Chino's water treatment facility. Grading and other associated construction activities performed at the various phases of development are pertinent to adhere to the State Water Resources Control Board's General Permit requirements to control dust and other pollution.
• The City of Chino has critical water main infrastructure within the rightof-way of Schaefer Avenue. Temporary and permanent construction activities shall provide protection of the existing 16-inch and 18-inch water mains. Installation of any sewer lines 24 inches or larger within 10 feet of the City of Chino water mains should be reviewed by City of Chino Water Division.
• Additionally, take note of the uses and setbacks on the south side of Schaefer Avenue, as these would likely extend easterly to the Eastside Water Treatment Facility.
• The SCE easement which also extends to the EWTF may also be affected by said setbacks.

Section 4.15:

Transportation and Traffic;
Appendix I
Section 4.10: Hydrology
and Water Quality;
Appendix G
Californians Allied
for a Responsible
Economy (CARE CA)
Jeff Modrzejewski,
Executive Director March 13, 2023
• CARE CA respectfully requests complete analysis of CEQA impacts, imposition of all feasible mitigation and study of a reasonable range of alternatives, including at least two environmentally superior alternatives to the Project.
• Avoid developing narrow project objectives as to exclude any meaningful alternative other than the Project.
• Make all efforts to minimize air quality effects to the greatest extent possible. This in part means that a Health Risk Assessment must be Section 4.1: Aesthetics
through Section 7.0:

Effects Found Not to be
Significant
See Appendix B: Air
Quality – Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reports
776
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-5 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Commenting Agency/Person Letter Dated Summary of Comments Issue Addressed in:
prepared as part of the DEIR. The HRA should include both construction and operational diesel PM emissions and cancer risk assessment, and account for other emission sources such as backup generators. • To determine the significance of the Project’s GHG, the City should avoid attempts at threshold shopping to secure a favorable less than significant result for the Project. If the City adopts a qualitative analysis, then the DEIR should provide a detailed explanation if numeric thresholds, adopted by various air districts are not used in the analysis.

We also urge the City to adopt thresholds that embody climate change’s existential threat to humankind. Aside from identifying an appropriate threshold backed with substantial evidence, we expect a detailed discussion on the Applicant’s plan to offset the Project’s GHG emissions.
• Mitigation measures must be effective and enforceable. Every effort must be made to incorporate modern technology in the mitigation measures and MMRP.
• Provide all sources and referenced materials when the DEIR is made available.
777
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-6 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
The NOP process helps determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR.

Based on this process for the Project, certain environmental categories were identified as having the potential to result in significant impacts. Issues considered Potentially Significant are addressed in this Draft EIR in detail, but effects found not to be significant are briefly discussed in Section 7.0: Effects Found not to be Significant.

Native American Consultation
The City initiated Native American consultation concurrent with the NOP scoping process, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. Letters were sent to the applicable tribes and are contained in Appendix D: Cultural Resources Documentation.

2.3 Scope of this Draft Environmental Impact Report
The scope of the Draft EIR was determined based on comments received in response to the NOP. A scoping meeting was also conducted by the City. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126.2 and 15126.4, the Draft EIR should identify any potentially significant adverse impacts and recommend mitigation that would reduce or eliminate these impacts to levels of insignificance.

The information in Section 3.0: Project Description, establishes the basis for analyzing future, projectrelated environmental impacts.

Impacts Considered Less Than Significant
During preparation of the Draft EIR, the City determined that three environmental impact categories were not significantly affected by or did not affect the proposed Project. These categories are not discussed in detail in this Draft EIR.
• Mineral Resources
• Recreation
• Wildfire
Potentially Significant Adverse Impacts
The City determined that 17 environmental factors have potentially significant impacts if the proposed Project is implemented.
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Land Use and Planning • Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Utilities and Service Systems • Hazards and Hazardous Materials
778
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-7 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
This Draft EIR identifies several significant and unavoidable impacts, as defined by CEQA, that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Unavoidable significant impacts may be considered significant on a project-specific basis, cumulatively significant, and/or potentially significant. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, for any project having unavoidable significant impacts, the City must prepare a “statement of overriding considerations” before it can approve the Project, attesting that the decision-making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has determined that the benefits outweigh the adverse effects, and therefore the adverse effects are considered acceptable. The impacts that were found in the Draft EIR to be significant and unavoidable are found in these sections:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2.4 Incorporation by Reference
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are made available for public review on their respective websites.

The Ontario Plan 2050: The City’s General Plan underwent a technical update and was adopted as The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 on August 16, 2022. TOP 2050 states long-term goals, principles, and policies for achieving Ontario’s Vision. It guides growth and development to achieve optimum results from the City’s physical, economic, environmental, and human resources. TOP 2050 is made up of nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Mobility, Safety (including Noise), Environmental Resources (including Conservation), Parks and Recreation (including Open Space), Community Economics, Community Design, and Social Resources.

Environmental Justice is woven throughout the Policy Plan. The Policy Plan is intended to be a long-term policy document. It includes abiding principles for each element, goals, and policies. TOP 2050 can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan.

The Ontario Plan 2050 Supplemental EIR: The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Supplemental EIR (SCH Number 2021070364) is an update to the approved TOP 2009; therefore, TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR relies on the findings of the 2009 Draft EIR, 2010 Recirculated Draft EIR, and 2010 Final EIR and, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, contains all of the information necessary to ensure that the certified TOP EIR fully evaluates the TOP 2050. These documents, though discussed separately here, are collectively referred to in the TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR as the 2010 Certified EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15148 and 15150, this TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR incorporates the 2010 Certified EIR (and its constituent parts) by 779
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-8 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
reference. TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, certified August 2022, addresses the short and long-term effects of buildout of the City, which includes development of the Project area. Mitigation measures were imposed for impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified for agricultural resources, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation. TOP policies that are related to the proposed Project are cited in various sections throughout this EIR.

The TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR can be found here:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf .

Ontario Development Code: This Development Code is enacted to assist in the implementation of Federal and State planning, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws, and TOP, and guide the orderly development of the City in a manner that promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its inhabitants. The Development Code is referenced throughout this document as regulations governing development and land use activities within the City.

Regulatory information from the Development Code is cited in various sections of this EIR. The development code can be found here: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Applications.

San Bernardino County Countywide Plan: The County of San Bernardino adopted the County Countywide Plan in 2020. The Countywide Plan is comprised of four sections: Policy Plan, Business Plan, Community Action Guides, and Environmental Documents. The County Policy Plan is an update and expansion of the County’s General Plan for the unincorporated areas. As an update of the County’s General Plan and Community Plans, the Policy Plan addresses physical, social, and economic issues facing the unincorporated portions of the County. It also addresses supportive services for adults and children, healthcare services, public safety, and other regional county services provided to both incorporated and unincorporated areas. As part of its Policy Plan, the County includes the following eight elements: 1) Land Use; 2) Infrastructure & Utilities; 3) Transportation & Mobility; 4) Natural Resources; 5) Hazards; 6) Personal & Property Protection; 7) Economic Development; and 8) Health & Wellness. The Policy Plan was used throughout this EIR since it contains information, policies, and regulations relevant to the proposed Project.

This document is available for review on the County’s website at: http://countywideplan.com/policy-plan.

Southern California Association of Governments (Connect SoCal): The 2020-2045 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal, is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and addresses the cumulative impact of future development and associated infrastructure improvements for SCAG regions. It is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within SCAG regions such as San Bernardino County and the City.

Connect SoCal can be found here: https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal. 780
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 2-9 2.0 | Introduction and Purpose
Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR addressed the environmental effects and comments from public agencies and interested parties associated with the implementation of the Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan Amendment project, located south of the proposed Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project area. The Ontario Ranch Business Park Final Subsequent EIR is specifically relevant as it addressed the impacts of constructing regional infrastructure necessary to serve the developing southwestern industrial sector of the City of Ontario.

This document is available for review on the City’s website at:
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Environmental%20Documents/ORBP/01%20ORBP%20II%20SPA%20Final%20SEIR.pdf.

2.5 Environmental Impact Report Process
This Draft EIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the Draft EIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final EIR will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the Draft EIR that result from comments. The Final EIR will be presented to the City for potential certification as the environmental document for the Project. All persons who comment on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the date of the public hearing where the City will consider whether to certify the Final EIR.

The Draft EIR is available to the general public for review at various locations:
• City of Ontario, Planning Department, 303 East “B” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • Ontario Main Library 215 East “C” Street, Ontario, CA 91764 • City’s website: https://www.ontarioca.gov/Planning/Reports/EnvironmentalImpact 781
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-1 3.0 | Project Description

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Location and Settings
The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project) is made up of 18 existing parcels totaling 84.1 acres in the City of Ontario (City). The City is located approximately 40 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, 20 miles west of downtown San Bernardino, and 30 miles north from the Orange County line. (See Figure 3-1: Regional Location).

Regional access to the Project site is provided by State Route 83 (SR-83; Euclid Avenue), which connects to State Route 60 (SR-60) and Interstate 10 (I-10) to the north; Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 5.5 miles to the east; and State Route 71 (SR-71) approximately 4.3 miles to the west. SR-71 connects the Project to State Route 91 (SR-91) in unincorporated Riverside County.

The Project site is in the southwestern portion of the City, immediately east of the City of Chino in San Bernardino County. The proposed Project site is bounded by Schaefer Avenue on the north, Sultana Avenue on the east, Edison Avenue on the south, and Euclid Avenue on the west (See Figure 3-2:

Local Vicinity Map and Figure 3-3: Project Boundary). The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) for this Project are 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, -07, -08; 1053-081- 01, -02, -03, -04.

The Project specific plan will create guidelines that will: addressthe Project’s consistency with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Update; provide a development plan, which specifies land uses, circulation, infrastructure, streetscape, and landscape plans applicable to properties within the Project area; establish procedures for reviewing individual projects; implement design guidelines to create a visually attractive environment; and summarizes the development review process; and specifies provisions for administration and implementation of the Project.

3.2 Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses
The 84.1-acre Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. Dairy farming and agriculture have been the primary uses of the Project site since before the 1930s. The majority of the site exists as fallow or cultivated fields. There is a private recreational vehicle facility in the southwestern portion of the site and a scrap yard at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. Various non-conforming single family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures are located within the Projectsite.

Two Southern California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Project site. No structures are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically.

Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses.

North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; west across 782
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-2 3.0 | Project Description
Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage yard (see Figure 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses).

Existing Zoning and Land Use Designations
The existing land use designations for the Project site are consistent with the TOP’s existing land designations (see Figure 3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning). The City’s TOP designates the Project site for development of Business Park (BP) at 0.6 FAR, and Mixed-Use (MU) at 14.0 to 65.0 du/ac; 1.5 FAR office;

1.0 FAR retail, and includes portions designated for Open Space-Non-Residential (OS-NR). 1 TOP land use designations for the Project site by parcel number are as follows:
• Business Park
 APN: 1053-071-01, -02, -03, -04; 1053-211-01, -02, -05; 1053-081-01, -02, -03, -04. • Mixed-Use
 APN: 1053-281-01, -02, -03, -04, -05, , -07, -08.

Additionally, the southern portion of the Project site is located within TOP 2050 South Euclid District Place Type. Lying at the southwest corner of the City, the South Euclid District Place Type is envisioned to develop as a vertically- and horizontally mixed-use area to serve the populations of newly developing Ontario Ranch and adjoining communities.2 The district will include a range of housing types integrated within and alongside retail, commercial, and office uses, as well as public spaces and trails that connect the "Great Park" to Euclid Avenue. The area is intended to be highly walkable with pedestrian-oriented site design and road network and transit stops with amenities.

The southern portion of the Project site is also within the Great Park Corridor. Sites within the Great Park Corridor are currently zoned Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District with an Agricultural Overlay (SP-AG), but no specific plan has been adopted, and they will be rezoned to SP-AG Affordable Housing (AH) for inclusion in the Affordable Housing Overlay District described within the City’s Housing Element. 3 The SP-AG-AH
Overlay will establish a minimum density of 20 du/ac, and allow TOP 2050 designation to govern the maximum densities for each site. The Agriculture Overlay District will remain in place until the parcel is ready for development consistent with TOP 2050 and Affordable Housing Overlay District. Property owners and developers alike have expressed interest in redeveloping this area, so existing agricultural operations are not expected to limit development potential. Sites in this area would have TOP 2050 designations of Medium Density Residential and Mixed-Use (MU). Medium-Density Residential will allow a range of 20-30 du/ac for projects with at least 25 percent of units affordable to lower incomes, and a range of 20-25 du/ac for all other projects. Two different MU areas are proposed in this opportunity area, Mixed-Use Eucalyptus/Chino Airport (MU-EU) allowing 20-45 du/ac and Mixed-Use Great Park allowing 1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU-01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf. (accessed October 2022). 2 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Page 107. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan. (accessed March 2023). 3 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Housing Element, page H-282. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/housing. (accessed July 2023).
783
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-3 3.0 | Project Description
20-65 du/ac. With TOP 2050 and zoning changes noted in Program 13, all sites identified support densities necessary to facilitate lower- and moderate-income housing development.4 TOP designates the surrounding areas in Ontario Ranch for Commercial, Residential, and Mixed-Use development.

The existing zoning designation is Specific Plan (SP) Zoning District with an Agricultural (AG) Overlay.5 The SP District designation requires approval of a specific plan by the City for urban development of the Project site. The Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050.

Surrounding Land Uses
The existing uses in the vicinity include:
• North across Schaefer Avenue: dairy farm
• South across Edison Avenue: trucking facility
• East across Sultana Avenue: vacant and existing trucking facility • West across Euclid Avenue (City of Chino): existing commercial and residential uses, truck/trailer storage
Environmental Characteristics
Topography
The Project site slopes gently from the northeast to the southwest and south. Drainage appears to flow south and southwest. Site elevations range from approximately 730 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the northeast portion of the site to approximately 690 feet above msl in the southwest portion of the site.

Biology
As a part of the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the Project (Appendix C: Biological Resources Reports), species and habitat information were gathered from relevant databases to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected to occur on-site. Based on the results of the field investigation, no special-status plant or animal communities were observed on-site. No impacts to jurisdictional waters would occur based on the limits of the improvements and therefore no regulatory permits are necessary. Refer to Section 4.4: Biological Resources, for further discussion.

Hydrology
According to the Geotechnical Investigation conducted for the Project (Appendix E: Geotechnical Reports), groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Based on the available data and the findings of the investigation, the historical high groundwater level and the current groundwater level is estimated to be deeper than 137 feet below ground surface. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction of the Project. It should be noted that the groundwater level could vary 4 Ibid.
5 City of Ontario. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20220415_Rev1.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 784
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-4 3.0 | Project Description
depending upon the seasonal precipitation and possible groundwater pumping activity in each site vicinity. Perched water layers at depth may be present locally, particularly following high precipitation and irrigation events. Refer to Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion.

Seismic Conditions
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no evidence of faulting was identified during the Geotechnical Investigation. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Project area. The nearest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the Elsinore Fault Zone, is approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project site.6 This fault is a north to northwest trending reverse fault that dips steeply towards the southwest.

There have been no notable earthquakes, of a magnitude of 5.5 or more, affecting the Ontario-Chino region within the last 50 years. The most recent earthquake, the 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake, occurred southwest of the Project site and had a magnitude of 5.4. See Section 4.6: Geology and Soils for further discussion.

Flood Zone Information
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) (Map No. 06071C8620H and 06071C9335H, rev. August 28, 2008), the majority of the Project site lies Zone D, an area where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards. 7 See Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality, for further discussion.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
According to the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment conducted for the Project (Appendix F:

Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment), the site was previously developed for agricultural uses from as early as 1933 to the present day. Between 1946 and the present, the Project site was used agriculturally, including one dairy operation on the western portion of the site, and another dairy operation on the northeastern portion of the site. From as early as 2006, the current plant nursery operation on the southwestern portion of the Property was noted as well. Recognized Environmental Conditions were identified on-site. Refer to Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for further discussion.

Airport Influence Areas
Ontario International Airport Influence Area
The Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP) was adopted by the Ontario City Council on April 19, 2011. The intent of a compatibility plan is to avoid conflicts between airport 6 California Geological Survey. 2023. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. (accessed July 2023). 7 Federal Emergency Management Act. ND. National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. https://hazardsfema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd&extent=- 117.81426821289033,33.99346556420189,-117.48193178710954,34.1356709592875. (accessed January 2023). 785
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-5 3.0 | Project Description
operations and surrounding land uses. The Project area is not within the safety, noise impact, or airspace protection zones of the ONT ALUCP; however, it is within the Airport Influence Area, as is the entire City.

Chino Airport Overlay Zone
The Project site is located directly north of the Chino Airport and within the Chino Airport, airport influence areas. The City is currently preparing an ALUCP for Chino Airport which relies on the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The Chino ALUCP will establish policies and criteria for the four types of compatibility impacts which include safety, noise, airspace protection, and overflight. The Project site is not within the Chino Airport noise impact zone.

Projects within the Project specific plan boundary shall be required to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the ALUCP for Chino Airport.

Williamson Act Contracts
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The motivation for the Williamson Act is to promote voluntary land conservation, particularly farmland conservation. There are no active Williamson Act contracts located within the Project area.

3.3 Project Objectives
Objectives for the Project are defined in the Project specific plan to aid decision makers in their review of the Project and its associated environmental impacts. The Project objectives have been refined throughout the planning and design process for the Project and are listed below:
• Optimize the movement of goods throughout the region by designing a mixed-use center to create a highly walkable and pedestrian-oriented site design and road network which leverages the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investments;
• Create a mixed-use center to serve the populations of the newly developing Ontario Ranch and adjoining communities, by providing a range of housing types integrated within and alongside retail, commercial, and office uses, as well as public spaces and trails; • Develop and operate a large format mixed-use center to allow the City of Ontario to compete on a domestic scale through the efficient and cost-effective movement of goods; • Provide a flexible planning framework that responds to changing physical and market driven aspects of future development opportunities;
• Specify a coordinated phasing of infrastructure, utilities, and public services for this area of Ontario Ranch;
• Promote compatible uses and interfaces between adjacent properties; • Create a professional, well maintained and attractive environment for the development of a vibrant mixed-use development along Edison Avenue and a multi-purpose business park complex; 786
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-6 3.0 | Project Description
• Provide the entitlement and framework for office retail development and multiple family residential units;
• Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of business park uses; • Provide employment opportunities for the surrounding community; • Facilitate the implementation of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to serve the Project site;
• Expand Ontario’s retail, office and business park uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks;
• Create an economic driver for future growth in western portion of Ontario Ranch that acts as a catalyst for the development of infrastructure improvements in the area and implementation the City‘s long term planning vision;
• Provide opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within close proximity; • Provide a logical extension of planned community trails and bikeways; and • Facilitate the establishment of design guidelines and development standards that create a unique, well‐defined identity for the proposed Project. Enhance Project identity through architecture, landscaping, walls, fencing, signage and entry treatments.

3.4 Proposed Project
“Project” as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines, means:
“…the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following: (1)…enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 65100-65700. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).”
Description of the Project
The proposed Project consists of a Specific Plan to allow for a business park and mixed-use development on 18 parcels covering 84.1 acres in the City. The development would include up to 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses, and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, as described further below. The Project site is anticipated to be developed in two phases within five planning areas (PAs), with only Phase I proposed at a project-level entitlement. Note there are two applicants for the Project Specific Plan – the private Applicant for Phase I and the City for Phase II.

Phase I would include PAs 1, 2A, and 3A, proposing the construction of 13 buildings. The 13 Phase I buildings would provide up to 1,473,026 square feet of business park and commercial retail/office mixed uses (the maximum development allowed in the proposed Specific Plan). A conceptual site plan for Phase I envisions a less dense site, at approximately 1,000,595 square feet of development (depicted in Figure 787
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-7 3.0 | Project Description
3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan). However, the EIR conservatively evaluates the maximum development potential for Phases I and II as permitted in the proposed Specific Plan. Note that the applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I Project following processing of the Project Specific Plan. Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032.

The EIR also evaluates, at a “programmatic” level, potential future development of Phase II, comprised of PAs 2B and PA 3B. Phase II is being evaluated at the programmatic level for a number of reasons, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR). These reasons include: 1) the private Applicant does not own the parcels within the Phase II area (PAs 2B and PA 3B); 2) the City is the Applicant for these parcels and no specific development proposals have been identified for the Phase II area at this time; and 3) the extent the Phase II area is developed it will be at an unknown, later date following Phase I.

Combined, the Phase I and Phase II portions of the Specific Plan would allow up to 1,676,887 square feet of non-residential business park and commercial retail/office mixed uses in addition to up to 466 residential units, as shown in Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout, below.

Land Use Plan
The Project consists of five PAs accommodating a variety land uses including commercial retail/office uses, high density residential uses and open space areas, low-intensity office, and other similar uses that are compatible with the Project site’s location and surrounding existing and proposed land uses. The Project Specific Plan’s Land Use Plan implements the vision of TOP by providing opportunities for employment in manufacturing, distribution, and research and development at intensities designed to meet the demand of current and future market conditions. The Land Use Plan identifies the location of the land use designations for the Project area. The Project zoning mirrors the TOP Land Use Districts and is identified along with the five PAs (see Figure 3-7: Land Use Plan).

Business Park (BP) Zoning District: The BP zoning district accommodates business park and related commercial, low intensity office uses, and certain light industrial uses. Development within this district is typically multi-tenant in nature; however, single-tenant buildings are not precluded.

Development within the Business Park District will be set back from Euclid Avenue, separated by a 50-foot landscaped Neighborhood Edge with an 8-foot-wide multi-purpose trail. Smaller scale buildings will face Euclid Avenue and will be designed to create an attractive frontage that reflects a commercial/office character within the allowable building heights. Parking and vehicle storage areas will be sited behind buildings or will be heavily screened from perimeter street view.

Mixed-Use (MU) Zoning District: The MU zoning district accommodates a wide variety of retail commercial, office and high-density residential development in conformance with TOP. It is anticipated that the Mixed-Use development will be comprised of 10 percent Office, 20 percent Commercial/Retail, and 70 percent Residential.
788
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-8 3.0 | Project Description
The southern portion of the site that is comprised of approximately 20 acres along the north side of Edison Avenue and is zoned for Mixed Use development. This area is part of a much larger mixed-use area identified in TOP as the Great Park Mixed Use Area. Approximately 170 additional contiguous acres are located south of Edison Avenue. This Mixed Use Area is intended to encourage commercial/retail, office, and higher density residential development opportunities to serve the western portion of the Ontario Ranch and to provide a west anchor to the City of Ontario Great Park.

Open Space/Non-Recreational (OS-NR) Zoning District: The OS-NR Zoning District defines the utility corridors (SCE) easement areas within the City, including the Project boundary. This zoning district allows for low intensity uses such as vehicle and truck storage, nursery and limited agricultural uses, parking, etc., subject to written approval from SCE. The OS-NR Zoning District encompasses the utility easement corridors within the Project Specific Plan boundary. These areas are designated for non-recreational uses.

While no building are proposed within this district, it is suitable for uses such as landscape plant nurseries, recreational vehicle and truck/trailer storage and other uses allowed by the City zoning.

The land use types proposed by the Project are summarized below in Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout. Table 3-1 provides the maximum development intensity, addressing full buildout per the Project Specific Plan (allowable gross building area and maximum residential development for each PA based on the allowable floor area ratio or residential density respectively). Development standards, such as setback requirements, parking, open space, minimum landscaping, infrastructure, and site design, may reduce the maximum gross square footage or density.

The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan, which is 1,676,887 square feet of business park and mixed-use land uses, up to 466 residential units and associated on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements. Additional on-site improvements would include landscaping, utility infrastructure, and internal roadways. Off-site improvements may include various street improvements, storm drain infrastructure, sewer infrastructure, domestic water infrastructure, recycled water infrastructure, and underground electric utility infrastructure.

Conceptual Site Plan
The conceptual site plan for the Project is presented in Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan. Under this conceptual plan, PA 1, 2A, and 3A would be developed with 13 buildings with approximately 1,000,595 square feet of business park and commercial retail/office mixed use development. Note that the applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I Project concurrently or following processing of the Project Specific Plan.8
8 The Applicant has submitted applications for a Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I area. These applications are currently in City staff review and may be considered by the City concurrent with the Specific Plan if those applications have completed City staff review.
789
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-9 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-1: Maximum Project Buildout
Planning Area Land Use Designation Site Acreage Maximum Building Square Footage
Phase I
1 Business Park 24.60 642,946
2A Business Park 20.66 539,970
3A Mixed-Use (Office; Retail) 5.71 290,110
4 Open Space/Non-Recreational 6.28 -
Subtotal 57.25 1,473,026
Phase II
2B Business Park 7.80 203,861
3B Mixed-Use (Residential) 13.32 -
5 Open Space/Non-Recreational 5.73 -
Subtotal 26.85 203,861
Total 84.1 1,676,887
Notes:

1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.

2. The EIR will evaluate the total maximum allowable development in the Project Specific Plan. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) may be increased to the TOP max levels of 0.60 for BP respectively with appropriate CEQA analysis.

3. Phase II uses are being evaluated at programmatic level only; no specific development applications have been submitted; no specific development dates are known.

4. Specific Plan proposed a minimum of 20,000 square feet of retail within PA 3A. Maximum density allowed may exceed 35 du/ac on any parcel as long as a maximum of 466 du is not exceeded within the Project Specific Plan area.

Table 3-2: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan, shows the anticipated actual amount of square footage upon Project buildout based upon market conditions. The conceptual site plan reflects current market trends, site conditions, and planned infrastructure. However, the conceptual site plan may be modified, provided it does not exceed the maximum building area presented in Table 3-1 and complies with this Project and applicable provisions of the City of Ontario Development Code. To be conservative, this EIR addresses the maximum development potential of the Phase I and Phase II areas. 790
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-10 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-2: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan
Land Use Designation Building Numbers Site Acreage Ground Floor Area (SF) Planning Area 1
Business Park 1 2.73 46,010
Business Park 2 2.58 50,325
Business Park 3 2.32 39,506
Business Park 4 2.79 54,710
Business Park 5 4.70 91,464
Business Park 6 6.51 160,171
Business Park 7 4.73 92,790
Subtotal 26.36 534,976
Planning Area 2A
Business Park 8 4.65 95,481
Business Park 9 5.10 108,293
Business Park 10 3.68 83,410
Business Park 11 1.69 29,205
Business Park 12 1.64 26,332
Subtotal 16.76 342,721
Planning Area 3A
Mixed-Use (Office) 13 6.09 122,898
Subtotal 6.09 122,898
Total 49.20 1,000,595
Planning Area 4
Open Space/Non-Recreational - 6.28 -
Notes:

1. The numbers were rounded to present a conservative estimate.

2. The Project is proposed in two phases. Phase I, comprised of Planning Areas (PA) 1 and 2, 3A, and 4, envisions approximately 1,000,595 SF of business park and mixed-use development and open space uses. Phase I consists of the construction of Buildings 1 through 13 as numbered in Figure 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan. This phase may be developed in several subphases in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly completion of infrastructure improvements.

3. Actual Phase I development may be greater, up to the maximum allowed in the Specific Plan as set forth in Table 3-1.

Circulation Plan
The Circulation Plan (Figure 3-8: Circulation Plan) facilitates movement of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists around and within the Project site, consistent with the City of Ontario Roadway Classification System (Figure 3-9: City of Ontario Roadway Classification System). See Section 4.15: Transportation for additional information on vehicular and truck circulation, trip distribution, and truck routing.

Figure 3-10: Street Sections, presents typical street cross sections for Euclid Avenue, Schaefer Avenue, Sultana Avenue, and Edison Avenue. Roadway, sidewalk, and trail improvements within the Project site must be approved by the City’s Engineering Department. Preliminary improvement responsibilities are indicated in the cross sections; however, final fair share responsibilities for street improvements shall be as determined in a Development Agreement with the City. Conceptual streetscape design is presented in the Project specific plan’s design Guidelines for this Project. Road surface, sidewalk, and trail improvements within the Project area shall be approved by the City’s Engineering Department.

Refer to the Development Plan discussion below for the site-specific development proposal being evaluated in this EIR, for the Phase II portion of the Project. Note that the Development Plan includes 791
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-11 3.0 | Project Description
slightly less square footage than the maximum allowed for under the Project specific plan zoning (see Table 3-2).

Final site planning and off-site design shall be subject to City approval pursuant to the provision of the Project specific plan. In addition to the typical street section described and depicted, additional right-ofway and geometric enhancements such as an additional left turn and right turn lanes, including but not limited to those at intersections, may be required to adequately mitigate impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis/Specific Plan EIR.

Local Circulation
Driveways shall conform to access requirements of the City Traffic and Transportation Design Guidelines and be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Driveway locations, specifically those that are in proximity to master-planned or future traffic signals, shall be located so as not to interfere with queues as projected in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Fair share responsibilities for street improvements would be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City.

Euclid Avenue (State Route 83)
Euclid Avenue is a State Route under Caltrans’ jurisdiction that is designated as an eight-lane Other Principal Arterial in TOP. The centerline of this street forms the boundary between the City of Ontario to the east and the City of Chino to the west. Euclid Avenue is designed with a 200-foot-wide right-of-way, a 66-foot-wide center median, and 52 feet of pavement including curbs and gutter. The existing half-width street right-of-way is 100 feet; therefore, no dedication is required.

The Euclid Avenue streetscape design illustrated in the Project Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines, for the east side of the street adjacent to the Project site specifies a 15-foot-wide parkway including a 5-footwide sidewalk and an 8-foot-wide on-site multipurpose trail within a 35-foot-wide landscape buffer, creating a 50-foot-wide neighborhood edge as specified in the Ontario Ranch Colony Streetscape Master Plan.

Edison Avenue
Edison Avenue is located along the southern boundary of the Project site, providing east/west access to the site. Edison Avenue is designated as an Other Principal Arterial Street in TOP. The Project Specific Plan specifies a 160-foot-wide right-of-way with a 26-foot landscaped median and a 52-foot paved section on each side.

The Edison Avenue streetscape design presented in the Project Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines, for the north side of the street adjacent to the Project site specifies a 15-foot-wide parkway including a 10-footwide curb-adjacent landscaped area and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk. The south side also provides an 8-footwide on-site multipurpose trail within a 23-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Together, the parkway and landscape buffer setback create a 38-foot-wide neighborhood edge, per the City’s Master Plan of Streets.

Schaefer Avenue
792
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-12 3.0 | Project Description
Schaefer Avenue is designated as a four lane Collector Street per the City’s Master Plan of Streets and provides east-west access to the Project’s northern boundary. The Project Specific Plan specifies a 108- foot-wide right-of-way and 84 feet of pavement including curb and gutter for Schaefer Avenue.

The Schaefer Avenue streetscape design presented in the Project’s Specific Plan Design Guidelines, for the south side of the street adjacent to the Project site includes a Class II on-street bike lane at the edge of the street, a 7-foot-wide curb-adjacent landscaped area, and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk. An 8-foot-wide multi-purpose trail is located within a 23-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Together, these improvements establish a 35-foot-wide neighborhood edge, per in the City’s Master Plan of Streets.

Sultana Avenue
Sultana Avenue is designated as a Local Street with a 66-foot-wide right-of-way and 48 feet of pavement including curb and gutter. The Sultana Avenue streetscape presented in the Project Specific Plan Design Guidelines, specifies a 9-foot-wide parkway including a 4-foot-wide landscape planter and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk. The west side of the street adjacent to the Project site, provides a 10-foot-wide landscape buffer setback. Sultana Avenue is not yet developed adjacent to the Project site. However, the right-of-way exists, and no dedication is required.

Traffic Control Devices
Traffic signs regulating, warning, and/or guiding traffic on public roads shall conform to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), latest edition. Traffic-control signs, whether on public or private property, shall conform to the California MUTCD.

Pedestrian Circulation
Sidewalks would be provided along all streets abutting the Project site to improve safety and the pedestrian experience, connect the various parts of the Project area, and expand access to nearby land uses.

Trails and Bike Paths
Trails and bicycle paths provide an additional mode of circulation in and around the Project site.

Multipurpose trails would be provided on the east side of Euclid Avenue, on the south side of Schaefer Avenue and on the south side of Edison Avenue (see Figure 3-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan).

The Ontario Plan Mobility Element specifies a Class II bicycle lane on the north side of Schaefer Avenue adjacent to the Project site. Class II bicycle lanes are defined as dedicated (striped) lanes along streets, with no parking allowed in the bicycle lane. This bicycle lane provides linkages to the City’s bicycle path system (see Figure 3-12: City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan). The trail and bicycle path improvements would be installed along the Project frontages in conjunction with street improvements.

Transit
Transit options provide an alternative mode of transportation for motorists and a primary mode for the transit dependent. The City is coordinating with regional transit agencies to implement Bus Rapid Transit 793
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-13 3.0 | Project Description
(BRT) service to target destinations and along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Project site.

Domestic Water Plan
The City’s ultimate domestic water system will consist of five pressure zones. Most of Ontario Ranch (including the Project site area) is in the 925 Pressure Zone. The overall water infrastructure plan to serve the City of Ontario as well as the required water infrastructure required to be constructed to serve the Project site is shown on Figure 3-13: City of Ontario Ultimate Water System. The developer of the Project will be responsible to provide the required water lines to connect to the existing improvements constructed by the Ontario Ranch Business Park development to the south of the site.

In addition to extending the 925 Pressure Zone (PZ) Phase 2 West Backbone, the Project site requires a connection between the 925 PZ Phase 2 West Backbone and the 1010 PZ. This would supply a second source of potable water to the Project site. The connection to the 1010 PZ would require extending the Phase 2 West Backbone at Eucalyptus Avenue and Grove Avenue by installing a 30-inch potable water main north on Grove Avenue to Chino Avenue. The connection to the 1010 PZ would require installing an 18-inch potable water main in Chino Avenue easterly to the existing 18-inch potable water main located on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek channel and installing a Pressure Reducing Station between the 1010 PZ and 925 PZ near the intersection of Grove Avenue and Chino Avenue.

Other elements of the Phase 2 Water System are shown on Figure 3-13. The elements shown north of Chino Avenue would be constructed by others. The balance of Phase 2 Water System would be completed as required by future development of Ontario Ranch. The Project would be required to participate in the future Phase 2 Water System improvements, as detailed in the development agreement with the City.

Water service to the Project site would be provided by the City. Currently, there are no City domestic water mains or City water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site. The extension of City master planned domestic water infrastructure is being developed within the western portion of Ontario Ranch.

The Project is responsible to provide domestic water service to serve future development and would construct a 16-inch line in Euclid Avenue and a 12-inch line along the remaining perimeter of the Project site in Schaefer, Sultana, and Edison Avenues. The Project site would extend the 12-inch line in Schaefer Avenue to connect to the future line at Grove Avenue and the 16-inch line in Euclid Avenue south to connect to the future line in Eucalyptus Avenue. Water mains required to serve the Project would need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. Within the Project site, a private network of 2- to 4-inch water lines for domestic water service and 10- to 12-inch water lines for fire service water would be installed. The on-site water system includes connections to the water main in Edison Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue. Refer to Figure 3-14: Domestic Water Plan for further detail.

Recycled Water Plan
Recycled water is provided to the City of Ontario by the Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA) from its four wastewater reclamation plants. The entire Project site is within the City’s master planned 930 Pressure Zone. Recycled water infrastructure improvements requiring the planning, design, and construction of 794
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-14 3.0 | Project Description
new 930 Pressure Zone (PZ) Recycled Water Master Plan main lines area would be required (see Figure 3--15: City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System).

The City requires all new development in Ontario Ranch to connect to and use recycled water for all approved uses, including but not limited to landscape irrigation. Currently, there are no City owned recycled water mains or City recycled water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site. There is an existing 30-inch IEUA recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue south of the Project site. The Project is responsible to provide recycled water service to serve future development and would construct a 12-inch line in Euclid Avenue and an 8-inch line along the perimeter of the Project site. The Project would extend the 12-inch line in Euclid Avenue south to connect to the existing line in Eucalyptus Avenue. See Figure 3- 16: Recycled Water Plan for further detail.

The 12-inch line in Sultana Avenue may be reduced to an 8-inch line if the development to the east is required to provide individual meters to serve future development.

Sewer Plan
Regional wastewater treatment services are provided to the City and its neighboring agencies by the IEUA.

Several regional trunk sewers collect sewage generated in the City and transport it to IEUA’s Regional Plant No. 1 and Regional Plant No. 5 for treatment. The City’s sewer service area is divided into eight sewer sheds, primarily based on the outlet points where the City’s system ties into the IEUA downstream facility. Ontario Ranch is located in Sewer Shed 8. Refer to Figure 3-17: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System.

There are no sewer mains located in Euclid Avenue or the other streets adjacent to the Project area. The extension of City master planned sewer infrastructure is being developed within the western portion of Ontario Ranch. The City’s master planned sewer system has been constructed in Euclid Avenue at Eucalyptus Avenue and along Eucalyptus Avenue between Euclid and Sultana Avenues.

The Project is responsible to provide sewer service to serve future development and would construct a 16-inch line approximately 2,650 feet in length along the Project frontage of Euclid Avenue and extend an 18-inch main line along the Euclid Avenue to the south to connect to the Kimball Interceptor Sewer. The Project would construct an 8-inch line along approximately 1,320 feet in length along the eastern boundary of the Project site to Edison Avenue and extend the 12-inch line in Sultana Avenue to connect to the existing line in Merrill Avenue. A sewer line may be extended along a portion of Edison Avenue, if necessary to serve the adjacent parcels to the north (see Figure 3-18: Sewer Plan).

Storm Drain Plan
Storm drain systems to serve the Project site would be installed according to the City of Ontario Storm Drain System (see Figure 3-19: City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System). Currently, there are no City domestic storm drain trunk lines in the vicinity of the Project site. The extension of City master planned storm drain infrastructure is being developed within the western portion of Ontario Ranch. The Project is responsible to provide storm drains to serve future development and would construct a 90-inch line in Euclid Avenue along the western perimeter of the Project site, a 48-inch to 90-inch line in Schaefer Avenue 795
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-15 3.0 | Project Description
along the northern perimeter of the Project site, and a 78-inch to 96-inch in Edison Avenue along the southern perimeter of the Project site. The Project would construct a 102-inch trunk line in Euclid Avenue south to connect to the existing 108-inch line at Euclid Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue.

Catch basins located throughout the site would collect runoff. On-site storm drain systems serving the Project site would connect to the master planned system in Euclid Avenue to serve the Project site development. The Project site storm drain improvements are shown in Figure 3-20: Storm Drain Plan.

National Polluant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance The grading and drainage of the Project area would be designed to retain/filter, harvest, and reuse or treat surface runoff to comply with the current requirements of the San Bernardino County NPDES Stormwater Program’s Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for significant new development projects. Water quality impacts may be minimized through the implementation of site designs that reduce runoff and pollutant transport by minimizing impervious surfaces and maximizing on-site infiltration, employing Source Control Best Management Practices (BMP’s), or using on-site structural Treatment Control BMP’s where the infeasibility of installing Low Impact Development BMP’s is demonstrated.

New development within the Project site would utilize a variety of Low Impact Development site drainage designs to manage stormwater, including but not limited to retention/filtration basins, trenches and swales, and above ground bio-retention systems. Development projects within the Project site would incorporate features including but not limited to:
• Landscape designs that promote water retention and incorporation of water conservation elements such as use of native plants and drip irrigation systems; • Permeable surface designs in areas with low traffic;
• Parking lots that drain to landscaped areas to provide retention and infiltration, or bio-treatment where infiltration is infeasible; or
• Limit soil compaction during grading operations within landscaped storm water infiltration areas to no more than 80 percent compaction.

Prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan sheets, and a WQMP would be prepared and approved. The SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Sheets would identify and detail all appropriate BMP’s to be implemented or installed during construction of the Project, and the WQMP would describe all postconstruction BMP’s designed to address water quality and quantity of runoff for the life of the Project.

All Priority Land Use (PLU) areas within the Project site shall comply with the statewide Trash Provisions adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and trash requirements in the most current San Bernardino County Area-Wide MS4 Permit. PLU includes high-density residential (defined as a land use with at least 10 dwelling units per acre), industrial, commercial, mixed urban, and public transportation station. Drainage from the PLU shall be designed with conveyance tributary to a subregional Full Trash Capture System such as a Debris Separating Baffle Box (DSBB), Continuous Deflective System (CDS), or an equivalent hydrodynamic separator which has been approved by the SWRCB. 796
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-16 3.0 | Project Description
Conceptual Grading Plan
The topography of the site is moderately flat, sloping from the north to the south. There is an approximately 25-foot elevation change across the Project site.

The grading activities for the Project area would generally consist of clearing and grubbing, demolition of existing structures, and moving surface soils to construct building pads, driveways, and streets.

A Conceptual Grading Plan would be prepared in conjunction with future subdivision mapping and approvals. The grading plan would provide a balance of cut and fill for the Project site. Grading plans for each development project within the Project site will be reviewed and approved by the City of Ontario prior to the issuance of grading permits. Grading plans and activities would conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.

All landscaped areas within the Project site would be designed to accept runoff water from impervious surfaces. Landscape slopes shall not be greater than 3:1 on all slopes, including within neighborhood edge areas and slopes over five feet in height.

Dry Utilities Plan
Utility services provided to the site shall be installed underground in accordance with City guidelines.

Communication System
Developments in Ontario Ranch are required to install and provide fiber conduit to all improved lots.

Proposed on-site facilities would be placed underground within a duct and structure system that would be installed by the developer, see Figure 3-21: Fiber Optical Plan. Pursuant to the City of Ontario 2013 Fiber Optic Master Plan, the fiber optic network would be owned and operated by the City of Ontario and as such maintenance of the installed system would be the responsibility of the City and/or Special District fiber optic entity and not the developer. According to the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan, the proposed fiber optic infrastructure, including approximately 23 miles of backbone fiber south of Riverside Drive, is an investment into a long-term capital asset using newly constructed and existing conduit to provide high speed communication links to key locations throughout the City. The Project site would be connected to the City’s system as shown on Figure 3-22: City of Ontario Ultimate Fiber Optical System.

Natural Gas
The Southern California Gas Company would provide natural gas to the Project site. Gas mains would be installed to the individual development projects by the Southern California Gas Company, as necessary.

Electricity
Southern California Edison would provide electricity to the Project site from existing facilities in the vicinity. All new lines within the Project site would be installed according to City requirements. 797
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-17 3.0 | Project Description
Undergrounding of existing overhead power lines would be subject to Section 7-7 of the Ontario Municipal Code. Existing power poles along Edison Avenue would need to be relocated. The existing location is within the ultimate roadway.

Public Services
Public services within the Project site, including police, fire and solid waste disposal services would be provided as follows:

Police
The City of Ontario would provide police services to the Project site. The closest police station is located approximately four miles north of the Project site at 2500 South Archibald Avenue, just south of SR-60.

This station is also the City of Ontario Police Department headquarters.

Fire
The City of Ontario would provide fire protection services to the Project site. The Ontario Fire Department currently has 10 stations, which are staffed with eight four-man paramedic engine companies and two four-man truck companies. The closest operational fire station, Station 2, is located at 544 W. Francis Street, approximately three miles north of the Project site.

Solid Waste Disposal
The City of Ontario would provide solid waste services to the Project site. Solid waste facilities will follow the “Solid Waste Department Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.” The Manual establishes the City of Ontario’s requirements for refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addresses the City’s recycling goals. The Mid-Valley Landfill is the nearest County of San Bernardino landfill located at 2390 North Alder Avenue in the City of Rialto, approximately 20 miles northeast of the Project site.

Development Standards and Design Guidelines
Upon adoption of the Project Specific Plan, the development standards and procedures established within the Project Specific Plan Chapter 5 would become the governing zoning standards for any new construction, addition, or remodel within the Project area. The Project Specific Plan outlinesthe allowable uses and standards for building heights, setbacks, parking, coverage, landscape, signage and other development standards within the Project area. Design Guidelines of the Project Specific Plan provide conceptual themes of site planning, architecture, and landscape design within the Project site. Refer to Project Specific Plan Chapter 5 for additional information.

Sustainable Design Strategies
The Applicant is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process. Appropriate strategies will be determined for each project within the Project site. Strategies include, but are not limited to:

Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
798
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-18 3.0 | Project Description

1. Design and construct energy efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption.

2. Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.

3. Reduce the heat island effect by providing shade structures and trees that produce large canopies.

In addition, choose roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity (cool roofs).

4. Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible.

5. Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand.

6. Use energy efficient LED (or similar) products.

7. Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the City Municipal Code requirements, including California Green Building Standards Code.

8. Use drought tolerant landscaping with drip irrigation and include plantings such as trees, shrubs, groundcovers and/or vines. Optional amenities include benches, trellises, thematic fencing, and decorative walkways.

9. Employ high performance dual pane window glazing in office storefronts.

Water Quality

1. Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins or bio-treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit and Water Quality Management Plan.

2. Select native and drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand.

3. Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the Project site as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration and control runoff.

4. Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible.

5. Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydrazone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.

6. Use recycled water to irrigate landscape areas and for other appropriate uses. The use of recycled water for certain purposes is required by the City of Ontario Recycled Water Master Plan.

3.5 Construction and Phasing
Development phasing of the Project site would be determined by the landowner and/or developer based upon real estate market conditions. Phasing would occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure are provided. Phasing sequencing is subject to change over time to respond to various market and local factors and as such, individual phases may overlap or develop concurrently. Infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support the development, would be installed by the 799
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-19 3.0 | Project Description
developer. Figure 3-23: Conceptual Phasing Plan, describes the general phases of development anticipated for the Project site.

Project backbone infrastructure would be installed by the Project developer, in accordance with the applicable City adopted infrastructure plan for the area, as well as the provisions of the Project Specific Plan and an approved Development Agreement. Fair share responsibilities for improvements would be addressed in a Development Agreement with the City of Ontario. The timing for installation of infrastructure and utilities within the Project site would be determined as part of the City’s approval of future subdivision maps and development plans. Infrastructure would be constructed and made available in a timely manner as development progresses. Phasing of required infrastructure would be determined per separate Development Agreement.

3.6 Agreements, Permits and Approvals Required
This Draft EIR examines the environmental effects of the proposed Project’s Specific Plan. Note that the Applicant intends to process a Development Plan and Tentative Parcel Map for the Phase I Project concurrent with or following processing of the Project specific plan. This Draft EIR also addresses various actions by the City and others to adopt and implement the proposed Project. It is the intent of this Draft EIR to evaluate the environmental effects of the Project, thereby enabling the City, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements.

The following summarizes the requested Project approval. For additional details and review of all application materials, including the Project Specific Plan, they are available for review at the City of Ontario Planning Department, refer to Project submittals on file and available for review.

Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (PSP22-001)
The Project Specific Plan provides regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land uses, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements. Implementation of the proposed Project Specific Plan would achieve the intent of TOP for the Project site.

Anticipated Approvals
The anticipated approvals required for this Project are listed in Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required, below:
800
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-20 3.0 | Project Description
Table 3-3: Anticipated Permits and Approvals Required
Lead Agency Action
City of Ontario City Council
• Certification of the Final EIR
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Adoption of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (PSP22--001) Responsible Agencies Action
San Bernardino County • Well removal permit from County Health Department (if required) City of Chino • Street and drainage improvements
Caltrans • Encroachment permit (if required)
Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board
• Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Federal Aviation Administration • Obstruction evaluation South Coast Air Quality
Management District • Issuance of Air Quality permits for construction Future Agreements, Permits and Approvals
Development proposed within the Project area shall be subject to Development Plan review pursuant to Section 4.02.025 of the Ontario Development Code. The review is intended to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Project Specific Plan, protect the integrity and character of the physical composition of the City, and encourage high-quality development. The following future agreements, permits and approvals are anticipated, concurrent with or following City approval of the Specific Plan.

Development Plan (PDEV23-011)
A Development Plan application is proposed for the Project site area which constitutes PAs 1 and 2A, 3A, and 4 (Phase I). PAs 2B, 3B, and 5 (Phase II) are not owned by the Applicant at this time and therefore, Phase II is programmatically planned under the Project and no specific development is proposed at this time.

Tentative Parcel Map (PMTT23-005)
Concurrent with submitting the Development Plan for Phase I, the applicant has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for Phase I of the Project (PAs 1 and 2A, 3A, and 4).

Development Agreement (PDA23-004)
The applicant is requesting approval of a development agreement pursuant to California Government Code §65864 et seq. The Development Agreement will include, but not be limited to, methods for financing, acquisition, and construction of necessary infrastructure (no other physical improvements are anticipated to be associated with the Development Agreement other than that which is described in this EIR). The Development Agreement is intended to be fully executed prior to recordation of the first Final Map.
801
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 3-21 3.0 | Project Description
Subdivision Maps
In addition to the Phase I Tentative Parcel Map noted above, development within the Project may require the processing of additional tentative and final tract or parcel maps and/or lot line adjustments or mergers. Subdivision maps and lot changes shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the Ontario Development Code and other applicable City codes and regulations, California Government Code Section 66410 (Subdivision Map Act), as well as the provisions of the Project Specific Plan.

Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for uses specified as “conditionally permitted” in the Specific Plan. Applications for a Conditional Use Permit shall be processed pursuant to Section 4.02.015 of the City Development Code.

Administrative Use Permit
An Administrative Use Permit shall be required for uses specified as “administratively permitted” in the Specific Plan. Applications for an Administrative Use Permit shall be processed pursuant to Section

4.03.015 of the City Development Code.

Maintenance Plan
Final determination of maintenance responsibilities for the public and private improvements constructed in association with the Project Specific Plan shall be specified in the approved Development Agreement, which shall be executed prior to recordation of the first Final Map. However, it is anticipated that maintenance shall be generally shared by three entities as described further in the Project Specific Plan Section 6.
802
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-1: Regional Location
EuclidMixedUseSpecificPlan
Source: CountyofSanBernardino,2021; ESRI, 2022
803
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-2: Local Vicinity Map
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: ESRI.
804
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-3: Project Boundary
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: County of San Bernardino, 2022; ESRI.
805
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 2.1 Surrounding Land Uses.

CITY OF CHINO

CITY OF

EASTVALE

CITY OF ONTARIO
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
City Boundary
City Boundary
City Boundary

AIRPORT
Project
Site
FUTURE

INDUSTRIAL

RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL
FUTURE

INDUSTRIAL
DAIRY
FARM
DAIRY

FARM AGRICULTURE

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE

RESIDENTIAL

RESIDENTIAL
806
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-5: Existing Land Use and Zoning
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Placeworks, 2022; County of San Bernardino, 2021; ESRI. 807
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-6: Phase I Conceptual Site Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: RGA Office of Architectural Design, 2022 Note: The Project is proposed in two phases. Phase I, comprised of Planning Areas (PA) 1 and 2, 3A, and 4, would allow approximately 1,000,595 SF of business park and mixed-use development and open space uses. Phase I consists of the construction of Buildings 1 through 13 and includes the Development Plan (PAs 1, 2, 3A, and 4). This phase may be developed in several sub-phases in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly completion of infrastructure improvements. 276'
276'
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
BUILDING 13
122,898 SF
OFFICE
AREA
OFFICE
AREA
130' 135' 135' 145'
251'
135' 140'
300'
150' 135'
426'
135' 183'
673'
135' 200'
135' 150'
488'
125.285'
156.888'
140'
533'
458'
458'
215'
150'
135'
135'
125.142' 135'
135' 150' 647'
40'
40'

S U L T A N A A V E N U E

S C H A E F E R A V E N U E

E U C L I D A V E N U E

O N T A R I O R A N C H R O A D
75' 75'
150'
BUILDING 1
46,010 SF
BUILDING 2
50,325 SF
BUILDING 3
39,506 SF
BUILDING 4
54,710 SF
BUILDING 5
91,464 SF
BUILDING 6
160,171 SF
BUILDING 7
92,790 SF
BUILDING 8
95,481 SF
BUILDING 9
108,293 SF
BUILDING 10
83,410 SF
BUILDING 11
29,205 SF
BUILDING 12
26,332 SF

N O T A P A R T N O T A P A R T

N O T A P A R T

N O T A P A R T
LOT B
70 TRAILER
STALLS
LOT A
295 TRAILER
STALLS
35'
40'
40'
35'35'
35'

EDISON AVENUE
808
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-7: Land Use Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source:Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, Figure 3.1, Land Use Plan 1 4
2A
5 3B

24.60 AC

6.28 AC

5.73 AC

20.66 AC

13.80 AC

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

EUCLID AVE

SULTANA AVE
3A

5.23 AC
2B

7.80 AC
1 4
2 5
3B

24.60 AC

6.28 AC

5.73 AC

28.46 AC

13.80 AC

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

EUCLID AVE
3A

5.23 AC

LAND USE PLAN
EUCLID MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN 809
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-8: Circulation Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.3 Circulation Plan M
US

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVENUE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE
Other Principal Arterial:
8 Lanes
Collector Street:
4 Lanes
Local Street
Master Planned Traffic Signal
Proposed Traffic Signal
Potential Access Points:

Full Access
Right-In/Right-Out Access
LEGEND
810
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-9: City of Ontario Road Classification System
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.2 City of Ontario Road Classification System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

HELLMAN AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE
EMUSP
SITE
USP
T
C
Other Principal Arterial:
8 Lanes
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Minor Arterial:
6 Lanes
4 Lanes
Collector Street:
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
Local Street
LEGEND

EDISON AVE
811
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-10: Street Sections
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.4 through Figure 3.7

EDISON AVENUE
812
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE
Sidewalk
Class II Bicycle Lane
Multipurpose Trail
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridors
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.9 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN
813
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-12: City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.8 City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

HELLMAN AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE
EMUSP
SITE
USP
T

EDISON AVE
A

MERRILL AVE C
A
Multipurpose Trail
Class I Bicycle Lane
Class II Bicycle Lane
SCE Trail
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Area
LEGEND
814
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-13: City of Ontario Ultimate Water System
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.10 City of Ontario Ultimate Water System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE

FRANCIS ST

WALNUT ST

PHILADELPHIA ST

BON VIEW AVE

CAMPUS AVE
EMUSP
SITE
12”
30-42”
12”
30-42” 30-42”
42”
12”
18”
12”
12”
12”
12” 12”
16”
12”
16”
12”
42”
42”
16”
16” 12” 12”
16” 16” 16” 16”
12”
12”
12”
12”
12”
12” 12”
24” 24”
12” 12” 12”
24” 24” 24”
24” 16” 16”
16” 16” 12”
16” 16”
12”
42”
16” 18” 18” 18”
12” 18” 18” 18” 18”
12” 12”
12” 12” 12” 12”
16” 16” 12”
12”
12” 12”
Improvements by EMUSP Site
Improvements by EMUSP Site (under construction)
1010 Zone CIP
Ontario Ranch Master Plan Improvements
(Ontario Ranch Business Park Specific Plan is not responsible for all 925 PZ Infrastructure shown in this line type and color)
1010 Pressure Zone
925 Pressure Zone
Recommended Emergency Connection
Recommended Altitude Valve/PRS
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Existing Water System
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.10 CITY OF ONTARIO ULTIMATE WATER SYSTEM
16"
815
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-14: Domestic Water Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.11 Specific Plan Domestic Water System SULTANA AVE EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE
EXTEND 16” LINE TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
EXTEND 16” LINE

TO GROVE AVENUE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE

SULTANA AVE SULTANA AVE

EDISON AVE EDISON
EXTEND 16” LINE

TO GROVE AVENUE
16”

SCHAEFER AVE
16” 16”
16”
12”
12”
12”
Improvements by EMUSP Site
1010 Zone CIP
Ontario Ranch Master Plan Improvements
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
LEGEND
816
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-15: City of Ontario Future Recycled Water System Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.12 City of Ontario Ultimate Recycled Water System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
EMUSP
SITE
USP
T
8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
12 in
20 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
16 in
8 in
8 in
20 in
12 in
8 in
12 in24 in
12 in
8 in 8 in
8 in
8 in
12 in
12 in
12 in
30 in
8 in8 in
30 in 48 in 48 in 48 in
54 in
60 in
30 in 30 in 30 in
30 in 30 in
54 in
30 in
20 in 20 in 24 in 20 in
16 in 16 in
8 in 8 in 8 in 8 in 8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in
8 in 8 in 12 in 12 in 12 in 12 in
8 inch
Alternative B
Alternative A
12 in 12 in
12 in 12 in 8 in 12 in
16 in 16 in
8 in 8 in 8 in 12 in 12 in 12 in 12 in
24 in 24 in 30 in 36 in
12 in
12 in
8 in
12 in
8 in
Alternative Recycled Water Improvements Required by EMUSP (At least 1 of the 2 Alternatives is required)
Improvement by EMUSP Site
Improvement by Ontario Ranch Business Park
May be required if: east half of street is required, or to provide individual meters to future Specific Plan development parcels that only front on Sultana Ave 1050 Zone CIP
Existing IEUA Pipeline
Pressure Reducing Station
Pressure Reducing Station
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
LEGEND
817
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-16: Specific Plan Recycled Water Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.13 Specific Plan Recycled Water System US

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE
EXTEND 12” LINE

TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE
Alternative B
Alternative A
8 in 8 in
8 in 8 in 8 in
12 in
12 in
Alternative Recycled Water Improvements Required by EMUSP (At least 1 of the 2 Alternatives is required)
Improvement by EMUSP Site
Improvement by Ontario Ranch Business Park
May be required if: east half of street is required, or to provide individual meters to future Specific Plan development parcels that only front on Sultana Ave
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
LEGEND
818
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-17: City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.15 City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

KIMBALL AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE
RIVERSIDE DRIVE CONNECTS TO EXISTING IEUA KIMBALL INTERCEPTOR SEWER (KIS) 36” 21” 18” 8”
15”
Improvements by EMUSP Site
Future Sewer Upstream
Tributary Area Boundary
Flow Directions
Existing IEUA Kimball Interceptor Sewer (KIS)
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Sewer Pipe Size
LEGEND
XX”
EMUSP
SITE
819
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-18: Sewer Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Source: Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.16 Specific Plan Sewer Plan U

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE

CONNECTS TO EXISTING IEUA

KIMBALL INTERCEPTOR SEWER (KIS)
18” 16”
8”
Improvements by EMUSP Site
Future Sewer Upstream
Tributary Area Boundary
Flow Directions
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Sewer Pipe Size
LEGEND
XX” 820
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-19: City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.20 City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CUCAMONGA CHANNEL

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
EMUSP
SITE
USP
T
96” 78”
90” 72”48”
90”

9.5’ 9.5’
66”
90” 102” 108”
30”

TO CITY OF CHINO

MASTER PLANNED LINE I

EUCLID AVE STORM DRAIN
Improvements by Ontario Ranch Business Park
Improvments by EMUSP
Drainage Area Boundary XVI
Drainage Area Boundary XIII
Drainage Area Boundary XII
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
LEGEND
821
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-20: Storm Drain Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.21 Specific Plan Storm Drain Plan FIGURE 3.21 SPECIFIC PLAN STORM DRAIN PLAN SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE
EXTEND 102” LINE

TO EUCALYPTUS AVENUE

SULTANA AVE SULTANA AVE S

EDISON AVE I

SCHAEFER AVE SCHAEFER AVE
96” 78”
90” 72” 48”
90” 102”
Improvements by EMUSP
LEGEND
822
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-21: Fiber Optic Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.19 Specific Plan Fiber Optic Plan

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

EDISON AVE

SCHAEFER AVE
EMUSP
SITE
LEGEND
FIBER SIZE:

432
288
72 Fiber Optical Lines to be installed
by Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan 823
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-22: City of Ontario Ultimate Fiber Optical System Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
6RXUFH˛ Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.18 City of Ontario Ultimate Fiber Optical System GROVE AVE CUCAMONGA AVE PARCO AVE WALKER AVE

VINEYARD AVE

CARPENTER AVE

ARCHIBALD AVE

BON VIEW AVE

SULTANA AVE

CAMPUS AVE

EUCLID AVE

MERRILL AVE

EDISON AVE

EUCALYPTUS AVE

SCHAEFER AVE

CHINO AVE

RIVERSIDE DRIVE
EMUSP
SITE
USP
T
LEGEND
FIBER SIZE:

(2) 432
432
288
144
96 72
36 12
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
824
Not to scale
FIGURE 3-23: Conceptual Phasing Plan
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
6RXUFH˛ Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, 2023, Figure 3.22 Specific Plan Phasing Plan

SULTANA AVE

EUCLID AVE

ONTARIO RANCH RD

SCHAEFER AVE
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
LEGEND
825
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-1 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section examines the environmental setting of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project), analyzes the Project’s effects and the significance of its impacts, and recommends mitigations measures to reduce or avoid impacts. This section contains separate sections for each environmental resource area that was determined to need further study in this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This scope was determined through the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was published February 10, 2023 (see Appendix A), and through public and agency comments received during the NOP comment period from February 10, 2023, to March 13, 2023 (see Appendix A). Additionally, a scoping meeting was held on February 22, 2023. Environmental resource areas and their corresponding sections are:
• Section 4.1: Aesthetics • Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality • Section 4.2: Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning • Section 4.3: Air Quality • Section 4.12: Noise
• Section 4.4: Biological Resources • Section 4.13: Population and Housing • Section 4.5: Cultural Resources • Section 4.14: Public Services • Section 4.6: Energy • Section 4.15: Transportation
• Section 4.7: Geology and Soils • Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources • Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems • Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Sections 4.1 through Section 4.17 provide a detailed discussion of the environmental setting, effects associated with the Project, and mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts where required and when feasible. The residual impacts following the implementation of any mitigation measure are also discussed.

During the scoping period it was also determined that certain thresholds under an environmental resource area would not be significantly affected by implementation of the Project. These resource areas, Mineral Resources, Recreation, and Wildfire, are discussed in Section 7.0: Effects Found Not to be Significant.

4.0.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis
Organization of Environmental Analysis
Each potentially significant environmental resource area is addressed in a separate EIR Section (Section 4.1 through 4.17) and is organized into the following subsections:

1. Introduction

2. Environmental Setting

3. Regulatory Setting

4. Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
826
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-2 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis

5. Plans, Programs, and Policies

6. Impacts and Mitigation Measures

7. Cumulative Impacts

8. Significant Unavoidable Impacts

9. References
In addition, Section 1.0: Executive Summary, has Table 1-1: Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures that summarizes all impacts by environmental resource.

Terminology Used in this Draft EIR
The threshold of significance is identified for each impact in this Draft EIR. Although the criteria for determining significance are different for each topic area, the environmental analysis applies a uniform classification of the impacts based on definitions consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines.
• No Impact. The project would not change the environment. • Less than significant impact. The project would not cause any substantial, adverse change in the environment.
• Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The EIR includes mitigation measures that avoid substantial adverse impacts on the environment.
• Significant and unavoidable. The project would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

4.0.2 Cumulative Impact Methodology
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this discussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as “...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.

The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:

A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.

B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. 827
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-3 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
The cumulative impact analysis in this Draft EIR uses a hybrid approach of both Method A and Method B.

Method A uses a quantitative analysis approach, compiling a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. Method B uses the City’s General Plan which was comprehensively updated and adopted as The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 on August 16, 2022. TOP 2050 states long-term goals, principles, and policies for achieving Ontario’s Vision. It guides growth and development to achieve optimum results from the City’s physical, economic, environmental, and human resources.1 Cumulative impact analyses will use the projections in the TOP and other long-range planning documents–such as Ontario’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for water supply and the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for land use and planning. A list of cumulative projects surrounding the Project area and their land use summary can be found in the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I). These projects are further described below in Table 4 1: Related Approved and Pending Projects.

Cumulative impact analyses for several topical sections are also based on the most appropriate geographic boundary for the respective impact. For example, cumulative hydrological impacts are based on the area’s watershed (Santa Ana River Watershed), and wastewater impacts are based on the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service boundary, which includes other jurisdictions besides the City of Ontario. The approach is further discussed below and in each respective topical section. Several potential cumulative impacts that encompass regional boundaries (e.g., air quality, greenhouse gases, traffic) have been addressed in the context of various regional plans and their significance thresholds. The following is a summary of the approach and extent of cumulative impacts, which is further detailed in each topical environmental section.
• Aesthetics. Aesthetic impacts are assessed relative to a project’s viewshed, state and local regulations and/or planning documents.
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Agriculture and forestry resources impacts are assessed relative to federal, state, and local agricultural and forestry resource regulations. • Air Quality. Air quality impacts are based on the regional boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin. • Biological Resources. Regional evaluation considering regional habitat loss, protected species, and wildlife corridors, based primarily upon the San Bernardino Valley area. • Cultural Resources. Cultural resources impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. The cumulative analysis of historical resources includes the Project site and immediately surrounding area.
• Energy. Energy impacts are assessed based on state and regional regulatory compliance and evaluate the use of electricity and natural gas.
• Geology and Soils. Geologic and soils impacts are site specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts.
1 Note that the City’s TOP2050 Final Supplemental EIR evaluated cumulative build-out of the City based upon TOP 2050 land uses. As the proposed Project is consistent with TOP 2050 land uses, the City’s TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR is hereby incorporated by reference for evaluation of cumulative build-out impacts.
828
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-4 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. Potential GHG impacts are not bounded by geography but affect global climate change. The assessment of cumulative GHG impacts, therefore, is based on consistency with regional plans and per-capita GHG reduction thresholds to achieve targeted reductions.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Cumulative analysis highlights the regulatory requirements related to both airport hazards and wildfire hazards. Project impacts, however, are site specific, and generally would not combine with impacts of other projects to result in cumulatively considerable impacts.
• Hydrology and Water Quality. Cumulative hydrological impacts are based on the Santa Ana River Watershed, and water quality impacts are based on potential cumulative impacts on the Chino Groundwater Basin (Chino Basin).
• Land Use and Planning. Cumulative analysis is based on applicable jurisdictional boundaries and related plans, including TOP 2050, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and regional land use planning based on the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. • Noise. Cumulative traffic noise is assessed relative to applicable City General Plan noise-level standards. The study area is aligned with the traffic study area. • Population and Housing. Cumulative impacts are assessed relative to citywide jobs-housing balances, applicable city general plan (including housing element), regional plans (RTP/SCS), and population/housing projections.
• Public Services. Cumulative impacts are based on a potentially related development within the applicable service provider boundaries (Ontario Fire Department and Police Department) and assessed relative to applicable plans and projections.
• Transportation. The traffic study considers both Project-specific impacts and the Project’s cumulative contribution to traffic in the Project vicinity. To assess cumulative traffic conditions, existing traffic is combined with Project trips, regional ambient growth, and trips generated by the projects specified in Table 4-4: Cumulative Development Land Use Summary, of the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I of this Draft EIR). Future traffic forecasts also include the effects of related projects expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the Project site prior to the buildout date of the Project. A total of 63 cumulative projects were identified in the study area and are listed in Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects and shown on Figure 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects, below.
• Tribal Cultural Resources. Considers Native American territory that includes the Project site, as provided by the Native American Heritage Commission.
• Utilities and Service Systems. Water supply and distribution system impacts would be contiguous with IEUA service area. Wastewater conveyance and treatment would be contiguous with the IEUA service area. Cumulative impacts related to stormwater drainage would be contiguous with Upper Santa Ana River basin hydrologic units and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board service area. Solid waste collection and disposal services would be contiguous with the City and natural gas and electricity services would be contiguous with the Southern California Gas Company and Southern California Edison service areas, respectively. 829
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-5 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
• Wildfire. Wildfire impacts are analyzed through regulatory compliance at the federal, state, and local levels. Fire Hazard Severity Zones are determined by CalFire.

Related Projects
The list of related projects was prepared based on data received from the City of Ontario, City of Chino, City of Chino Hills, City of Eastvale, and City of Jurupa Valley. A total of 63 cumulative projects were identified in the study area for the traffic study, shown on Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 below. These related projects are expected to be implemented in the vicinity of the Project site prior to the buildout date of the Project.

Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects
No. Project/Location Land Use Quantity Units1
City of Ontario
O1 Ontario Ranch Business Park
Business Park 227.951 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse 913.053 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 179.135 TSF
Warehouse 320.551 TSF
O2 Subarea 29 & Amendment (75% complete) Single Family Detached 716 DU Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O3 Ontario Ranch Commerce Center High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1,447.123 TSF Business Park 457.904 TSF
O4 South Ontario Logistics Center
Business Park 1,075.235 TSF
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 2,819.282 TSF
High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 563.857 TSF
Warehousing 954.218 TSF
O5
O6
Parkside Specific Plan
Merrill Commerce Center
Single Family Detached 804 DU
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 2,046 DU
Park 58.860 AC
High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 7014.000 TSF
Business Park 1441.000 TSF
O7 Parente Home Ranch SP
Single Family Detached 270 DU
Condo/Townhouse 1,872 DU
General Office 462.281 TSF
Shopping Center 194.278 TSF
O8 Countryside
Armstrong Ranch
Single Family Detached 819 DU
Armstrong Ranch Single Family Detached 994 DU
O9 The Avenue (50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 2,020 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 586 DU
Shopping Center 250.000 TSF
O10 Grand Park (80% Complete)
Single Family Detached Single Family
Detached
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 843 DU
O11 West Haven
Single Family Detached 149 DU
Multifamily Housing 654 DU
Elementary School 650 STU
Shopping Center 87.000 TSF
O12 Haven Gateway General Light Industrial 42.160 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse 168.640 TSF
O13 PDEV10-008 - Dry Food Storage Mini-Warehouse 17.000 TSF 830
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-6 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use Quantity Units1
O14 Esperanza (50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 914 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Apartments) 496 DU
O15 Edenglen (50% Complete)
Single Family Detached 310 DU
Multi-Family Attached (Condo) 274 DU
Shopping Center 217.520 TSF
Business Park 550.000 TSF
O17 Tuscana Village Single Family Detached 176 DU
Shopping Center 26.000 TSF
City of Chino
C1
C2
Bickmore Street Residential (TM 18858)
(30% complete)
TM17574 (80% complete)
Single Family Detached 185 DU
Condo/Townhouse 108 DU
C3 Pines Community
Single Family Detached 552 DU
Public Park 3.0 AC
Self-Storage & RV Storage 120.000 TSF
Sports Park 41.8 AC
C4
Tract 19980 (Homecoming Phase 4)
TTM No. 20166 & 20167
Brio & TTM No. 21065 & 20168 (Orchards)
Apartments 454 DU
Single Family Detached 148 DU
Single Family Detached 239 DU
C5 Farmer Boys
Fast-food w/ Drive-Thru 3.218 TSF
Shopping Center 2.300 TSF
C6 Euclid & Bickmore Warehouse
Warehousing 205.820 TSF
General Light Industrial 51.030 TSF
Business Park 110.620 TSF
C7
C8
Kimball Business Park
Falloncrest at the Preserve
Business Park 146.550 TSF
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 698 DU
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 440 DU
Public Parks 21.60 AC
General Office 77.597 TSF
Commercial Retail 77.597 TSF
C9 Chino Parcel Delivery Parcel Delivery Facility 765.274 TSF C10
C11
Altitude Business Centre
Majestic Gateway
Warehousing 715.000 TSF
Light Industrial 255.000 TSF
Business Park 233.000 TSF
Self-Storage 110.000 TSF
Specialty Retail 25.000 TSF
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/ Drive-Thru 13.000 TSF
Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 8.600 TSF
C12 Bouma Residential Single Family Detached 106 DU
Condo/Townhouse 94 DU
C13
C14
Fairfield Inn & Suites (PL 17-0060 & PL 17-
0061)
Watson Industrial Park (40% complete)
Hotel 111 RM
High-Cube Warehouse 3,889.900 TSF
C15 Chino Business Park General Light Industrial 165.500 TSF Business Park 21.500 TSF
C16 Flores Site
Shopping Center 4.000 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store 16 VFP
Express Car Wash 5.000 TSF
C17 The Campus at College Park Church 27.000 TSF
General Office 16.969 TSF
831
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-7 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use Quantity Units1
Commercial Retail/Restaurants 33.661 TSF
C18
C19
Archibald's (PL 17-0037)
TM 18972 (80% complete)
Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 3.147 TSF
Single Family Detached 147 DU
C20 Rancho Miramonte
Single Family Detached 691 DU
Condo/Townhouse 132 DU
Neighborhood Retail 21.780 TSF
Church 400 SEAT
C21 Majestic Chino Heritage High-Cube Fulfillment Warehouse 1982.700 TSF High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse 100.000 TSF
C22 Church Church 47.979 TSF
Daycare 190 STU
C23 Appesetche Residential Single Family Detached 60 DU Condo/Townhouse 160 DU
C24 Tract 19951, 19952, 19953, 19935 & 18479 Single Family Detached Single Family Detached 151 DU
Condo/Townhouse 150 DU
C25 Ag. Buffer, Bungalow, Lic. Product, Liberty
Deluxe, Lyon 2 & 3 Single Family Detached 474 DU 474 DU C26 The Preserve Town Center (Blocks 6 and 7)
Multifamily Housing 549 DU
Office 16.300 TSF
Shopping Center 36.800 TSF
Pharmacy w/ Drive-Thru 12.900 TSF
Supermarket 45.000 TSF
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-Thru 6.500 TSF
Fast Casual Restaurant 13.750 TSF
Quality Restaurant 13.750 TSF
C27 The Preserve Civic Center
Elementary School 1,200 STU
Library 10.00 AC
Community Center 10.00 AC 10.00 AC
Park Park 8.00 AC
C28 Euclid & Schaefer Shopping Commercial Retail + Gas + Car wash 74.756 TSF City of Eastvale
E1 The Merge
Warehousing 336.501 TSF
Shopping Center 4.750 TSF
Supermarket 30.000 TSF
Gas Station w/ convenience store 16 VFP
Pharmacy/Drugstore w/ Drive-Thru 14.600 TSF
Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 6.000 TSF
Automated Car Wash 4.000 TSF
Fast-Food without Drive-Thru 7.750 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive-Thru 2.500 TSF
E2
E3
E4
E5
TR29997
13-0632 - Sumner Residential (Stratham
Homes)
TR35751
PP23219 (PM35865) (50% complete)
Single Family Detached 122 DU
Single Family Detached 129 DU
Condo/Townhouse 243 DU
General Light Industrial 738.430 TSF
E6 Eastvale Shopping Center
Free-Standing Discount Superstore 192.000 TSF
Specialty Retail 9.200 TSF
Fast-Food without Drive-Thru 7.200 TSF
Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru 2.000 TSF
832
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4-8 4.0 | Environmental Impact Analysis
No. Project/Location Land Use Quantity Units1
Fast-Food w/ Drive-Thru 3.500 TSF
Gas Station w/Convenience Store & Car Wash 16 VFP
E7 Van Leeuwen Single Family Detached 224 DU
E8 SP00358 - The Ranch at Eastvale
Shopping Center 267.200 TSF
General Light Industrial 801.500 TSF
Business Park 1,121.100 TSF
E9 SC Limonite, LLC Single Family Detached 330 TSF
E10 Leal Master Plan
Lifestyle Center (Commercial) 1,300.000 TSF
General Commercial 225.000 TSF
Office 920.000 TSF
Hotel 450 RM
High Density Residential 500-660 DU
E11
E12
E13
Eastvale Commerce Center
S. Milliken Warehouse
15-1508 - Industrial Warehouse
Shopping Center 650.000 TSF
High-Cube Warehouse 280.000 TSF
Warehousing 155.000 TSF
City of Chino Hills
CH1
CH2
CH3
Vila Borba Specific Plan (TR 16414)
Country Club Villas
The Goddard School
Single Family Detached 172 DU
Condo/Townhouse 46 DU
Daycare 10.587 TSF
CH4 Heritage Professional Center
Hospital 55.000 TSF
Medical Office Building 86.952 TSF
Hotel 120 RM
Shopping Center 38.848 TSF
Restaurant 7.200 TSF
Source: Appendix I1, Table 4-4.
1TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Unit; VFP = Vehicle Fueling Position ; AC = Acres; RM = Rooms Please refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of this Draft EIR for a discussion of the cumulative impacts associated with development and growth in the City and region for each environmental resource. 833
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-1 4.1 | Aesthetics

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the existing regulatory and environmental conditions related to aesthetics and other visual resources in the vicinity of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project), within the City of Ontario (City). This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies potential impacts that could result from the Project. This chapter discusses the visual changes that would occur upon implementation of the Project, and as necessary, recommends mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce the significance of impacts. Aesthetic and other visual resources include both natural and built environments. Impacts are discussed in terms of the changes that would result from Project implementation and includes analysis of adverse effects on a scenic vista(s), changes to scenic resources (e.g., trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings) within a state scenic highway, and/or degradation of the sites or the surrounding visual character. Impacts could also result from the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare.

This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing a landscape, people can have different responses to that landscape based on what is seen, their expectations of views, and because of proposed or current changes to the visual landscape. Viewer responses will vary based upon the viewer’s values, familiarity, concern, or expectations of that landscape as well as the scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape inherently affect viewers differently. Nonetheless, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) generally have high concern for scenery and landscape character. People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at an industrial site would generally have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. Regarding travelers navigating through a landscape, the visual sensitivity of these types of viewers is affected by the travel speed at which they are moving, the landscape they are viewing, and area in which they are traveling, for example, an interstate or scenic highway. Other considerations may include changes as seen by viewers from hiking trails or stationary viewers from a residence.

The visual sensitivity of a viewer also is affected by variables such as the viewing distances to the landscape. For example, a project feature or natural environment can be perceived differently by people depending on the distance the observer is from the viewed object. At closer ranges greater detail of an object or landscape is visible. In these instances, changes to viewed object have a greater potential to influence the visual quality of the object because changes to form or scale (the object’s relative size in 834
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-2 4.1 | Aesthetics
relation to the viewer) are more noticeable. When the same object is viewed at background distances, details may be imperceptible while changes to the overall forms of terrain and vegetation may be evident.

In the middle ground, some detail is evident (e.g., the foreground), and landscape elements are seen in context with landforms and vegetative patterns (e.g., the background). Nonetheless, changes in views from all distances can result in negative consideration from viewers.

Specific terms and concepts are used to assess the visual elements, aesthetic setting, and potential for a project to have effects on visual resources. These terms are included in the discussions throughout this section and are listed below.

Scenic Vista. An area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, state, or local agency.

Scenic Highway. Any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, state, or local agency.

Sensitive Receptors. Viewer responses to visual settings are inferred from a variety of factors, including distance and viewing angle, types of viewers, number of viewers, duration of view, and viewer activities.

The viewer type and associated viewer sensitivity are distinguished among project viewers in recreational, residential, commercial, military, and industrial areas. Viewer activities can range from a circumstance that encourages a viewer to observe the surroundings more closely (such as recreational activities) to one that discourages close observation (such as commuting in heavy traffic). Viewers in recreational areas are considered to have high sensitivity to visual resources. Residential viewers generally have moderate sensitivity but extended viewing periods. Viewers in commercial, military, and industrial areas are generally considered to have low sensitivity.

Viewshed. A project’s viewshed is defined as the surrounding geographic area from which the project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view the project site.

Visual character typically consists of landforms, vegetation, water features, and cultural modifications that impart an overall visual impression of an area’s landscape. Scenic areas typically include open space, landscaped corridors, and viewsheds. Visual character is influenced by many different landscape attributes including color contrasts, landform prominence, repetition of geometric forms, and uniqueness of textures among other characteristics.

4.1.2 Environmental Setting
Visual Setting
The Project site is approximately 84.1 acres in size and is comprised of five planning areas, comprised of rural uses, including a dairy farm and vacant land. The Project would allow for development of approximately 1.6 million square feet (SF) of business park and mixed-use land uses. The Project is also proposed in two phases which are discussed further below. The existing visual character of the Project 835
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-3 4.1 | Aesthetics
area is neither unique nor of special aesthetic value or quality. The Project site area is characterized by agricultural uses, and the topography is moderately flat, sloping from the north to the south. North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; west across Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage yard.

Scenic Vistas
Scenic vistas are panoramic views of important visual features, as seen from public viewing areas. The Euclid Avenue Corridor and the Mission Boulevard Corridor are primary scenic resources in the City. Euclid Avenue borders the west side of the Project site. Euclid Avenue is a 200-foot wide right of way with a 60-foot-wide landscape median and 15-foot-wide parkways which are used for public activities and civic events. From G Street to I-10 Freeway, there are three lanes of travel in each direction. Visually, Euclid Avenue is the most defining corridor in the City. Mission Boulevard, approximately 3.8 miles north of the Project site, also has a wide landscaped median and runs east-west immediately south of the Ontario Airport.

Scenic Highways
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 discusses that regional circulation to and through the City is provided by I-10 and SR-60, east to west, and by I-15 and SR-83 (Euclid Avenue), north to south. Access to the Project site is served by various highways. The Project site is bordered by SR-83, which connects to SR-60 and I-10 to the north, I-15 approximately 5.5 miles to the east, and SR-71 approximately 4.3 miles to the west and approximately 4.7 miles directly south. SR-71 connects the Project to SR-91 in unincorporated Riverside County. These segments have not been designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation.
1 Light and Glare
Light and glare in the Project site is typical of that found in semi-rural environments. Sources of light and glare include adjacent residential, commercial, and area roadways both from streetlights and vehicle headlights for the Project. The Project site is located within a partially urbanized area that generates light from signage, residential interiors, farm and dairy operations, security measures, as well as light generated by vehicular traffic on local streets. The Project site and surrounding areas are transitioning from agricultural use, such as private dairy farms, to higher density residential and commercial usesin response to regional market influences attracting urban development. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently residential, farming or trucking related uses. These existing residences and dairy structures do not generate substantial light and glare given their limited size and number.

Because nighttime lighting in the Project vicinity is currently limited, glare, which reflects light, is also limited. The existing sensitive receptors relative to light and glare include the nearby residential uses and motorists traveling on local streets. Commercial uses in the vicinity of the site also produce some light and glare generally from stationary light sources such as exterior building lighting (i.e., building illumination, 1 California Department of Transportation. 2022. Scenic Highways Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. (accessed January 2023). 836
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-4 4.1 | Aesthetics
security lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting), as well as interior lighting visible through windows and exterior sources.

4.1.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
No Federal laws, regulations, or executive orders apply to aesthetics and scenic resources in the Project site.

State
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and non-residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the California Energy Commission [CEC]) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC adopted the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2023. Title 24 requires outdoor lighting controls to reduce energy usage; in effect, this reduces outdoor lighting.

State Scenic Highways
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program protects and enhances the natural scenic beauty of California’s highways and corridors through special conservation treatment.

A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view.

The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been officially designated. The status of a proposed state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated a Scenic Highway.

When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway. Scenic corridors consist of land that is visible from the highway right of way and is comprised primarily of scenic and natural features. Topography, vegetation, viewing distance, and/or jurisdictional lines determine the corridor boundaries. The city or county must also adopt ordinances, zoning and/or planning policies to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in various portions of local codes. These ordinances and/or policies make up the Corridor Protection Program.
837
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-5 4.1 | Aesthetics
Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The TOP 2050 Land Use Element and Community Design Elements identify Euclid Avenue as a visually sensitive corridor and specifies several needs to maintain and improve the aesthetic quality of the corridor. Other visual resources for consideration include the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains, which dominate the northern views from the City. Maintenance of these viewsheds will be considered and enhanced, if possible, as part of the development. Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources.

The following policy contained in the Land Use Element is relevant to the Project:

Land Use Element2
Goal LU-2 Compatibility between a wide range of uses and resultant urban patterns and forms.

Policy LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

The following policies contained in the Community Design Element are relevant to the Project:

Community Design Element3
Goal CD-1 A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.

Policy CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.

Policy CD-1.5 View Corridors. We require all major north-south streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. Such views should be free of visual clutter, including billboards and may be enhanced by framing with trees.

Goal CD-2 A high level of design quality resulting in neighborhoods, commercial areas, public spaces, parks, and streetscapes that are attractive, safe, functional, human-scale, and distinct.

Policy CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture. We encourage all development projects to convey visual interest and character through:
 Building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion;
2 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/land-use. (accessed January 2023). 3 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/community-design. (accessed January 2023). 838
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-6 4.1 | Aesthetics
 A true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and
 Exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.

Policy CD-2.4 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Areas. We establish Place Types to require mixed use, urban, and transit-oriented areas to be designed and developed as pedestrian oriented areas that are integrated with adjacent neighborhoods and promote a vibrant, comfortable, and functional environment, as defined for each Place Type.

Policy CD-2.5 Streetscapes. We design new and, when necessary, retrofit existing streets to improve walkability, bicycling and transit integration, strengthen connectivity, and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, street lighting and street furniture.

Policy CD-2.8 Safe Design. We incorporate defensible space design into new and existing developments to ensure the maximum safe travel and visibility on pathways, corridors, and open space and at building entrances and parking areas by avoiding physically and visually isolated spaces, maintaining visibility and accessibility, and using lighting.

Policy CD-2.9 Landscape Design. We encourage durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.

Policy CD-2.11 Entry Statements. We encourage the inclusion of amenities, signage, and landscaping at the entry to neighborhoods, commercial centers, mixed use areas, industrial developments, and public places that reinforce them as uniquely identifiable places.

Policy CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage. We encourage the use of sign programs that utilize complementary materials, colors, and themes. Project signage should be designed to effectively communicate and direct users to various aspects of the development and complement the character of the structures.

Goal CD-3 Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.

Policy CD-3.1 Unique Identity. We promote development that heightens the unique character and identity of each Place Type by requiring compatible land uses and land planning, site design, and building design that promotes an active public realm.

Policy CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm. We require that public spaces, including streets, parks, and plazas on both public and private property be designed to maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics and connect to the citywide pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle networks.
839
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-7 4.1 | Aesthetics
Policy CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network. We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle circulation on both public and private property be coordinated to provide connections internally and externally to adjacent neighborhoods and properties (existing and planned) through a system of local roads and trails that promote walking and biking to nearby destinations (including existing and planned parks, commercial areas, and transit stops) and are designed to maximize safety, comfort, and aesthetics.

Policy CD-3.5 Active Frontages. We create lively pedestrian streetscapes by requiring primary building, business, and residential entrances, outdoor dining, and storefronts be located on ground floors adjacent to sidewalks or public spaces and designed to maximize safety, comfort, aesthetics, and the intended functionality (as defined by the Place Type).

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code (OMC)4 contains all the regulations of the City, that were codified and adopted as Ordinances by the City Council. The OMC is continually updated as the City continues to develop and transform. The OMC contains various requirements related to aesthetics and development design, many of which are relevant to the Project. Specifically, Title 9 of the OMC is known as the Ontario Development Code (ODC)5 and contains zoning information, development standards, and design guidelines for each of the land use categories identified in TOP. The ODC is enacted to assist in the implementation of Federal and State planning, assist in TOP, zoning, development, subdivision, and environmental laws, and guide the orderly development of the City in a manner that promotes and protects the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and welfare of its inhabitants. It regulates the type, intensity, function, and appearance of all land uses in the City and is the main tool utilized to shape the physical form of development.

City of Ontario Development Code
Development and Subdivision Regulations Chapter 6.01-6.036 In the ODC, Chapter 6.01.015-13 of the District Standards and Guidelines section discusses proper lighting, glare, and aesthetics sections that a project must adhere to when in development. Project development shall incorporate lighting fixtures that are decorative and are designed to eliminate adverse impacts of light spillover and promote safe vehicular and pedestrian access. Light fixtures shall be full cut-off fixtures to prevent glare and light spill off the project site onto adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways.

Pedestrian-level pole-mounted lighting, bollard lighting, ground-mounted lighting, or other low, glare-controlled fixtures mounted on buildings or walls shall be used to light pedestrian walkways. 4 City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code, Title 9. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-46762. (accessed January 2023). 5 City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 1.0: Development Code Enactment and General Provisions, Enactment and General Provisions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%201.0%20Development%20Code%20Enactment%20an d%20General%20Provisions.pdf. (accessed January 2023). 6 City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 6.0: Development and Subdivision Regulations, Development and Subdivision Regulations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%206.0%20Development%20and%20Subdivision%20Reg ulations.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
840
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-8 4.1 | Aesthetics
Pole-mounted, building-mounted, or tree-mounted lighting fixtures shall be no more than 12 feet in height. Bollard-type lighting shall be no more than 4 feet in height.

For building color, exteriors shall incorporate colors that are of compatible hues and intensities. Color schemes shall tie building elements together, relate separate buildings within the same development, and enhance the architectural form of a building. Exterior building colors shall be low-reflecting and subtle.

Furthermore, overly intense, overly bright, or fluorescent or day-glow colors, shall not be used on a building exterior, as determined by the Planning Director. The exterior building color of a new development project shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the approval of the structure by the Approving Authority. Development projects consisting of multiple buildings shall incorporate colors that are coordinated between structures, utilizing compatible hues and intensities. The final review and approval of paint colors, utilizing a color test, may be required by the City, prior to painting a building. All building mechanical equipment and appurtenances, including, but not limited to, meters, flues, vents, gutters, and utilities, shall match or complement the permanent color of the surface from which they are attached or projected.

Off-street parking and loading regulations must provide accessible, attractive, secure, properly lighted, and well-maintained parking facilities. They are to reduce traffic congestion and hazards caused by the loading and unloading of trucks on public streets and the shortage of parking spaces. Lighting must alleviate or prevent traffic congestion caused by shortage of parking spaces and the loading and unloading of trucks on public streets; ensure that off-street parking and loading facilities are provided for new land uses and the expansion of existing land uses in proportion to the needs of the land uses they serve; and ensure that off-street parking and loading facilities are designed in a manner that will result in maximum efficiency, protect the public safety, provide for the special needs of the physically handicapped, and where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact.

Parking lot lighting is required for all off-street parking facilities and shall be provided with nighttime security lighting pursuant to OMC Section 4-11.08 (Special Residential Building Provisions) and Section 4-11.09 (Special Commercial/Industrial Building Provisions), designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. Parking facilities shall be lighted from sunset until sunrise, daily, and shall be operated by a photocell switch. Lighting levels shall be measured with a direct-reading portable light meter. The equipment used must allow accurate measurements, with all measurements made after dark with the lights on and then again with the lights off. The difference between the two readings shall then be compared to the applicable standard for maximum permitted illumination. All parking lot lighting fixtures shall be decorative. Along pedestrian movement corridors, the use of decorative low-mounted bollard light standards, which reinforce pedestrian scale, shall be used. Unless intended as part of a master lighting program, no operation, activity, or lighting fixture shall create illumination on any adjacent property. The maximum permitted height of luminaires within a parking lot shall be as follows:
• No Cutoff Luminaire. When a light source or luminaire has no cutoff (the point at which all light rays are completely shielded), the maximum permitted height of the luminaire shall be 14 feet. • Ninety Degree or More Cutoff Luminaire. When a luminaire has a total cutoff of light at an angle of 90 degrees or greater, the maximum permitted height of the luminaire shall be 24 feet. 841
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-9 4.1 | Aesthetics
• Less than 90-Degree Cutoff Luminaire. When a luminaire has a total cutoff of light at an angle of less than 90 degrees, the maximum permitted height of the luminaire shall be 30 feet.

4.1.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G contains the Environmental Checklist Form, which includes questions concerning aesthetics. The questions presented in the Environmental Checklist Form have been utilized as significance criteria in this section.

Accordingly, the Project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• In nonurbanized 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; or • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Methodology and Assumptions
The Project site is evaluated against the aforementioned significance criteria/thresholds, as the basis for determining the impact’s level of significance concerning aesthetics. This analysis considers the existing regulatory framework (i.e., laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards) that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impact. Where significant impacts remain despite compliance with the regulatory framework, feasible mitigation measures are recommended, to avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts at the Project site.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis of impacts on aesthetic resources examines the temporary (i.e., construction) and permanent (i.e., operational) effects based on significance criteria/threshold’s application outlined above. For each criterion, the analyses are generally divided into two main categories: (1) temporary impacts and (2) permanent impacts. Each criterion is discussed in the context of Project site and the surrounding characteristics and geography. The impact conclusions consider the potential for changes in environmental conditions, as well as compliance with the regulatory framework enacted to protect the environment.

The baseline conditions and impact analyses are from review of Project site plan, maps, and drawings; analysis of aerial and ground‐level photographs; and review of various data available in public records, including local planning documents. The determination that a Project component would or would not result in “substantial” adverse effects on scenic resources or visual character considers the site’s aesthetic resource value and the severity of the Project component’s visual impact (e.g., the nature and duration of 842
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-10 4.1 | Aesthetics
the impact). For example, a Project component resulting in a severe impact on a site with a low aesthetic resource value would result in a less than significant impact concerning scenic or visual character. In other words, new conspicuous structures or visual changes in areas with a low aesthetic resource value may not necessarily result in substantial adverse effects on visual resources.

4.1.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Refer to above discussion regarding existing Regulatory Framework.

4.1.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.1-1 Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
A scenic vista can be defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the public’s benefit. From the viewshed point of view, looking north from Schaefer Avenue are the foothills of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains. The Project site is surrounded by areas with varying agricultural and residential densities; previously developed land containing dairy farms, and multiple commercial and residential buildings, and an airport.

Scenic vistas include the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest, which are located north of the City, approximately 11.5 miles north from the Project site. The Project is in the southwest portion of the City, opposite of the two scenic vistas. Construction of the Project site would result in alterations to the existing scenic vistas views from the Project site. It would result in temporary changes to the visual characteristics of the site as viewed from Edison Avenue facing north toward Schaefer Avenue. Visual changes would include alterations in the appearance of the foreground to viewers looking across the site toward the San Gabriel Mountains and views from the residences looking across the site to the south and southwest away from the San Gabriel Mountains. Views of the mountains from Edison Avenue to the north are already partially obscured by intervening agricultural development and existing power lines.

While construction activities on the Project site would modify foreground views as observed by some viewers, considering the existing disturbed nature of the site, developed nature of surrounding areas, and the current partially obscured views from existing off-site development, the changes the construction activities would represent are not considered to be substantial. The proposed Project, although different from some surrounding views, would be within an existing urban footprint. Additionally, because most views are already obscured, limited, and short-in duration, the views as seen by the majority of viewers would not be significantly adversely affected. Therefore, while construction of the Project site would change the existing views toward the mountains, impacts associated with adversely affecting a scenic vista would be less than significant.
843
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-11 4.1 | Aesthetics
Upon completion of construction on the Project site, the buildings would be a new permanent visual element in the environment. The new structures and operations associated with the Project would change the foreground views of the San Gabriel Mountains as observed from viewers looking north, across the site. However, Project development would occur within developed area of the City, where views are already partially obstructed by existing development, powerlines, utility poles, etc.

The Project specific plan also includes design guidelines addressing architecture, landscape and lighting (Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines). Pursuant to the Project specific plan design guidelines and development standards, Project development would not exceed the maximum building height allowed for the business park district, 45 feet, and mixed-use district, 55 feet, and would be setback, allowing for unobstructed scenic views. Additionally, implementation of TOP 2050 policies and adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, would ensure that the development of Phase I does not substantially degrade scenic vistas in the City. For example, the Project would comply with TOP 2050 Policy CD-1.5, which would ensure that major north-south streets would be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, while the Project site structures and associated operations would change the existing views toward the mountains, impacts associated with adversely affecting a scenic vista would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Development of Phase II would add to the new permanent visual element in the environment when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed – similar to the discussion of Phase I above.

While the structures and associate operations associate with Phase II would alter the existing visual characteristics of the site, impacts affecting a scenic vista would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations within Phase II are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. Accordingly, no mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050. 7 Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact a scenic vista. The Project specific plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050.8
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
7 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1, Aesthetics. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed January 2023). 8 Ibid.
844
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-12 4.1 | Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-2 Would the Project Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction and Operations
There are no officially designated state scenic highways within the City.9 As stated above, the Project site is bordered by Euclid Avenue (SR-83), which connects to SR-60 and I-10 to the north, I-15 approximately

5.5 miles to the east, and SR-71 approximately 4.3 miles to the west and approximately 4.7 miles directly south. SR-71 connects the Project to SR-91 in unincorporated Riverside County. These segments have not been designated as scenic highways by the California Department of Transportation.10 The nearest designated state scenic highway to the Project site is approximately 12.0 miles southwest of the Project specific plan site.

The Project site’s surrounding area was previously developed with commercial, residential, and mixeduse buildings and structures. According to the cultural study found in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources (Appendix D: Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment), the Project site contains a dairy farm which is not historically significant. In addition, the Project’s biological resources study identified various mature trees on the site, but these do not appear to be “heritage trees” requiring mitigation.

Furthermore, the majority of trees on the site are ornamental trees located at the existing nursery onsite, which the nursery will be relocated prior to site development. Prior to site development, a heritage tree survey will be completed, and trees relocated or mitigated if required (see Appendix C: Biological Resources Technical Report and Section 4.4: Biological Resources). Regardless, on-site trees are not located in proximity to a scenic highway. Therefore, no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings and historical buildings are known to exist on the Project site adjacent to a state scenic highway. A less than significant impact is expected to occur.

Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Phase II would add to the new permanent visual element in the environment when Planning Areas 2B and 3B are completed. While the structures and associate operations associated with Phase II would alter the existing visual characteristics of the site, impacts affecting a scenic highway would be less than significant, as no scenic highways exist in the Project area. Furthermore, the proposed Project Specific Plan land use designations are the same land use designations as contained in TOP 2050. No 9 California Department of Transportation. 2022. Scenic Highways Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-andcommunity-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. (accessed January 2023). 10 Ibid. 845
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-13 4.1 | Aesthetics
mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050.11
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not significantly impact a scenic highway, as no scenic highways exist in the Project area. The Project’s impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050.12
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.1-3 Would the Project in nonurbanized 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?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
The existing visual character of the Project site is defined primarily by agricultural uses and related structures. The site is designated as Business Park, Mixed-Use, and Open Space – Non-Rec, in the City’s TOP 2050 Land Use Map.13 The Project is located in an urbanizing area and is subject to the City’s TOP 2050 and Development Code governing scenic quality. The City’s TOP 2050 Community Design Element establishes multiple policies that protect scenic resources and promote high quality, visually compatible development, that the Project would adhere to. For example, Policy CD 1-5 requires that “all major northsouth streets be designed and redeveloped to feature views of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the City’s visual identity and a key to geographic orientation. Such views should be free of visual clutter, including billboards and may be enhanced by framing with trees;” Policy CD-2.1, encourages “all development projects to convey visual interest and character through building volume, massing, and height to provide context-appropriate scale and proportion; a true architectural style which is carried out in plan, section, and elevation through all aspects of the building and site design and appropriate for its setting; and exterior building materials that are articulated, high quality, durable, and appropriate for the architectural style.” Lastly, Policy CD 2-9 encourages “durable, sustainable, and drought-tolerant 11 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1, Aesthetics. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed January 2023). 12 Ibid. 13 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU-01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf. (accessed January 2023). 846
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-14 4.1 | Aesthetics
landscaping materials and designs that enhance the aesthetics of structures, create and define public and private spaces, and provide shade and environmental benefits.” The City’s TOP 2050 measures governing scenic quality, including those noted above, ensure protection of scenic resources and promote visually compatible and appealing development. These policies are implemented through Development Code Chapter 6.0, Development and Subdivision Regulations, et al.14 The City would assure that the Project, as implemented, contains Development Regulations and Design Guidelines that would conform to provisions of the City’s TOP 2050 and Development Code. All subsequent development within the Project site would also be required to comply with the Specific Plan Development Regulations and Design Guidelines addressing visual and scenic qualities (Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines). Conformance with TOP 2050, Development Code, and Project Specific Plan would minimize the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundingssuch that any impact would be less than significant.

Specific Plan- Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion for Phase I. The same policies, ordinances, and codes described above would apply to Phase II. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Conformance with TOP 2050, Development Code, and Project specific plan would minimize the potential for the Project to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings such that any impact would be less than significant.

Further the proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts to aesthetic resources, including visual character and scenic quality, would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As noted above, conformance with TOP 2050, Development Code, and Project specific plan would minimize the potential for the Project to result in substantial degradation of the Project site’s visual character. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050. 15 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Impact 4.1-4 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14 City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 6.0: Development and Subdivision Regulations, Development and Subdivision Regulations. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%206.0%20Development%20and%20Subdivision%20Reg ulations.pdf. (accessed January 2023). 15 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1, Aesthetics. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
847
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-15 4.1 | Aesthetics
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I
Construction and Operations
Spill light occurs when lighting fixtures such as streetlights, parking lot lighting, exterior building lighting, and landscape lighting are not properly aimed or shielded to direct light to the desired location and light escapes and partially illuminates a surrounding location.

Glare is the result of improperly aimed or blocked lighting sources that are visible against a dark background such as the night sky. Glare may also refer to the sensation experienced looking into an excessively bright light source that causes a reduction in the ability to see or causes discomfort. Glare generally does not result in illumination of off-site locations but results in a visible source of light viewable from a distance. Glare could also occur from building materials of the new structures, including glass and other reflective materials.

The Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses. North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; west across Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage yard. Sources of light and glare exist minimally in the Project’s immediate vicinity. Existing lighting sources include outdoor lighting and lighting emitted from the indoors from adjacent developments, and vehicle headlights from adjacent and surrounding roadways. The urbanizing nature of the Project area would lead to a high baseline of light and glare from surrounding development and vehicle lights traveling at night. Construction of Phase I of the Project site would be limited to daytime hours, and nighttime lighting may be utilized for security purposes. However, all lighting and light fixtures, including parking lot lighting, security lighting and decorative lighting, may be indirect or diffused, or, if not, shall be shielded or directed away from nearby sensitive receptors.

Therefore, no short-term impacts associated with light, and glare would occur. These lights would be used to improve visibility and safety on the site and would be directed to maximize site visibility and minimize glare to sensitive receptors. Lighting would also be properly screened to avoid further impact to nearby receptors. Additionally, the Project includes design guidelines and standards for lighting of on-site areas (Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines). The Project requires lighting fixtures to be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the site boundaries, including lighting for parking areas, pedestrian walkways, graphics and signage, architectural and landscape features, and any additional exterior areas. This would reduce the potential for spill light. All subsequent development within the Project site would be required to conform with the Project Development Regulations and Design Guidelines addressing light, glare, and overspill from the Project Specific Plan.

In accordance with OMC Sections 4-11.08, 4-11.09, and 6.03.050 (A), all parking facilities developed shall be provided with nighttime security lighting and designed to confine emitted light to the parking areas. 848
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-16 4.1 | Aesthetics
This lighting may cause slight glare to the surrounding residences and vehicles passing along the bordering roadways. The maximum permitted height of luminaires within a parking lot shall not exceed a height of 14 feet when there is no cutoff involved. If a ninety degree or greater cutoff is enacted, the maximum height shall not exceed that of 24 feet. Anything less than ninety degrees of cutoff, the maximum height of luminaire shall be 30 feet.

Consistent with the City’s Development Code, all lighting used on the Project site is required to be directed and/or shielded to prevent the light from adversely affecting adjacent properties, and no structures or features that create adverse glare effects are permitted. Thus, all exterior lighting would be shielded/hooded to prevent light trespass onto nearby properties. Additionally, the Project would use a variety of non-reflective building materials, and although some new reflective improvements (i.e., windows and building front treatments) would be introduced to the site, the Project would not be a source of glare in the area. Therefore, long-term impacts associated with light, and glare would be less than significant.

Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction and Operations
Refer to discussion for Phase I. The same policies, ordinances, and codes described above would apply to Phase II. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Impacts to aesthetic resources, including light and glare, would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not result in significant light and glare impacts, and the Project is consistent with existing City TOP 2050 and zoning designations. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Specific Plan and TOP 2050.16
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

4.1.7 Cumulative Impacts
The conversion of the Specific Plan area from dairy/agricultural use to business park and mixed uses would contribute to a change in the visual character of the Project area.

The cumulative change in visual condition that would result from the Specific Plan, in combination with nearby projects would not be considered adverse, because the Specific Pan would implement design features and the City’s Development Code with respect to architecture, landscaping, signs, lighting, and other related items. The City’s Development Code regulations have the goal of improving the visual quality 16 Ibid.
849
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-17 4.1 | Aesthetics
of the City by providing guidelines to ensure consistent, quality development. Thus, with implementation of the applicable Development Code regulations and the Specific Plan design guidelines, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant cumulatively considerable impact related to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

The cumulative study area for light and glare for the Project area is immediately adjacent to lands that could receive light or glare from new development within the Project or could generate daytime glare or nighttime lighting that would be visible within the Project area. All such areas contain a variety of sources of nighttime lighting, such as roadways, vehicle lights, exterior security lighting, as well as sources of daytime glare, such as glass windows on buildings. Because cumulative projects would result in more intense development than currently exists, the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could create significant cumulative nighttime lighting and daytime glare impacts. However, application of the City’s Development Code regulations require compliance with light and glare performance standards that would avoid significant effects. These regulations state that lighting shall be shielded to prevent light from shining onto adjacent properties or inclusion of features that could create glare. Further, the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR found that, with implementation of Community Design Element policies, the City’s Development Code, and Specific Plans (as required by the General Plan), impacts to the character and quality of the City (including the proposed Specific Plan area) would be less than significant. Here, with implementation of the existing City regulations, the development that would occur by the related projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of light and glare. Thus, the cumulative effects of development from the Project in combination with cumulative projects related to light and glare are less than significant.

4.1.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable aesthetic impacts have been identified.

4.1.9 References
California Department of Transportation. 2022. Scenic Highways Map. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways.

California Legislative Information, the Housing Accountability Act. 2020. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNu m=65589.5.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Figure LU-01, Official Land Use Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/Land%20Use/Figure%20LU01%20Official%20Land%20Use%20Plan_0.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Community Design Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontarioontario-plan-policy-plan/community-design. 850
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.1-18 4.1 | Aesthetics
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.1, Aesthetics. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/land-use.

City of Ontario. 2022. Ontario Municipal Code, Title 9. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/ontarioca/latest/ontario_ca/0-0-0-46762.

City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 1.0: Development Code Enactment and General Provisions, Enactment and General Provisions.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%201.0%20 Development%20Code%20Enactment%20and%20General%20Provisions.pdf.

City of Ontario. ND. Development Code – Chapter 6.0: Development and Subdivision Regulations, Development and Subdivision Regulations.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Documents/Planning%20Documents/Development%20Code/Chapter%206.0%20 Development%20and%20Subdivision%20Regulations.pdf
851
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-1 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and evaluates the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project’s (Project) potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources in the City of Ontario (City). This section will describe the environmental setting of the Project along with any applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations. Direct environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources will be assessed for significance as well as any potentially cumulative impacts associated with the Project development. The existing environment was based on the conditions present at the time that the Notice of Preparation was created and distributed on February 10, 2023. This was used as the baseline against which to compare potential impacts associated with implementation of the Project. As necessary and to the extent feasible, mitigation measures will be provided to minimize any potentially significant environmental impact to less than significant levels.

Data used in preparation of this section were taken from various sources including the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, other environmental analyses prepared by the City, and information in the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (Project Specific Plan).

This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR

4.2.2 Environmental Setting
Regional
According to the California DOC’s latest Farmland Conversion Report, Southern California comprised 38 percent of the Statewide urban and other development increase (17,125 acres). Five of the top ten urbanizing counties were in Southern California with San Bernardino County (County) having 3,502 acres.1 The Southern California region was second in terms of irrigated land to urban land shifts, with 2,695 acres of conversion from irrigated land to urban land.2
The County experienced a net loss of 850 acres of Important Farmland and an increase in 3,921 acres of new Urban and Built-Up land. In general, agricultural land has declined in the County region due to the profitability of dairy businesses in the Central Valley and because urban development has pushed agricultural development from the County.3 Land uses surrounding the City mostly support industrial and 1 California Department of Conservation. 2023. 2014-2016 Farmland Conversion Report. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx. (accessed March 2023). 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 852
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-2 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
residential uses with some agricultural land parcels dispersed between, especially to the south in the City of Chino.

The California DOC regularly reviews and reports on the status of Farmland by county jurisdiction.

Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion, presents information from the 2014-2016, California Farmland Conversion Report summarizing farmland conversion within the County.

Table 4.2-1: San Bernardino County 2014-2016 Land Use Conversion Land Use Category
Total Acreage Inventoried 2014 – 2016 Acreage Changes
2016 2018 Acres Lost Acres Gained Total Acreage
Changed
Net Acreage
Changed
Prime Farmland 11,323 10,887 770 334 1,104 -436
Farmland of Statewide
Importance 5,770 5,568 453 251 704 - 202
Unique Farmland 2,738 2,700 67 29 96 -38
Farmland of Local
Importance 561 549 12 0 12 -12
Important Farmland
Subtotal 20,392 19,704 1,302 614 1,916 -688
Grazing Land 898,633 897,398 2,230 995 3,225 -1,235
Agricultural Land
Subtotal 919,025 917,102 3,532 1,609 5,141 -1,923
Urban and Built-up
Land 286,407 288,434 1,366 3,393 4,759 2,027
Other Land 243,603 243,500 1,883 1,780 3,663 -103
Water Area 510 509 2 1 3 -1
Total Area
Inventoried 1,449,545 1,449,545 6,783 6,783 13,566 0
Source: California Department of Conservation. 2023. Alternate San Bernardino County 2016-2018 Land Use Conversion, Table A-28. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2016- 2018/alternate_conversion/Alternate_San_Bernardino_County_2016-2018_Land_Use_Conversion.pdf. (accessed April 2023).

Additionally, the County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures (AWM) 2021 Annual Crop Report provides an overview of agricultural production in the County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2272 and Section 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code.4 This report provides the estimated production, acreage, and gross value of the agricultural industry in the County for the year 2021. Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value), presents information from the County AWM 2021 Annual Crop Report summarizing primary sources of County agricultural production by dollar value. In 2021, the total value of agricultural commodities in the County was $350,857,419.

This total represents a decrease in value from 2020 of $69,393,581. Crop value varies from year to year based on production, market fluctuations and weather. The decrease in crop value in 2021 is primarily 4 County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2023. 2021 Annual Crop Report. https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wpcontent/uploads/sites/84/2022/10/N4454-AWM-CROP-REPORT-2021-Web.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 853
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-3 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
attributed to a decrease in the price for navel oranges, a decrease in vegetable crops due to increased urban development in the west end and a decrease in animal products due to the closure of 13 egg farms and 8 dairies. Agriculture remains a critical component of the economy in the County. The strength of agriculture contributed to the diversity of agricultural crops produced in the County.

The City lies in the County AWM “Central,” “West End North,” and in portions of the “West End South,” in the County. These areas of the County are responsible for most of the percentage (by dollar value) of the County’s total agricultural production.5
Table 4.2-2: San Bernardino County Top Ten Agricultural Products (by dollar value) 2021 Rank Product Value Value % of Total 2020 Rank
1 Milk & Milk Products $112,451,000 26.76% 1
2 Cattle, Calves & Dairy Cull $55,941,000 13.31% 2
3 Eggs $50,526,000 12.02% 3
4 Replacement Heifers $23,016,000 5.48% 4
5 Indoor Decoratives $18,127,000 4.31% 6
6 Trees & Shrubs (Incl. Roses) $17,161,000 4.08% 7
7 Alfalfa (All Types) $15,612,000 3.71% 8
8 Turf $12,427,000 2.96% 9
9 Citrus Fruit $11,814,000 2.81% 5
10 Groundcover & Bedding Plants $8,198,000 1.95% 10
Total Top Ten: $343,835,000
Source: County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2023. 2021 Annual Crop Report. https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2022/10/N4454-AWM-CROP-REPORT-2021-Web.pdf (accessed March 2023).

Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation Preserves The San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserves within the City were managed by the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation (SoCALF) until 2006, when the County took over management of these parcels. Hence, these areas are still referred to as SoCALF Preserves in the City. The SoCALF Preserves were established and maintained with funds from the 1988 Park Bond Act regulations. Much of the original 15,000-acre area of SoCALF Preserves is being developed by both the City and Chino. An amount of $20 million was paid to the County from the State of California to establish and fund these lands if they remained in agricultural use within the San Bernardino County Agriculture Land Preserve (California Public Resources Code Section 5905–5907). When the SoCALF Preserves are no longer being used for agricultural purposes, these funds must be returned to the State or used to purchase property of equal size and similar use within the San Bernardino County Agriculture Land Preserve. Approximately 200 acres are designated as SoCALF Preserves in the New Model Colony (NMC), now known as Ontario Ranch.

The City recognizes the importance of existing agricultural activities, and TOP 2050 includes goals and policies implemented to ensure protection of these agricultural resources. However, the City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses. While existing agricultural uses would be allowed to persist per the TOP 2050, the City’s land use plan does not 5 Ibid.
854
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-4 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
designate these areas for agricultural land uses. Although the intent of the SoCALF Preserves was to preserve Important Farmland in perpetuity in this area of the County, the preserves do not guarantee that Important Farmland would not be converted to nonagricultural uses within the City.

When the NMC was annexed in 1999, the City zoned the area as Specific Plan, which requires the area to be developed with specific plans. Once a specific plan is implemented in an area, the provisions of that specific plan will determine the land use, which will be consistent with the TOP 2050. The land use plan for the City designates these areas for nonagricultural land uses provided that equivalent Important Farmland is preserved elsewhere, or funds associated with the 1988 Park Bond Act are returned.

Important farmland outside of these preserves may be converted to nonagricultural uses without requiring the county to repay the funding to the state or relocating the farmland elsewhere in the San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserve. Consequently, buildout of TOP 2050 would replace the existing agricultural land in an economically productive way that would serve the growing population.

Thus, the City’s future development emphasizes mixed-use, commercial, industrial, and residential projects rather than supporting the continuation of agricultural uses, which are becoming less economically viable.

Local Agriculture and Farmland
Table 4.2-3: Existing Farmland in Ontario, presents information from the latest California DOC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for the City on farmland within the City.

Table 4.2-3: Existing Farmland in Ontario
Land Use Category Acres
Prime Farmland 2,008
Farmland of Statewide Importance 40
Unique Farmland 266
Farmland of Local Importance 29
Total Farmland in Ontario 2,342
Source: City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry, Table 5.2-2. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).

Original Model Colony
Historically, agricultural lands made up much of the City, including land for citrus, olive, dairy farms, and vineyards, however, many of the developed portions of the Original Model Colony (OMC) have replaced agricultural land uses with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Limited agriculture land uses are currently permitted in areas zoned for Residential-Agricultural (AR), Residential Estate (RE), Public Facility (PF), Open Space (OS), Commercial (C-1 to C-4), and Industrial (M1 to M3) land uses, though these zoning designations are not intended for large-scale farming/agricultural operations. Today, very little Farmland remains in the OMC.

Ontario Ranch (New Model Colony)
The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the former 14,000-acre San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was historically used for dairy or cattle farming. The Agricultural Preserve was divided and incorporated into the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, and Ontario in 1999, and the City named its portion 855
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-5 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
the “New Model Colony.” There are four sections of agricultural preserve in the Ontario Ranch, totaling 200 acres in the southwestern portion of the City, where the Project site is located. The change of land use from agricultural to nonagricultural has mostly been due to increasing population, which has put pressure on cities in southern California to turn Important Farmland into uses that would support residential, economic, and employment needs. Dairies and farms in the City have also found that they are outcompeted by dairies and farms in the Central Valley, so they have either converted their land to more productive, nonagricultural uses or they have left the City for the Central Valley.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The Ontario Ranch has areas that are currently agriculture preserves under contract with County through the Williamson Act of 1965. The preservation of agricultural land through Williamson Act contracts today in the City is meant to discourage premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Once the Ontario Ranch annexed to the City, the City became the administrating entity for the Williamson Act contracts.

Under the Act, either the landowner or the planning jurisdiction (the City) has the ability to submit the property for nonrenewal. Property owners in this area with Williamson Act contracts have filed for nonrenewal because of the declining profits from agriculture in the area and the potential development of these lands with nonagricultural uses. Current nonrenewed contracts would expire between 2021 and 2027.

Project Site
The 84.1-acre Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. Dairy farming and agriculture have been the primary uses of the Project site since before the 1930s. The majority of the site exists as fallow or cultivated fields, with a nursery located along the western portion of the site. There is a private recreational vehicle storage facility in the southwestern portion of the site and a scrap yard at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and Edison Avenue. Numerous single family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures are located within the Project site. Two Southern California Edison (SCE) easements extend across the Project site. No permanent structures (besides the transmission towers) are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically. According to the California Important Farmland Finder (CIFF), the Project site contains Prime Farmland and Other Land.6 As stated previously, the Project site is not within a SoCALF Preserve. The northern and southern portion of the site is identified as “Prime Farmland,” totaling 37.67 acres, and the remainder of the site is identified as “Other Land” totaling 40.93 acres, and “Urban and Built-Up Land” totaling 5.56 acres, under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). FMMP Farmland categories are described below.

There are no existing Williamson Contracts on site.7 There is no Forest Land located on the Project site. 6 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed March 2023). 7 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry, Figure 5.2-2, Williamson Act Land. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf (accessed March 2023). 856
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-6 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Zoning Designations
According to the City’s Zoning Map, the Project site’s zoning designation is Specific Plan with an Agricultural (SP AG) Overlay.
8 Project buildout would include zoning regulations for development on the Project site which includes business park and mixed-use land uses. The SP-AG Overlay Zone (Right to Farm Ordinance) requires that each project address the appropriate transition of the area from agricultural uses to urban uses and include provisions for buffering between the proposed uses to protect agricultural and urban uses. Furthermore, Section 9-1.2700, SP-AG Overlay Zoning District of the Ontario Municipal Code, allows for the continuation of agricultural uses on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with the TOP occurs.

Surrounding Uses
Existing uses surrounding the Project site are similar to those on the site. Ongoing crop farming is located to the north of the Project site and a vacant property that was a former dairy farm is located to the east of the site. The property to the south is currently utilized for residential, farming, or trucking related uses.

North across Schaefer Avenue is an existing dairy farm; south across Edison Avenue is an existing trucking facility; east across Sultana Avenue is vacant land and an existing trucking facility; west across Euclid Avenue, is the City of Chino with existing commercial and residential uses, and a truck/trailer storage (see Figure 3-4: Surrounding Land Uses).

4.2.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Farmland Protection and Policy Act
The Farmland Protection and Policy Act (FPPA), United States Code Title 7 Section 4201, was enacted in 1981 to minimize the loss of prime and unique farmlands because of federal actions by converting these lands to nonagricultural uses. It ensures that federal programs are consistent with state, local, and private programs, and policies to protect farmland.

State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65570, the California Department of Conservation FMMP compiles important farmland maps for the state. These maps combine soil survey and current land use information to provide an inventory of agricultural resources in each county, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources Conservation Service. The maps show urbanized lands and a qualitative sequence of agricultural designations. County, state, and federal agencies have established several classifications of important agricultural land based on factors such as soil characteristics, climate, and water supply.
8 City of Ontario. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20220415_Rev1.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 857
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-7 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Prime Farmland. This has the best combination of physical and chemical features and can sustain longterm agricultural production. The land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields and it must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Statewide Importance. Similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Unique Farmland. Lesser-quality soils used for the production of the state’s leading agricultural crops.

This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards. Land must also have been cultivated at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

Farmland of Local Importance. Land of importance to the local economy, as defined by each county’s local advisory committee and adopted by its board of supervisors. This refers to all farmable lands in the county that do not meet the definitions of Prime, Statewide, or Unique. This includes land that is or has been used for irrigated pasture, dryland farming, confined livestock and dairy, poultry facilities, aquaculture, and grazing land.

Grazing Land. This has existing vegetation that is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, the University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.

Urban and Built-Up Land. This land is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad, and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

Other Land. This land is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples of this type of land include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines or borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

Note that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis focuses on impacts to three categories of mapped farmland—Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. In this section, the term “mapped important farmland” refers to these three categories of farmland combined.

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)
The California Land Conservation Act, or Williamson Act, was adopted in 1965 (California Government Code Section 51200 et. seq.). The act was established to encourage the preservation of agricultural lands in view of the increasing trend toward their “premature and unnecessary” urbanization. The act enables 858
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-8 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
counties and cities to designate agricultural preserves (Williamson Act lands) and offer preferential taxation to agricultural landowners based on the land’s income-producing value. In return for the preferential tax rate, the landowner is required to sign a contract (Williamson contract) with the county or city agreeing not to develop the land for a minimum of 10 years. The contract is renewed automatically on its anniversary date unless a notice of nonrenewal or petition for cancellation is filed. There are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site.9 Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element defines the ethic to guide management of the City’s environmental resources; establishes goals for Environmental Infrastructure; maps environmental justice areas; and establishes policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, energy independence, environmental justice, and healthy communities. Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources. The TOP 2050 Environmental Resources Element contains policies which pertain to existing farms and improving the transition of farms to urban uses.

The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:

Environmental Resources Element10
Goal ER-5 Protected high value habitat and farming and mineral resource extraction activities that are compatible with adjacent development.

Policy ER-5.3 Right to Farm. We support the right of existing farms to continue their operations within the Ontario Ranch.

Policy ER-5.4 Transition of Farms. We protect both existing farms and sensitive uses around them as agricultural areas transition to urban uses.

City of Ontario Municipal Code
The City of Ontario Municipal Code contains regulations pertaining to agricultural resources in the City, including:
• Ontario Development Code, Chapter 6, Development and Subdivision Regulations, Division 6.01, District Standards and Guidelines, Division 6.01, Section 6.01.035, Overlay Zoning Districts. The purpose of the SP-AG Overlay District is to accommodate the continuation of agricultural uses within the City, on an interim basis, and to allow for the establishment of general agricultural uses, such as dairies, within certain areas of concentrated agricultural use. This section regulates development in the NMC to create compatibility between agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 9 Ibid. 10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed March 2023). 859
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-9 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
It recognizes that specific plans would guide the development of the NMC. The overall goal of the ordinance is to prevent unnecessary urban development in the area unless the development has been planned. New construction, except for agricultural uses or agricultural-related activities, and single-family homes and building ancillary thereto, shall first require the adoption of a Specific Plan, which prescribes the allowed land uses, development regulations and guidelines, and sign regulations applicable to the Project.

4.2.4 Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• 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;
• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; • 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)); • Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or • 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.

Methodology
Agricultural resources were assessed based on the California DOC’s FMMP, which is a biennial report and mapping resource on the conversion of farmland and grazing land. The FMMP identified over 50 acres of Prime Farmland on the Project site. Williamson Act contract lands were identified by the DOC and the City; according to records from the City, there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site.

Development of the Project site was analyzed for conversion of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use and changes in the existing environment that would remove farmland from agricultural production. The evaluation of impacts to agricultural resources is based on the amount of agricultural land on-site and in the surrounding area, and the effect the proposed Project would have on the existing resources.

4.2.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
Refer to above discussion regarding existing Regulatory Framework. 860
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-10 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry

4.2.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.2-1 Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project Specific Plan includes Development Standards and Design Guidelines, where all subsequent development within the Project Specific Plan would be required to conform with these Standards and Guidelines (Specific Plan Chapter 5, Design Guidelines).

In accordance with the Project Specific Plan’s Allowable Uses, commercial crop production and farming would be conditionally allowed within the Specific Plan Zoning District. Additionally, community gardens, urban farms, and related uses would be administratively allowed within the Business Park and Mixed-Use land use areas.

The proposed improvements would also include buffering from parking lots, loading and service areas in accordance with the provisions of the Project Specific Plan. These requirements support the City’s planned orderly transition of existing agricultural uses to urban uses and include the following:
• Site Design: Screen parking areas and loading docks facing the street using landscape buffers planted with screen trees and drought-tolerant vegetation. • Landscape Design: use landscaping to aid in the screening and buffering of mechanical equipment, trash collection areas, loading docks and outside storage from public view. • Buffering and Screening: to alleviate the unsightly appearance of parking lots, loading, and service areas, buffering and screening design features would be used to enhance overall development.

The California DOC’s FMMP is charged with producing maps for analyzing impacts on the state’s agricultural resources. California’s agricultural lands are rated based on soil quality and irrigation status.

The classification system is contiguous with U.S. Department of Agriculture soil surveys and current land use. These maps are updated every two years, with the most recent data being from 2018. For CEQA purposes, the following categories are qualified as “agricultural land”: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land.11 The Project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes, primarily dairy operations, and field crops. A total of 37.67 acres is identified as Prime Farmland in the northern and southern portion of the site, and the remainder of the site is identified as “Other Land” totaling 40.93 acres, and “Urban and Built11 California Department of Conservation. 2022. Important Farmland Categories. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland-Categories.aspx. (accessed March 2023). 861
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-11 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Up Land” totaling 5.56 acres.
12 The Project would convert the 37.67 acres of Prime Farmland from agriculture to urban use, which was identified as a significant impact within TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.

As identified in the TOP 2010 EIR, build out of the Ontario Policy Plan would result in conversion of all agricultural-designated land to urban uses; remaining agricultural uses would be retained within 200 acres of the SoCALF preserves. It was determined that the mitigation proposed and considered would not prevent significant impacts from occurring, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 2018 for significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural lands with full buildout of the Policy Plan, which allows the decision-making body of the City to approve a project despite one or more unmitigated significant environmental impacts identified in the TOP Final EIR. Therefore, consistent with Findings made at the time of certification of the City’s TOP 2010 Certified EIR and the City’s TOP 2050 Final Supplemental SEIR, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would be consistent with the TOP 2010 Certified EIR and 2050 Final Supplemental EIR Findings. The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. Therefore, consistent with Findings of the City’s TOP 2050 Supplemental EIR, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
13 Mitigation Measures
MM AG-1 Deed disclosure – In order to reduce conflicts issued between sensitive receptors and agricultural uses, all property owners in the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan shall be provided with a deed disclosure or similar notice approved by the City Attorney regarding the proximity and nature of neighboring agricultural uses. This disclosure shall be applied at the tentative map stage to the affected properties, or otherwise prior to finalizing the sale or rental agreement of any property. The written disclosure shall be supplied to the property purchaser or renter by the vendor or vendor’s agent.

The content and text of the disclosure shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall include language to inform new residents that existing agricultural uses may create nuisances such as flies, odors, dust, night-light, and chemical spraying.

In accordance with the findings of the TOP 2010 Certified EIR , there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts regarding agricultural conversion to levels that would be less than significant.

Further, according to the TOP 2010 Certified EIR findings, while the City maintains a Right-to-Farm ordinance, use of farm equipment and odors associated with dairy farming in the Ontario Ranch area is not compatible with densities proposed in the City’s Land Use Plan. Furthermore, several mitigation 12 California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed March 2023). 13 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf (accessed April 2023).
862
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-12 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
measures to reduce the impacts of TOP on agriculture were considered and were considered again as to this EIR for the Project Specific Plan; however, none of the mitigation measures considered by the City, and detailed below, would feasibly be able to reduce the significant impacts to levels less than significant and therefore impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The measures considered are discussed further below.

Mitigation Measures Considered But Rejected
The Project build-out area is designated for urban development pursuant to the City’s Policy Plan. Existing agricultural uses are in various stages of converting to urban uses that are consistent with the Policy Plan.

As the agricultural uses diminish, so too are the needed support uses such as feed stores, agricultural equipment sales and rentals, and manure services. In addition, as described previously, dairy farming has become less and less viable in the City region. The dairy industry in San Bernardino County has consistently and sharply declined since 2000, and incentives to convert to urban uses increase. Existing agricultural uses within the City are becoming economically unsustainable and represent land uses that are increasingly incongruous with continuing urbanization of the City. Transition of existing agricultural uses and farmland to non-agricultural uses is an unavoidable effect of implementing the TOP. TOP 2010 Certified EIR considered various mitigation measures which were considered again for this EIR for the Project specific plan that could reduce impacts to agricultural resources. The City again concluded that there are no feasible measures that would reduce the loss of agriculture to levels that would be less than significant. The TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measures that were considered before are, again, considered and rejected and are described below.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses. Retention of agricultural uses within the City of Ontario would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Moreover, TOP does not envision long-term use of City properties for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced in the adopted Land Use Plan, which does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City. Preservation of agricultural land uses would therefore conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. The “Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.

Additionally, economic viability of agricultural uses in the City has declined as a result of losing many of the necessary support services. Increasing urbanization, rising land values, and relatively high operational costs have also put City agricultural and dairy farming uses at a competitive disadvantage in regional markets. Ultimately, the long-term viability of agriculture within the City is limited due to the increasing land values, increased water costs, higher labor costs, higher property taxes, competition from other parts of the state, and the growing urbanization of the area. Based on the preceding, retention of on-site agricultural uses is considered infeasible.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site.

Replacement of agricultural resources at an off-site location would require the applicant to purchase offsite replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status. 863
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-13 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Creation of additional Farmland in the City is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action. The potential to provide off-site mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural uses was considered but rejected as infeasible in the TOP EIR. Using another area within Ontario Ranch for mitigation of impacts related to the Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of on-site mitigation. Therefore, similar to the reasons why on-site mitigation is not feasible, off-site mitigation within Ontario Ranch is also infeasible. In addition, off-site mitigation within the region is also considered infeasible due to the decreasing economic vitality of agriculture in Ontario Ranch and Southern California and increased urbanization pressures on existing agricultural lands.

Further, creation of new Farmland-status properties outside the City is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.

Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site” mitigation strategy would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts.

Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at off-site locations is considered infeasible.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses. Retention of agricultural uses within the City of Ontario would create or maintain islands of agricultural uses within an urbanized setting, exacerbating potential land use conflicts and land use incompatibilities. Moreover, TOP does not envision long-term use of City properties for agricultural purposes. This is evidenced in the adopted Land Use Plan, which does not establish or maintain any “Agricultural” Land Use designations within the City. Preservation of agricultural land uses would therefore conflict with the adopted Land Use Plan. The “Retention of On-Site Agricultural Uses” mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.

Additionally, economic viability of agricultural uses in the City has declined as a result of losing many of the necessary support services. Increasing urbanization, rising land values, and relatively high operational costs have also put City agricultural and dairy farming uses at a competitive disadvantage in regional markets. Ultimately, the long-term viability of agriculture within the City is limited due to the increasing land values, increased water costs, higher labor costs, higher property taxes, competition from other parts of the state, and the growing urbanization of the area. Based on the preceding, retention of on-site agricultural uses is considered infeasible.
864
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-14 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site.

Replacement of agricultural resources at an off-site location would require the applicant to purchase offsite replacement acreage not designated as Farmland and improve or restore it to Farmland status.

Creation of additional Farmland in the City is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action. The potential to provide off-site mitigation for the loss of agricultural land and agricultural uses was considered but rejected as infeasible in the TOP EIR. Using another area within Ontario Ranch for mitigation of impacts related to the Project would result in the same issues as previously described in consideration of on-site mitigation. Therefore, similar to the reasons why on-site mitigation is not feasible, off-site mitigation within Ontario Ranch is also infeasible. In addition, off-site mitigation within the region is also considered infeasible due to the decreasing economic vitality of agriculture in Ontario Ranch and Southern California and increased urbanization pressures on existing agricultural lands.

Further, creation of new Farmland-status properties outside the City is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan.

Additionally, the “Replacement of Agricultural Resources Off-Site” mitigation strategy would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. In this regard, the mitigation strategy would likely result in increased, rather than diminished environmental impacts.

Based on the preceding, replacement of agricultural resources at off-site locations is considered infeasible.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Relocation of Farmland Topsoil. Relocation of Farmland topsoil would entail removal of the top 12 to 18 inches of topsoil from Farmland properties and the placement of this soil at sites that have lesser quality soil. This would promote creation of new or additional Farmland status properties in the City, rather than provide for their transition to urban uses.

This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously and would require comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such action.

Further, creation of new Farmland-status by means of imported Farmland topsoil is beyond the Lead Agency and Project applicant’s control. The Farmland status at any site would be assigned through the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland Series mapping protocol. Moreover, creation of new Farmland-status properties at extra-jurisdictional locations could result in land use conflicts at the interface of agricultural uses and urban uses similar to those the City has experienced and seeks to avoid through implementation of the Land Use Plan. 865
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-15 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Additionally, excavation and relocation of topsoil would likely result in potentially adverse environmental impacts affecting biological resources, hydrology/water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use and planning. Based on the preceding, relocation of Farmland topsoil is considered infeasible.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves.

Establishment of conservation easements or preserves is contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision providing for transition of agricultural uses to urban uses. This mitigation strategy would require comprehensive amendment to the Policy Plan. The City has not indicated that such amendment is warranted or desired and has initiated no such action. At the Project site, establishment of agricultural conservation easements or preserves would negate the Project, resulting in a No-Build condition. Based on the preceding, the “Establishment of Conservation Easement or Preserves” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.

TOP 2010 Certified EIR Mitigation Measure: Transfer of Development Rights. SCAG provides the following summary of description and application of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs:

TDR “is a device by which the development potential of a site is severed from its title and made available for transfer to another location. The owner of a site within a transfer area retains property ownership, but not approval to develop. The owner of a site within a receiving area may purchase transferable development rights, allowing a receptor site to be developed at a greater density.” TDR is most commonly used to preserve agricultural lands, but it can also be used for preserving natural, open space. TDR programs can vary depending on the need of the local jurisdiction but in general there are a few common factors that contribute to the success of a TDR program. These include having a donor site with development constraints, appropriate zoning regulations, and infrastructure requirements.” The Project site is not currently entitled for development absent an adopted Specific Plan, and it is unclear what if any development rights would be transferred under a TDR program. Further, there is no designated or contemplated receiving area to accept these development rights. Moreover, a TDR program would preserve agricultural uses at the Project Site rather than further planned transition of agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses as envisioned under the Policy Plan. This would be contrary to the Land Use Plan policies and vision as summarized previously.

The City of Ontario has not implemented a TDR Program. Implementation of a TDR program would require amending the City Development Code and comprehensive amendment of the Policy Plan. Neither the City nor applicant has indicated that such amendments are warranted or desired, and neither has initiated such actions. Based on the preceding, implementation of a “Transfer of Development Rights Program” mitigation strategy is considered infeasible.

The City has considered but rejected the collection of fees for off-site mitigation of agricultural impacts.

Neither the City nor the adjoining counties have adopted fee programs. Absent viable programs in the region, the imposition of fees would not serve to mitigate the impacts of the Project. Furthermore, an offsite fee mitigation program would not avoid the loss of farmland; would not minimize the effect of the Project; would not repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected farmland; and, absent a viable fee program, 866
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-16 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
would not replace affected farmland with substitute farmland. Thus, such a program would not actually mitigate or substantially lessen the significant impact of the Project (CRR State CEQA Guidelines Section15370; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). The same factors that make on-site mitigation infeasible would apply off-site in the region as well. The challenges to continued agricultural production in the Chino Basin area, also challenge agriculture throughout Southern California (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine [2004] 119 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1270-72).

Off-site mitigation would require the City to purchase replacement acreage for Important Farmland currently not in use elsewhere in California and restore it as viable farmland. However, distant mitigation would not reduce impacts because these mitigation parcels could have no bearing or relationship on the loss of agricultural lands within the City or the County. In addition, experience indicates a program consisting of the required purchase of agricultural easements on other land or through fee programs for the acquisition of agricultural easements would be of limited utility or benefit. Such a program is inherently dependent upon voluntary agreements by farm owners to sell such easements on their property for an agreed price, which, within the City, is largely driven by the City’s TOP land use designations, population growth, urbanization of the surrounding area, and the limited supply of suitable farmland. In remote areas not planned for development in the near-term, owner’s may be more willing to sell such an easement at a reasonable price but within the region much of the land is already subject to development pressure.

As a result, the most likely result would be a “patchwork” of easements, with some owners more willing than others to sell them, potentially creating a more dispersed development pattern and loss of viability of farmland over time, which would not serve as a feasible measure to mitigate the loss of farmland by the Project. Neither the City nor the County have adopted programs for the acquisition of off-site agricultural easements. Consequently, for the reasons previously outlined, it is determined that off-site mitigation of agricultural resources is neither feasible nor effective in mitigating such impacts.

Overall, no feasible mitigation measures have been identified, which would substantially lessen the Project’s significant impacts related to the loss of Prime Farmland and conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. This finding is consistent with the finding in TOP EIR; that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts on Important Farmland or the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, and thus impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Impact 4.2-2 Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
867
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-17 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
The Project site is currently zoned Specific Plan with an Agricultural Overlay, according to the City’s Zoning Map, also identified as SP-AG Overlay Zone (Right to Farm Ordinance). 14 It also contains an operational
dairy farm and other structures and equipment associated with agricultural use. Construction of this Project will remove the agricultural land, converting it to Business Park and Mixed-Use uses. When the City annexed all of the land within the Ontario Ranch area, including the Project Specific Plan area, it was zoned Specific Plan, with an Agricultural Overlay Zoning District (Section F of Division 5.01 of the Ontario Development Code). The Overlay Zoning provides for agricultural uses within the City on an interim basis, until such time that urban development consistent with TOP 2050 occurs. The operation of the on-site dairy and row crops and the urban development that is proposed by the Project Specific Plan are consistent with this ordinance. The Project Specific Plan will not conflict with the Agricultural Overlay Zoning, and impacts related to a conflict with the overlay will not occur. With Project approval, the Project’s existing SP-AG overlay zone would be removed as part of Project approval, consistent with TOP 2050 goals to transition agricultural areas to urban development. Lastly, according to records from the City, there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site. Therefore, impacts regarding conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract would be less than significant.

Conclusion
As noted above, there are no active Williamson Act Contracts within the Project site nor would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.15
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.2-3 Would the Project 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))?
Impact 4.2-4 Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? Level of Significance: No Impact
14 City of Ontario. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20220415_Rev1.pdf (accessed March 2023). 15 Ibid. 868
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-18 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
“Forest land” is defined as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” “Timberland” is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.” Pursuant to Sections 51112 and 51113 of the California Government Code,16 “Timberland Production Zone” (TPZ) is defined as “an area which has been zoned and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h).”
The Project site is identified as having an Agricultural Overlay (SP-AG) and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or TPZ. TOP 2050 does not designate any forest land or timberland land uses within the City.

Therefore, the Project would not 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)); and the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

Conclusion
As noted above, there are no land use designations or zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in the City. As such there would be no impact. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.17
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Impact 4.2-5 Would the Project 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?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
16 California Government Code. 2022. Article 2, Timberland Production Zones [51110 - 51119.5]. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=51113. (accessed March 2023). 17 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf (accessed April 2023).
869
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-19 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Refer to Impacts 4.2-3 and 4.2-4 for forest land. See Section 4.2.2, for a discussion of the Project site’s current use as a dairy farm and for cropland
As discussed above, the development of the Project will result in the conversion of the existing agricultural uses that include a total of 37.67 acres of Prime Farmland to an urban or non-agricultural use. The City does not have any prohibitions that prevent the transition of agricultural land uses to urban land uses.

While existing agricultural uses would be allowed to persist, the proposed land use plan for the City designates these areas for nonagricultural land uses provided that equivalent Important Farmland is preserved elsewhere, or funds associated with the 1988 Park Bond Act are returned. Therefore, these existing agricultural uses would be converted to nonagricultural uses upon buildout of TOP 2050.

Furthermore, although the intent of the SoCALF Preserves was to preserve Important Farmland in perpetuity in this area of the City, the preserves do not guarantee that Important Farmland would not be converted to nonagricultural uses. Important farmland outside of these preserves may be converted to nonagricultural uses without requiring the County to repay the funding to the state or relocating the farmland elsewhere in the San Bernardino County Agricultural Land Preserve. Development and implementation of the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts on agricultural resources in the Project area.

The Project Specific Plan could promote and encourage urban growth by contributing to the urban development of other nearby agricultural lands. Development proposals for substantial portions of the area around the site are pending (as described in Section 4.0) and development of the Project Specific Plan could facilitate the conversion of other farmland within the Project vicinity through the extension of public infrastructure and increases in land values. Properties surrounding the Project site are currently utilized for agricultural operations; however, there is encroaching land development consistent with TOP 2050.

Although implementation of the Project Specific Plan would result in the conversion of agricultural land to other uses, it is occurring consistently with the previously identified policies in the TOP 2050 Final Supplement EIR. Thus, and consistent with the findings of the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR and which were acknowledged in a previously adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations, Project impacts related to other changes in the environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural would be significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
Altering the land from agricultural development will promote further growth and future development within the City, increasing economic prosperity. However, this conversion from agricultural land to business park and mixed-use will have significant and unavoidable impacts. Further, as noted above, the Project would be consistent with the TOP 2010 Certified EIR and 2050 Final Supplemental EIR Findings.

Mitigation Measures
870
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-20 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
Refer to MM AG-1 above.

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative study area for agriculture includes the County. Throughout the County, numerousrelated projects exist that would result in the additional conversion of agricultural land, including Prime Farmland and Important Farmland, to nonagricultural uses. Important Farmland in the County has continually declined and all of the prime agricultural land in the southern area of the City is planned for development by the City’s TOP 2050. Continued conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses would substantially reduce overall agricultural productivity in the City and the region. According to the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, agricultural land within the Ontario Ranch area has the potential to be converted to non-agricultural uses, upon buildout of TOP 2050 and the Specific Plan overlay. This was identified as a significant cumulative impact in TOP 2010 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR.

Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute to the reduction of agricultural resources in the region and cumulatively contribute to the loss of agricultural resources. Although the proposed conversion is consistent with the projected decline in agricultural productivity of the region, the Ontario Ranch area, and the Project site, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural resources. Significant and unavoidable impacts to agriculture resources have been identified; refer to Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.1-5.

4.2.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Impact 4.2-1
In accordance with the findings of the TOP 2010 Certified EIR and TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR, conversion of agricultural-designated land to urban land uses is a significant and unavoidable impact. As detailed above, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s significant impacts to agricultural resources to levels that would be less than significant. Although implementation of MM AG-1 would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses, with full buildout of the City in accordance with TOP 2050, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

Impact 4.2-5
Implementation of MM AG-1 would reduce the potential for pressure to convert nearby agricultural land to other uses. Nevertheless, with full buildout of the City in accordance with the Policy Plan, all agricultural lands would be converted to urban land uses, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact.

4.2.9 References
California Department of Conservation. 2023. 2014-2016 Farmland Conversion Report. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/2014-
2016_Farmland_Conversion_Report.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. 2023. Alternate San Bernardino County 2016-2018 Land Use Conversion, Table A-28.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2016- 871
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.2-21 4.2 | Agriculture and Forestry
2018/alternate_conversion/Alternate_San_Bernardino_County_2016- 2018_Land_Use_Conversion.pdf.

California Department of Conservation. 2022. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Government Code. 2022. Article 2, Timberland Production Zones [51110 - 51119.5]. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNu m=5111.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/OntarioPlan.

City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.

City of Ontario. 2022. Zoning Map. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Zoning%20Map/Zoning_20220415_Rev1.pdf.

County of San Bernardino Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures. 2023. 2021 Annual Crop Report. https://awm.sbcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2022/10/N4454-AWM-CROPREPORT-2021-Web.pdf. 872
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-1 4.3 | Air Quality

4.3 AIR QUALITY
Introduction
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies and analyzes the Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Project’s (Project) potential air quality impacts that would be generated by construction and operation of the Project, within the City of Ontario (City). The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, and local air pollutant regulations and pollutant concentrations. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the proposed Project is included in Appendix B1: Air Quality Emissions Model Data, of this Draft EIR. The modeling outputs and calculations for localized particulate matter emissions is included in Appendix B3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling outputs and calculations for the proposed Project is included in Appendix B2: Health Risk Assessment Data. Transportation-sector impacts are based on trip generation and average vehicle trip distance for passenger vehicle and trucks as provided by Urban Crossroads in Appendix I: Transportation Reports, of this Draft EIR. Cumulative impacts related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).

This Section and environmental discussion use information from the following City documents:
• The Ontario Plan 2050
• City of Ontario Municipal Code
• City of Ontario TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR
Additionally, the following analysis is based in part on information obtained from:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates. March 2023. Air Quality Emissions Model Data. (Appendix B1) • Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2023. Health Risk Assessment Data. (Appendix B2) • Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2023. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Data. (Appendix B3) • Urban Crossroads. January 2023. Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis. (Appendix I1) Environmental Setting
Climate and Meteorology
South Coast Air Basin
The Project site is in the SCAB, which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills and is bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant, with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region is in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This weather pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. 873
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-2 4.3 | Air Quality
Temperature and Precipitation
The annual average temperature throughout the 6,645-square-mile SCAB ranges from low 60 to high 80 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with little variance. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station nearest the site is in Pomona (ID No. 041779). The average low is reported at 38.6°F in January and the average high is 90.4°F in July. All areas in the SCAB have recorded temperatures above 100°F in recent years. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the SCAB, with minimum temperatures in the 30s. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. Almost all rain falls from November through April. Summer rainfall is normally restricted to widely scattered thundershowers near the coast with slightly heavier shower activity in the east and over the mountains. Rainfall averages around 16.95 inches per year in the Project area, as measured in Pomona.

Humidity
Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; low stratus clouds, often called high fog, are a characteristic climatic feature.

Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the east portions of the SCAB.

Wind
Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly onshore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Between periods of wind, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. The mountain ranges to the east affect the transport and diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

Inversions
In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine/subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the “mixing height.” The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the Project area. 874
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-3 4.3 | Air Quality
Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by state and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants.

Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants. Of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants.

ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, the criteria pollutant ozone (O3) is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. O3 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

Table 4.3-1: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, affecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes
dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or
death.

An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.

Ozone (O3) Irritates and causes inflammation of the
mucous membranes and lung airways; causes
wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling
deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates
lung and heart problems. Damages plants;
reduces crop yield.

Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC)1 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. Motor vehicle
exhaust, industrial emissions, gasoline storage
and transport, solvents, paints and landfills.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. Precursor to O3. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles and industrial
sources. Sources include motor vehicles,
electric utilities, and other sources that burn
fuel.

Particulate Matter
(PM10 & PM2.5)
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; asthma; chronic bronchitis; irregular
heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and
premature death in people with heart or lung
disease. Impairs visibility.

Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. In the presence of moisture and
oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid
which can damage marble, iron and steel.

Damages crops and natural vegetation. Impairs
visibility. Precursor to acid rain.

A colorless gas formed when fuel containing
sulfur is burned and when gasoline is extracted
from oil. Examples are petroleum refineries,
cement manufacturing, metal processing
facilities, locomotives, and ships.

Lead (Pb) Exposure to lead occurs mainly through
inhalation of air and ingestion of lead in food,
water, soil, or dust. It accumulates in the blood,
bones, and soft tissues and can adversely affect
the kidneys, liver, nervous system, and other
organs. Excessive exposure to lead may cause
neurological impairments such as seizures,
mental retardation, and behavioral disorders.

Even at low doses, lead exposure is associated
Lead is a metal found naturally in the
environment as well as in manufactured
products. The major sources of lead emissions
have historically been motor vehicles (such as
cars and trucks) and industrial sources. Due to
the phase out of leaded gasoline, metals
processing is the major source of lead emissions
to the air today. The highest levels of lead in air
are generally found near lead smelters. Other
875
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-4 4.3 | Air Quality
Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources
with damage to the nervous systems of fetuses
and young children, resulting in learning deficits
and lowered IQ.
stationary sources are waste incinerators,
utilities, and lead-acid battery manufacturers.

Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2023. Health Effects. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/criteria-pollutants. (accessed April 2023).

Notes:
1 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) are hydrocarbons/organic gases that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. There are several subsets of organic gases including ROGs and VOCs. Both ROGs and VOCs are emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. The major sources of hydrocarbons are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that can cause short‐term (acute) or long‐term (i.e., chronic, carcinogenic or cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes more than 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel‐fueled engines.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the state. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the Project are documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD, the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the Project that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Upland Monitoring Station (located approximately seven miles to the north). Local air quality data from 2019 to 2021 are provided in Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Data Standards for Criteria Pollutants, which lists the monitored 876
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-5 4.3 | Air Quality
maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of state or federal air quality standards for each year.

Table 4.3-2: Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Criteria Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
Ozone (O3)

1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.131 0.158 0.124
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.107 0.123 0.100
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 31 82 42
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 52 116 78
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.45 1.54 1.31
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.058 0.055 0.065
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM10)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 125.9 174.8 124.3 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State Annual Average Concentration (CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — — — Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) 0 1 0
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) — — —
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration — — —
State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 91.1 74.0 83.8
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) — — —
Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php).

Notes: NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = insufficient data available.

Measurements taken at the Upland Monitoring Station at 1350 San Bernardino Road, Upland CA, 91786 (CARB# 36175) Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population.

Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of toxic pollutants are of particular concern.

Land uses considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, 877
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-6 4.3 | Air Quality
long‐term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptors are the single-family residences located across the street from the Project site, along Euclid Avenue with other nearby residences located surrounding the Project site. The houses directly west of the Project along Euclid Avenue are the nearest receptors to Phase I, approximately 135 feet (41 meters) from the Phase I Project boundary. The nearest sensitive receptor from Phase II of the Project are the houses along Sultana Avenue to the east, approximately 110 feet (34 meters) from Phase II Project boundary.

Regulatory Setting
Ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been adopted at the state and federal levels for criteria air pollutants. In addition, both the state and federal government regulate the release of TACs. The proposed Project is in the SCAB and is subject to the rules and regulations imposed by the SCAQMD as well as the California AAQS (CAAQS) adopted by CARB and National AAQS (NAAQS) adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Federal, State, regional, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines that are potentially applicable to the proposed Project are summarized in this section.

Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the U.S. EPA developed the primary and secondary NAAQS for the criteria air pollutants including O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb). Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The U.S. EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the U.S. EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The U.S. EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.3-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Table 4.3-3: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Standard2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7 1 hour 0.09 ppm NA
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.030 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
878
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-7 4.3 | Air Quality
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard1 Federal Standard2 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10) 1, 3, 6 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 24 hours NA 35 µg/m3
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA* 1.5 µg/m3

0.15 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4) 24 hours 25 µg/m3 NA
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm NA
Vinyl Chloride 10 24 hour 0.01 ppm NA
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan. 2022. California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards. (accessed April 2023).

Notes: ppm: parts per million; μg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter 1 California standards for O3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard.
2 National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent threeyear period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour O3 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. 3 Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour O3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the O3 level in the area. 5 The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 7 The 8-hour California O3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective on May 17, 2006. 8 On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 9 In December 2012, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 to 12.0 μg/m3. In December 2014, the U.S. EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. The effective date of this standard is April 15, 2015. 10 CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.
11 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011 State of California
California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The CAAQS were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4.2-3, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of 879
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-8 4.3 | Air Quality
California. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a state standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for cities and counites within the SCAB, which generally includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that state and federal ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the AQMP, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources.

SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2022 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8-hour O3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

The SCAQMD has published the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (approved by the SCAQMD Governing Board in 1993 and augmented with guidance for Local Significance Thresholds [LST] in 2008). The SCAQMD guidance helps local government agencies and consultants to develop environmental documents required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provides identification of suggested thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants for both construction and operation (see discussion of thresholds below). With the help of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated guidance, local land use planners and consultants are able to analyze and document how proposed and existing projects affect air quality in order to meet the requirements of the CEQA review process. The SCAQMD periodically provides supplemental guidance and updates to the handbook on their website. 880
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-9 4.3 | Air Quality
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments.

The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.3-4:

Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8-hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining state and federal standards.

Table 4.3-4: Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal
Ozone – 1-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone – 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Nonattainment (Partial)
All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. (accessed April 2023).

The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
881
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-10 4.3 | Air Quality
c) All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
• Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels) – This rule limits the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. • Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - SCAQMD adopted Rule 2305 in May 2021 to reduce emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in SCAQMD.

Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses’ WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation.

WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation are required to pay a mitigation fee. This Project will comply with the adopted Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule).

Local
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Environmental Resources Element establishes goals for environmental infrastructure and policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, and energy independence. Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. Included in TOP 2050 is the Policy Plan, which is a framework that would guide the City’s future growth through the application of policies and goals. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to visual and scenic resources. The following goals of TOP 2050 relate to air quality.

The following policy contained in the Environmental Resources Element is relevant to the Project:
882
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-11 4.3 | Air Quality
Environmental Resources Element1
Goal ER-4 Improved indoor and outdoor air quality and reduced locally generated pollutant emissions.

Policy ER-4.1 Land Use. We will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other local pollutant emissions through compact, mixed use, and transit-oriented development and development that improves the regional jobs-housing balance.

Policy ER-4.4 Indoor Air Quality. We will comply with State Green Building Codes relative to indoor air quality. We seek funding to improve indoor air quality for households with poor indoor air quality, with priority for lower income households in environmental justice areas.

Policy ER-4.6 Particulate Matter. We support efforts to reduce particulate matter to meet State and Federal Clean Air Standards.

Policy ER-4.9 New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors. We require new developments to conduct a Health Risk Assessment for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day or 40 trucks per day by trucks operating transportation refrigeration units (TRU's) within 1,000 feet from sensitive land uses (California Health and Safety Code Section 42705.5(a)(5)). If the health risk assessment determines the new development poses health hazards that increase the incremental cancer risk above the threshold established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), we will only approve permits upon the condition that adequate mitigation measures are proposed and implemented for potential impacts on the sensitive uses around the site and along the route within Ontario taken by the trucks to and from freeways. We require new developments that must perform a health risk assessment to conduct additional public outreach by sending notifications in multiple languages to all residents living within 500 feet, and encourage hosting a public meeting.

Impact Thresholds and Significance Criteria
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • 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; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023). 883
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-12 4.3 | Air Quality
South Coast Air Quality Management District Thresholds
The significance criteria established by the SCAQMD may be relied upon to make the above determinations to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if the Project would violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during construction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4.3-5: SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds. SCAQMD’s significance threshold for cumulative impacts is the same for project-specific impacts.

Table 4.3-5: SCAQMD Emission Thresholds
Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase
Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs)/Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day
Particulates (PM2.5) 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2023. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25. (accessed April 2023).

Localized Carbon Monoxide
In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, development associated with the Project would also be subject to the AAQS. These are addressed through an analysis of localized CO impacts. The significance of localized impacts depends on whether ambient CO levels near the Project site above state and federal CO standards are (the more stringent California standards are 20 ppm for 1-hour and 9 ppm for 8-hour). The SCAB has been designated as attainment under the 1-hour and 8-hour standards.

Localized Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD has also developed LSTs for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent NAAQS or CAAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb five acres or less on a single day. The proposed Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of four acres in a single day, so the LST applies.

The Project site is located within SCAQMD SRA 33, Southwest San Bernardino Valley Area. Table 4.3-6:

Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations, shows the LSTs for a 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre project in SRA 33. The SCAQMD’s LST guidance notes that the 25-meter threshold applies to receptors 25 meters away or less. Because the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 50 feet (15 meters) from the Project boundary, the thresholds for 25 meters or less are identified in Table 4.3-6. 884
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-13 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-6 demonstrates that as the Project size increases, the thresholds for construction and operations emissions also increase.

Table 4.3-6: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Threshold (lbs/day)1
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOX)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulates
(PM10)
Fine
Particulates
(PM2.5)
1 Acre 118/118 863/863 5/2 4/1
2 Acres 170/170 1,232/1,232 6/2 5/2
5 Acres 270/270 2,193/2,193 16/4 9/2
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2008. Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. (accessed April 2023).

Health Risk
Whenever a project would use chemical compounds identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401, on CARB’s air toxics list pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, or on the U.S. EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, an HRA is required by the SCAQMD. Table 4.3-7: SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds, lists the SCAQMD’s TAC incremental risk thresholds for operation of a project. Projects that do not generate emissions that exceed the values in Table 4.3-7 would not substantially contribute to cumulative air quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard.

Table 4.3-7: SCAQMD Toxic Air Contaminants Incremental Risk Thresholds Contaminants Risk Threshold
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
Cancer Burden (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) > 0.5 excess cancer cases Hazard Index (project increment) ≥ 1.0
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2020. South Coast AQMD Public Notification Procedures for Facilities Under the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) and Rule 1402, Updated October 2020. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-facility-prioritizationprocedure.pdf?sfvrsn=26. (accessed April 2023).

Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 ), where a project will exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Projects that do not generate emissions that exceed the values in Table 4.3-7 would not substantially contribute to cumulative air quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard. Residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses (such as the hospital land uses) do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards. Thus, these thresholds are typically applied to new industrial and warehouse projects.

Methodology
This air quality impact analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod; see Appendix B1. CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with 885
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-14 4.3 | Air Quality
both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

Construction equipment, trucks, worker vehicles, and ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Although Project construction would be dependent on market conditions, daily regional construction emissions are estimated by assuming construction occurs at the earliest feasible date. It is assumed that construction would occur from late-2024 to late-2026. This approach is conservative given that emissions factors decrease in future years due to regulatory and technological improvements.

As previously stated in Section 3.0: Project Description, based upon information from the Project applicant, it is assumed an opening year of the Planning Areas 1, 2 (excluding the southwest section of the Project Area), the northwest portions of Planning Areas 3, 4 and 5 (Phase 1 of the Project) would be 2025.

The development would include 13 warehousing buildings totaling a maximum buildout of up to 1,000,595 square feet (sf) of business park and office use development. No specific development proposals have been identified for the remaining portions of Planning Areas 2 and 3 (Phase 2 of the Project), which would allow approximately 466 multi-family dwelling units, an additional 163,600 sf industrial warehouse, 10,250 sf retail space, and 20,000 sf of restaurant use. For purposes of this analysis, construction of Phase 1 of the Project is not anticipated to overlap with the construction of Phase 2 of the Project as there are still no proposals for this portion of the Project. The operations for buildout of the entire development is anticipated to begin in 2026. Air quality modeling was conservatively done based on this maximum buildout.

The Project would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products), energy sources (natural gas usage and offsite electricity generation), and mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project-generated vehicle trips). Project-generated increases in operational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. The Project vehicle trip generation was obtained from the Project’s Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I1: Traffic Analysis), which includes 7,938 total daily passenger car vehicle trips and 882 daily truck trips. Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data.

As discussed under Section 4.3.4: Impact Thresholds and Significant Criteria, the SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with proposed Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in order to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and Project-specific modeling. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 886
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-15 4.3 | Air Quality
Risk and hazard assessment for cancer risk and non-cancer hazards are based on OEHHA methodology.

Residential inhalation cancer risk from annual average DPM concentrations are calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation dose, cancer potency factor, age sensitivity factor (ASF), frequency of time spent at home, and exposure duration divided by averaging time, yielding the excess cancer risk. Chronic non-cancer impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the reference exposure level (REL) for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non‐ cancer health effects are anticipated. Acute non-cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short-term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population.

Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP AIR-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11). The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became Effective January 1, 2023. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen are updated triennially with a goal to achieve zero net energy for residential buildings and nonresidential buildings in the future.

PPP AIR-2 New buildings are required to adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirement to provide bicycle parking for new non-residential buildings, or meet local bicycle parking ordinances, whichever is stricter (CALGreen Section

5.106.4.1, 14.106.4.1, and Section 5.106.4.1.2).

PPP AIR-3 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2499, which requires that nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less.

PPP AIR-4 Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with any applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including but not limited to the following:
 Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance.  Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a project shall not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
 Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound content of architectural coatings.

PPP AIR-5 Heavy duty tractors and trailers (i.e., trucks that are 53-foot or longer) must use U.S.

EPA SmartWay certified tractors and trailers or retrofit their existing fleet with SmartWay verified technologies in accordance with CARB’s Heavy-Duty (TractorTrailer) GHG Regulation. Owners are responsible for replacing or retrofitting their affected vehicles with compliant aerodynamic technologies and low rolling resistance 887
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-16 4.3 | Air Quality
tires. Sleeper cab tractors model year 2011 and later must be SmartWay certified. All other tractors must use SmartWay verified low rolling resistance tires. Trailers must have low rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic devices.

PPP AIR-6 The medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicle engines are required to comply with the U.S. EPA’s GHG and fuel efficiency standards. The federal and California Phase 1 standards took effect with model year 2014 tractors, vocational vehicles, and heavyduty pick-up trucks and vans and the engines powering such vehicles (the Phase 1 standards excludes trailers). The federal Phase 2 standards cover model years 2018-2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021-2027 for semi-trucks and large pick-up trucks, vans and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. California is aligned with the federal Phase 2 standards in structure, timing, and stringency, but with some minor California differences. The California Phase 2 regulations became effective April 1, 2019.

PPP AIR-7 All existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in SCAQMD are required to track annual VMT associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouses’ WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures.

WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation are required to pay a mitigation fee.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 4.3-1 Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

The project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs (AQMPs). 888
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-17 4.3 | Air Quality
The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S. EPA. The AQMPs pollutant control strategies are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s RTP/SCS, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators:
• 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. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of the Project build-out phase.

According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with CAAQS and NAAQS. Consistency with both Criterion No. 1 and Criterion No. 2 would result in a less than significant impact.

Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to CAAQS and NAAQS emission standards. If the Project does not exceed emission standards it would not contribute to an existing air quality violation. Consistency Criterion No. 2 refers to AQMP emission assumptions based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. If the Project proposes land uses consistent with SCAG’s growth forecast or land uses that would generate less emissions than those identified in SCAG’s growth forecast, then the Project would not exceed the AQMP assumptions.

Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Consistency Criterion No. 1
As shown in Table 4.3-8: Construction-Related Emissions, the Project (Phase I) would not exceed construction emission standards with MM AQ-1. As shown in Table 4.3-10 (Phase II) would not exceed construction emissions standards with MM AQ-1. However, the combined Project (Phase I and Phase II) operational emissions would exceed the operational standard for ROG and NOX despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation, as shown in Table 4.3-12: Project Buildout – Total Maximum Daily Operational Emissions. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-7 are included to reduce operation emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, even with mitigation, operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD threshold. Therefore, the Project would potentially contribute to an existing air quality violation. Thus, the Project is not consistent with the first criterion.

Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Consistency Criterion No. 2
889
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-18 4.3 | Air Quality
The AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would not result in a change of land use designations reflected in the AQMP. Therefore, the Project is assumed to generate emissions reflected within the current 2022 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the SCAB and is considered to be consistent with the AQMP.

The Project’s operational emissions would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s operational emission thresholds. Although feasible mitigation would reduce emissions levels they would remain significant and would contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SCAB. Therefore, the Project would be inconsistent with the AQMP, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation.

In addition, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 (refer to SCAQMD under Section 3.4: Regulatory Setting) the Project operator would be required to pay a mitigation fee if the Project does not generate enough WAIRE Points. The Project operator may be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions. Compliance with proposed Rule 2305 may reduce emissions below what is currently analyzed.

Mitigation Measures
Refer to MM AQ-1 through AQ-7 (refer to Impact Threshold 4.3-2, below).

Impact 4.3-2 Would the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? [Threshold AQ-2] Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern within the Project area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site grading, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water.

Operational emissions from the Project would be associated with area sources, energy sources, mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicle use), and off-road emissions cargo handling equipment. Emissions from these categories are discussed below.
• Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping. 890
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-19 4.3 | Air Quality
• Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated due to electricity and natural gas usage associated with the Project. Primary uses of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. • Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern. NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Analysis and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Traffic Analysis, the Project would generate 8,820 daily trips at buildout, which includes 7,938 passenger cars and 882 trucks. For modeling purposes, all truck trips were assumed to be 33.2 miles, one way.
• Off-Road Emissions. Operational off-road emissions would be generated by off-road equipment used during operational activities. For this Project it was assumed that the Project buildout would employ 23 forklifts based on surveys conducted for the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper. This paper found that on average, warehouses would employ 0.12 pallet jacks and forklifts per thousand square feet of warehouse area. However, because this number includes unpowered pallet jacks which do not generate emissions, the number of forklifts was estimated to be 0.02 forklifts per thousand square feet of warehouse area.

Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction
Construction activities associated with Phase I of the Project are estimated to be completed within approximately 18 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. Phase 1 of the Project would require demolition (2023), site preparation (2023), grading (2023 - 2024), paving (2024), and building construction (2024 - 2025). Typical construction equipment assumed by CalEEMod include industrial saws, excavators, and dozers for demolition; dozers and tractors for site preparation; excavators, graders, dozers, scrapers and tractors for grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders for construction; pavers, paving equipment, and rollers for paving. See Appendix B1 for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily constructiongenerated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.3-8: Phase I - Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions.
891
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-20 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-8: Phase I – Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Construction Year
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Reactive
Organic Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2023 4.04 39.80 37.10 0.06 7.14 4.34
Year 2024 9.43 62.60 85.90 0.14 12.30 4.99
Year 2025 3.20 17.90 48.80 0.06 7.40 2.15
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-8. MM AQ-1 requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. MM AQ-8 requires off-road equipment 50 horsepower or greater to meet CARB Tier 4 Final standards. MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-8 are not required to reduce construction related criteria pollutants for Phase I. Therefore, the emission reductions have not been included in Table 4.3-8 for informational purposes.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Regulatory Requirement (RR) AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. While impacts would be considered less than significant, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules for reducing fugitive dust, described in the Regulatory Framework subsection above and identified in Standard Condition (SC) AQ-1 below.

Table 4.3-8 shows that unmitigated construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions related to Phase I of the Project would be less than significant.

Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.3-9: Phase I – Maximum Daily Operation Emissions. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.
• Area Source Emissions and Energy Source Emissions. Area source emissions and energy source emissions are based on land use and the area of the buildings. Phase I air quality modeling is based on 809,217 square feet of unrefrigerated warehouse (see Mitigation Measure MM AQ-7), 191,378 square feet of industrial business park, and approximately 1,568,160 square feet of trailer parking and parking lot.
• Mobile Source Emissions. Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix I) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Traffic Impact Analysis, Phase I of the Project 892
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-21 4.3 | Air Quality
would generate a total of 2,267 daily trips; 1,484 passenger vehicle trips from employees and 783 trips from trucks (2-axle, 3-axle, and 4+ axle delivery trucks) (Appendix I). • Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Modeling assumed 20 forklifts, each operating twelve hours per day loading and unloading goods. Off-road emissions also include four hostler/yard truck, each operating twelve hours per day moving trailers.

Table 4.3-9: Phase I - Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Sources Pollutants (pounds per day)1
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Area 31.30 0.37 43.5 0.00 0.06 0.08
Energy 0.30 5.54 4.66 0.03 0.42 0.42
Mobile 7.06 73.71 99.00 0.77 17.98 4.67
Off-Road Equipment 6.44 46.39 404.50 0.10 1.60 1.43
Generators 23.63 65.97 60.19 0.11 3.47 3.47
Maximum Daily Emissions 68.73 191.98 611.85 1.01 23.53 10.07 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Area 28.90 0.37 43.5 0.00 0.06 0.08
Energy 0.30 5.54 4.66 0.03 0.42 0.42
Mobile 7.06 73.71 99.00 0.77 17.98 4.67
Off-Road Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Generators 23.63 65.97 60.19 0.11 3.47 3.47
Maximum Daily Emissions 59.89 145.59 207.35 0.91 21.93 8.64 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. Based on trip generation information provided by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I).

Notes: Highest winter or summer. Emissions totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Bold = Exceedance.

As noted above, Table 4.2-9 shows that unmitigated Phase I operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for ROGs, NOX, and CO, and mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The majority of the Project’s VOC emissions are from consumer products. For analytical purposes, consumer products include cleaning supplies, aerosols, and other consumer products.
2 The Project could require limitations on the use of VOC emitting products through lease or property agreements. However, this mitigation is not feasible as it would be it would be difficult to enforce. As such, the Project Applicant cannot meaningfully control the use of consumer products by future building users via mitigation. On this basis, it is concluded that Project operationalsource VOC emissions cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold.

The majority of the Project’s NOX emissions are from mobile sources. MM AQ-3 and MM AQ-4, within the control of the City to enforce, would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards and neither the City 2 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide, 2017. 893
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-22 4.3 | Air Quality
nor the Project has control over these standards. Federal and State agencies regulate and enforce vehicle emission standards.

Further, the City while the City has considered a prohibition on trucks with certain emissions-levels from entering the property that are otherwise permitted to operate in California and access other properties in the City, region, and State, but has rejected such a mitigation measure as infeasible. This because, even if the City were to apply such a restriction, a) it could not legally bar vehicles from driving down public streets to the Project and b) would cause warehouse operators using older truck fleets to travel to other facilities in the SCAB where the restriction does not apply, thereby resulting in no improvement to regional air quality. Based on data from CARB, most heavy‐duty trucks entering the Project site would meet or exceed 2010 model year emission standards when Phase I becomes fully operational in 2025, as all trucks are required to meet or exceed such standards by 2023. Specifically, according to CARB EMFAC inventories, approximately 50 percent of all instate heavy‐duty trucks met the 2010 engine standard in 2019, 59 percent in 2020, and 62 percent in 2021. Additionally, 65 percent and 90 percent of trucks are projected to meet the 2010 engine standard in 2022 and 2023 respectively.3 Finally, CARB is addressing emissions from heavy duty vehicles through various regulatory programs including lower emission standards, restrictions on idling, the use of post‐combustion filter and catalyst equipment, and retrofits for diesel truck fleets. These programs are expected to result in significant reductions in ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO emissions as they are fully implemented in the future, however this EIR, conservatively, does not assume any of these reductions will occur.

MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-7 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric.

MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, and MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ-11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Table 4.3-9 shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7, operational emissions of ROG and NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction
The duration of construction activities associated with Phase II of the Project were modeled to last approximately 18 months. The exact construction timeline is unknown; however, to be conservative, earliest dates possible were utilized in the modeling (assumed June 2, 2025. This approach is conservative given that emissions factors decrease in future years due to regulatory and technological improvements and fleet turnover. Construction-generated emissions associated the Project were calculated using the 3 California Air Resources Board. 2017. EMFAC2017, An Update to California On-Road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools-emfac-software-and. (accessed April 2023).
894
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-23 4.3 | Air Quality
CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Appendix B1 for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.3-10: Phase II – Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions.

Table 4.3-10: Phase II - Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Construction Year Pollutants (pounds per day)1, 2
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Year 2025 3.39 31.70 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40
Year 2026 206 14.50 44.4 0.04 6.55 1.85
Maximum Daily Emissions 206 31.70 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40 SCAQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Year 2025 3.39 31.70 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40
Year 2026 31.90 14.50 44.40 0.04 6.55 1.85
Maximum Daily Emissions 31.90 14.50 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40 SCAQMD Regional Construction Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2022.1
Notes: Emissions totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Bold = Exceedance 1 Construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by SCAQMD of construction equipment.
2 Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures required by SCAQMD under Rule 403 (SC AQ-1), including watering disturbed areas three times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and street sweeping.

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. RR AQ-1 requires the implementation of Rule 402 and 403 dust control techniques to minimize PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.

As shown in Table 4.3-10, unmitigated Phase II construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for the ozone precursor VOC. The majority of these emissions are generated during the architectural coatings phase of construction which use VOC emitting paints. The VOC exceedance occurs during the painting phase of construction. Low VOC paint must be used during the painting phase to reduce impacts. MM AQ-1 is required to reduce maximum daily VOC emissions below the SCAQMD threshold. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. Implementation of MM AQ-1 will reduce Phase II construction impacts to less than significant. 895
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-24 4.3 | Air Quality
Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.3-11: Phase II – Maximum Daily Operation Emissions. Primary sources of operational criteria pollutants are from motor vehicle use and area sources.
• Area Source Emissions and Energy Source Emissions. Area source emissions and energy source emissions are based on land use and the area of the buildings. Phase II air quality modeling is based on 466 dwelling unit apartments, 163,600 square feet of unrefrigerated warehouse, 10,225 square feet of strip mall, 10,000 square foot of Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru, 10,000 square foot of Fast Food Restaurant without Drive Thru, and 487,872 square feet of parking lot. • Mobile Source Emissions. Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on default CalEEMod assumptions for all land uses apart from the unrefrigerated warehouse. Per the Project Traffic Analysis, all land uses apart from the unrefrigerated warehouse in Phase II of the Project would generate a total of 6,272 daily trips. The unrefrigerated warehouse would generate 181 daily passenger vehicle trips and 99 daily truck trips.

Off-Road Equipment Emissions. Modeling for Phase II of the Project assumed three forklifts, each operating twelve hours per day loading and unloading goods. Off-road emissions also include one hostler/yard truck operating twelve hours per day moving trailers.

Table 4.3-11: Phase II - Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Sources Pollutants (pounds per day)1
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Area 16.50 0.32 34.90 0.00 0.02 0.03
Energy 0.16 2.76 1.78 0.05 0.22 0.22
Mobile 23.95 30.72 219.49 0.63 21.30 4.25
Off-Road Equipment 1.41 9.68 98.19 0.02 0.31 0.27
Maximum Daily Emissions 42.02 43.48 354.36 0.70 21.85 4.77 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Area 16.50 0.32 34.90 0.00 0.02 0.03
Energy 0.16 2.76 1.78 0.05 0.22 0.22
Mobile 23.95 30.72 219.49 0.63 21.30 4.25
Off-Road Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Maximum Daily Emissions 40.61 33.80 256.17 0.68 21.54 4.50 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. Based on trip generation information provided by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I).

Notes: Highest winter or summer. Emissions totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Bold = Exceedance.

As noted above, Table 4.3-11 shows that Phase II unmitigated operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-7 have been identified to reduce operational emissions for Phase I of the Project and would also be implemented for Phase II of the Project. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 896
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-25 4.3 | Air Quality
program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use, and MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices.

MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ-11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Table 4.3-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that with the mitigation, emissions related Phase II of the project would be further below SCAQMD thresholds; therefore, Phase II operational impacts would be less than significant.

Project Buildout (Phase I + Phase II)
Operations
Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total Project are summarized in Table 4.3-12: Project Buildout (Phase I and Phase II) – Maximum Daily Operation Emissions. • Area Source Emissions and Energy Source Emissions. Area source emissions and energy source emissions are based on land use and the area of the buildings. Project buildout (Phase I and Phase II) air quality modeling is based on a total of 191,378 square feet of business park, 972,817 square feet of unrefrigerated warehouse, 10,225 square feet of strip mall, 10,000 square feet of Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru, 10,000 square feet of Fast Food Restaurant without Drive Thru, 466 Apartments, and 2,047,320 square feet of trailer parking and parking lot (see Appendix I). • Mobile Source Emissions. Total combined project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Project Traffic Impact Analysis and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. Per the Project Traffic Analysis (see Appendix I), at Project buildout the entire Project would generate a total of 8,820 daily trips (10 percent trucks). • Off-Road Equipment Emissions. The entire Project would employ a total of 23 forklifts (20 for Phase I and 3 for Phase II), each operating twelve hours per day and 5 hostlers/yard trucks (4 for Phase I and 1 for Phase II), each operating twelve hours per day.

Table 4.3-12: Project Buildout – Total Maximum Daily Operation Emissions Sources Pollutants (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions for Phase I Only 68.73 191.98 611.85 1.01 23.53 10.07 Maximum Daily Emissions for Phase II Only 42.02 43.48 354.36 0.70 21.85 4.77 Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase I + Phase II) 110.75 235.46 966.21 1.71 45.38 14.84 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions for Phase I Only 59.89 145.59 207.35 0.91 21.93 8.64 Maximum Daily Emissions for Phase II Only 40.61 33.80 256.17 0.68 21.54 4.50 Total Maximum Daily Emissions
(Phase I + Phase II) 100.50 179.39 463.52 1.59 43.47 13.14 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes No No No No
897
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-26 4.3 | Air Quality
Sources Pollutants (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Source: CalEEMod, Version 2022.1. Based on trip generation information provided by Urban Crossroads (Appendix I).

Notes: Highest winter or summer. Emissions totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Bold = Exceedance.

As indicated in Table 4.3-12, total operation emissions for Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC and NOX. As mentioned previously, the majority of the Project’s VOC emissions are from consumer products and cannot be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold with mitigation. Even with the implementation of lease or property agreements, enforceability of the mitigation would not be feasible. The majority of NOX emissions are from mobile sources. MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-7 have been identified to reduce operational emissions. MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure, MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use, and MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices. MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. Additionally, SC AQ-9 through SC AQ-11 would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, facilitate future installation of EV supply equipment, and limit idling times. Table 4.3-10: Mitigated Operational Emissions shows that despite the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-7, operational emissions of NOx would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Conclusion
As shown in Table 4.3-8, Table 4.3-9, Table 4.3-10, Table 4.3-11, and Table 4.3-12; construction and operation of the Project would result in air pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD’s emission thresholds. The implementation of SC AQ-1 and MMs AQ-1 through AQ-7 would reduce Project emissions by the greatest amount feasible; however, operation related Project emissions would remain significant and would potentially contribute to the O3, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment designations of the SCAB.

Therefore, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact.

In addition, SCAQMD Rule 2305 requires the Project operator to directly reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions or to otherwise facilitate emission and exposure reductions of these pollutants in nearby communities. Alternatively, warehouse operators can choose to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee would be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Warehouse owners and operators are required to earn WAIRE points each year. WAIRE points are a menubased system earned by emission reduction measures. Warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. WAIRE points can be earned by completing actions from a menu that can include acquiring and using natural gas, NZE and/or ZE on-road trucks, zero-emission cargo handling equipment, solar panels or zero-emission charging and fueling infrastructure, or other options. Therefore, the Project operator would be required to implement additional emission reduction strategies. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 would reduce emissions 898
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-27 4.3 | Air Quality
below what is currently analyzed. Conservatively, this analysis does not take credit for these potential reductions.

Regulatory Requirements
RR AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
 All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
 All material transported off-site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
 Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

RR AQ-2 Pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 1113, the Project Applicant shall require by contract specifications that the interior and exterior architectural coatings (paint and primer including parking lot paint) products used would have a volatile organic compound rating of 50 grams per liter or less.

RR AQ-3 Require construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

RR AQ-4 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

RR AQ-5 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Landscape Development Guidelines.

RR AQ-6 Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11. 899
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-28 4.3 | Air Quality
RR AQ-7 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

RR AQ-8 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

RR AQ-9 Provide designated parking for any combination of low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/vanpool vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking spaces are required to be designated in accordance with Section 5.106.5.2, Designated Parking for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

RR AQ-10 Provide at least six percent of the total parking spaces to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment in accordance with Section 5.106.5.3.2, Multiple Charging Space Requirements, of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

RR AQ-11 Limit idling time for commercial vehicles to no more than five minutes per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 The Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits(i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.

Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Ontario Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans specify that all architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.

MM AQ-2 Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized onsite for daily warehouse and business operations. The Project developer/facility owner shall disclose this requirement to all tenants/business entities prior to the signing of any lease agreement. In addition, the limitation to use only electric-powered off-road equipment shall be included in all leasing agreements.

Prior to issuance of a Business License for a new tenant/business entity, the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entity shall provide to the City of Ontario Planning Department and Business License Department a signed document (verification document) noting that the Project development/facility owner has disclosed to the tenant/business entity the requirement to use only electric-powered equipment for daily operations. This verification document shall be signed by authorized agents for the Project developer/facility owner and tenant/business entities. In addition, if applicable, the tenant/business entity shall provide documentation (e.g., purchase or rental agreement) to the City of Ontario Planning 900
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-29 4.3 | Air Quality
Department and Business License Department to verify, to the City’s satisfaction, that any off-road equipment utilized will be electric-powered.

Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario Building Department shall confirm that if emergency generators are proposed, the Project applicant shall explore non-diesel options. If non-diesel generators are determined to not be feasible due commercial availability or the energy requirements of the project, the Project applicant shall provide written justification to be approved by the City’s Building Department.

MM AQ-3 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include, but is not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options;
 Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the Project site;  Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day;
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service; and  Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.

MM AQ-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
 The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.

MM AQ-5 All truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that states:
 Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. 901
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-30 4.3 | Air Quality
 Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.
 Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
 Truck travel is restricted to truck routes identified in Figure M-04 of the Mobility Element in TOP 2050.

In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.

MM AQ-6 The installation of wood-burning and natural gas equipment shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, CO, particulate matter, and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas devices used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

MM AQ-7 The installation of cold storage logistics (warehouse) space is prohibited. Should cold storage logistics (warehouse) space be considered in the future, a separate discretionary approval would be required.

Impact 4.3-3 Would the proposed project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Specific Plan – Phase I
Construction LST
To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction.

LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with Project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, equipment-specific grading rates are used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. Based on CalEEMod modeling, construction of Phase I and Phase II would use the same number of and types of equipment, therefore Table 4.3-13: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates, is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Southwest San Bernardino Valley Area (SRA 33) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Based on Table 4.3-13, Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4.0 acres in a single day.
902
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-31 4.3 | Air Quality
Table 4.3-13: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1.0 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Sources: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.

The SCAQMD produced look-up tables to provide thresholds for projects based on area disturbed and the distance from sensitive receptors.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “onsite” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to Phase I is a single-family residence located 135 feet (41 meters) west of the Project. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 39 meters were interpolated and utilized for this analysis. Table 4.3-14: Phase I –Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. In addition, construction and paving emissions were combined since these phases are anticipated to overlap.

Because LST emissions do not include VOCs, construction MM AQ-1 was not included when calculating construction LST. Table 4.3-14 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.

Table 4.3-14: Phase I — Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition1 27.30 23.50 3.71 1.48
Site Preparation 39.70 35.50 6.92 4.29
Grading 37.30 31.40 3.98 2.42
Building Construction 11.20 13.10 0.50 0.46
Paving 7.81 10.00 0.39 0.36
Building Construction and Paving Combined2 19.01 23.10 0.89 0.82 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 41 meters) 257 2,345 30 10
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Includes particulate matter from crushing debris, EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2. Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.

2. Building Construction and Paving overlap. Therefore, construction emissions are combined to show worst case daily emissions.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.

Operational LST
Operational emissions are based on CalEEMod operational outputs and conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources, and on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and hostler/yard trucks). In addition, a portion of mobile sources are included to capture on-site vehicle emissions including idling trucks. Based on Project site plans, it was assumed that each vehicle would drive a maximum of one mile 903
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-32 4.3 | Air Quality
on-site (0.5 miles when entering and 0.5 miles when leaving), for a total of 2,548 miles driven on site. In CalEEMod, each passenger car is assumed to drive 25 miles and each truck is assumed to drive 33.2 miles for a total of 70,932 daily miles. Because 2,548 on-site miles is 3.6 percent of the total 70,932 daily miles, on-site mobile emissions are assumed to be four percent of the total mobile emissions. The Phase I operational localized emissions shown in Table 4.3-15: Phase I – Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, indicates that Phase I mitigated emissions would not exceed thresholds with the exception of PM2.5.

Table 4.3-15: Phase I — Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Unmitigated Emissions
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 121.22 546.01 6.27 5.59 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 39 meters) 257 2,345 7 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No Yes
Mitigated Emissions
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1,2 74.83 141.51 4.67 4.16 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 41 meters) 257 2,345 7 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No Yes

1. Includes all on-site and four percent of mobile source emissions.

2. Includes MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1 Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.

As shown above, Phase I operational emissions generated on-site by the Project would exceed the threshold for PM2.5. Therefore, PM2.5 dispersion modeling has been conducted to determine if Project Phase I operations would result in significant PM2.5 concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with SCAQMD LST methodology. Localized PM2.5 construction emissions were estimated using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model to determine the worst-case PM2.5 concentrations (see Appendix B3 for LST modeling results). AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Table 4.3-16 shows on-site operational PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 24-hour average PM2.5 operational standard.4 Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant localized operational impact.

Table 4.3-16: Phase I — Operational Dispersion Modeling Emissions Source PM2.5 (24-hour) (μg/m3)
Phase I Mitigated Operations 0.003
Threshold1 2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No

1. The PM2.5 threshold is from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. The PM2.5 threshold is an incremental threshold; therefore, the incremental concentration without background is compared to the threshold. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. 904
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-33 4.3 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
In December 2018, in the case of Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, California Supreme Court held that an EIR’s air quality analysis must meaningfully connect the identified air quality impacts to the human health consequences of those impacts, or meaningfully explain why that analysis cannot be provided. As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in the Friant Ranch case (April 6, 2015, Appendix 10.1), SCAQMD has among the most sophisticated air quality modeling and health impact evaluation capability of any of the air districts in the State, and thus it is uniquely situated to express an opinion on how lead agencies should correlate air quality impacts with specific health outcomes.

The SCAQMD discusses that it may be infeasible to quantify health risks caused by projects similar to the proposed Project, due to many factors. It is necessary to have data regarding the sources and types of air toxic contaminants, location of emission points, velocity of emissions, the meteorology and topography of the area, and the location of receptors (worker and residence). The Brief states that it may not be feasible to perform a health risk assessment for airborne toxics that will be emitted by a generic industrial building that was built on “speculation” (i.e., without knowing the future tenant[s]). Even where a health risk assessment can be prepared, however, the resulting maximum health risk value is only a calculation of risk—it does not necessarily mean anyone will contract cancer as a result of the Project. The Brief also cites the author of the CARB methodology, which reported that a PM2.5 methodology is not suited for small projects and may yield unreliable results. Similarly, SCAQMD staff does not currently know of a way to accurately quantify O3-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects, due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. The Brief concludes, with respect to the Friant Ranch EIR, that although it may have been technically possible to plug the data into a methodology, the results would not have been reliable or meaningful.

The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme O3 nonattainment areassuch as the SCAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The NSR Program5 was created by the FCAA to ensure that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with attainment of health-based NAAQS. The NAAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

NOX and ROG are precursor emissions that form O3 in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight where the pollutants undergo complex chemical reactions. It takes time and the influence of meteorological conditions for these reactions to occur, so O3 may be formed at a distance downwind from the sources.

Breathing ground-level O3 can result in health effects that include reduced lung function, inflammation of airways, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In addition to these effects, evidence from observational studies strongly indicates that higher daily O3 concentrations are associated with increased asthma 5 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e. PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non-attainment NSR (40 CFR 52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S)
905
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-34 4.3 | Air Quality
attacks, increased hospital admissions, increased daily mortality, and other markers of morbidity. The consistency and coherence of the evidence for effects upon asthmatics suggests that O3 can make asthma symptoms worse and can increase sensitivity to asthma triggers.

According to the SCAQMD’s 2022 AQMP, O3, NOX, and ROG have been decreasing in the SCAB since 1975 and are projected to continue to decrease in the future. Although VMT in the SCAB continue to increase, NOX and ROG levels are decreasing because of the mandated controls on motor vehicles and the replacement of older polluting vehicles with lower-emitting vehicles. NOX emissions from electric utilities have also decreased due to the use of cleaner fuels and renewable energy. In addition, since NOX emissions also lead to the formation of PM2.5, the NOX reductions needed to meet the O3 standards will likewise lead to the improvement of PM2.5 levels and attainment of PM2.5 standards.

The SCAQMD’s air quality modeling demonstrates that NOX reductions prove to be much more effective in reducing O3 levels than VOCs and will also lead to significant improvement in PM2.5 concentrations. NOXemitting stationary sources regulated by the SCAQMD include Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants, etc.), natural gas combustion equipment (e.g., boilers, heaters, engines, burners, flares), and other combustion sources that burn wood or propane. The 2016 AQMP identifies robust NOX reductions from new regulations on RECLAIM facilities, non-refinery flares, commercial cooking, and residential and commercial appliances. Such combustion sources are already heavily regulated with the lowest NOX emissions levels achievable but there are opportunities to require and accelerate replacement with cleaner ZE alternatives, such as residential and commercial furnaces, pool heaters, and backup power equipment. The AQMD plans to achieve such replacements through a combination of regulations and incentives. Technology-forcing regulations can drive development and commercialization of clean technologies, with future year requirements for new or existing equipment.

Incentives can then accelerate deployment and enhance public acceptability of new technologies.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for the Project would be less than significant with mitigation (refer to Table 4.3-14 through Table 4.3-16). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The AAQS establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to O3 and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Setting section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Ozone concentrations are dependent upon a variety of complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level O3 concentrations in relation to the NAAQS and CAAQS, none of the health-related information can be 906
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-35 4.3 | Air Quality
directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project.

It should also be noted that this analysis identifies health concerns related to particulate matter, CO, O3, and NO2. Table 4.3-1 includes a list of criteria pollutants and summarizes common sources and effects.

Thus, this analysis is reasonable and intended to foster informed decision making.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addressed CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 2,267 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Phase I of the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
Project construction would result in the generation of DPM emissions from the use of required off-road diesel equipment required. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer.

The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has not identified short-term health effects from DPM. Construction is temporary and would be transient throughout the site (i.e., move from location to location) and would not generate emissions in a fixed 907
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-36 4.3 | Air Quality
location for extended periods of time which would limit the exposure of any proximate individual sensitive receptor to TACs.

Additionally, construction is subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., Title 13, CCR, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use off-road dieselfueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes.

These regulations would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions.

An HRA was conducted based on the SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis and the SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures and the guidance from OEHHA. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.

PM10 construction emissions rates in grams per second were calculated from the total annual on-site exhaust emissions reported in CalEEMod during construction. Maximum (worst case) PM10 exhaust construction emissions over the entire construction period were used in AERMOD, a U.S. EPA‐approved dispersion model, to approximate construction DPM emissions. Risk levels were calculated based on the California OEHHA guidance document, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (February 2015). SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is 10-in-one-million and the acute or chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

The construction phase HRA was conducted for the Phase I (see Appendix B2 for HRA modeling results).

Results of the assessment indicate that the highest unmitigated cancer risk would be 12-in-one-million near the residence at the southeast corner of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue, which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million. Therefore, MM AQ-8, requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required to reduce the cancer risk. With MM AQ-8 the cancer risk would be reduced to 1- in-one-million which is below the SCAQMD threshold of 10-in-one-million. With the implementation of MM AQ-8 non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.0006. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
An operational phase HRA was also conducted for this Project. Analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the warehouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors.
908
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-37 4.3 | Air Quality
Vehicle DPM emissions were estimated using PM10 emission factors generated with CARB’s On-Road Motor Vehicle Emission Inventory Model (EMFAC) 2021. EMFAC is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on‐road mobile sources. EMFAC incorporates regional motor vehicle data, information and estimates regarding the distribution of VMT by speed, and number of starts per day.

For this Project, annual average tailpipe PM10 emission factors were generated by running EMFAC for vehicles in the SCAQMD within the South Coast portion of San Bernardino County. EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed, temperature, and relative humidity. Truck emissions were based on the first possible year of operations for a fleet mix of various aged vehicles, as opposed to average emissions over a 30-year window. Trucks were assumed to travel at a speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) along Schaefer Avenue, Edison Avenue, Sultana Avenue, and Euclid Avenue and 15 mph for on-site truck travel.

Air dispersion modeling was performed using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sourcessituated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Uniform Cartesian receptors were used to evaluate the locations of the maximally exposed sensitive receptors. Surface and upper air meteorological data from the Chino Airport Monitoring Station provided by the SCAQMD was selected as being the most representative meteorology. In addition, National Elevation Dataset (NED) terrain data was imported into AERMOD for the Project. The modeling and analysis were prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD.6 Idling emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along each loading dock and 15 minutes of idling7 for each truck was assumed. Truck travel emissions were represented in the model via line volume sources along local roads and inside the facility where the trucks are expected to travel.

Trucking routes were determined per the Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I1) conducted for the proposed Project.

Note that the concentration estimate developed using this methodology is conservative and is not a specific prediction of the actual concentrations that would occur at the Project site at any one point in time. Actual one-hour and annual average concentrations are dependent on many variables, particularly the number and type of vehicles and equipment operating at specific distances during time periods of adverse meteorology.
6 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2023. SCAQMD Modeling Guidance for AERMOD. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/airquality/meteorological-data/modeling-guidance. (accessed March 2023). 7 An idling time of 15 minutes per truck has been used per SCAQMD recommendations. Although the Project is required to comply with CARB’s idling limit of 5 minutes, the SCAQMD recommends the on-site idling emissions should be estimated for 15 minutes of truck idling, which would take into account on-site idling that occurs while the trucks are waiting to pull up to the truck bays, idling at the bays, idling at check-in and check-out, etc.
909
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-38 4.3 | Air Quality
A health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 30‐year exposure scenario using CARB’s Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). Health risks were analyzed at the point of maximum impact and are a conservative estimate. The pollutant concentrations are then used to estimate the long-term cancer health risk to an individual as well as the non-cancer chronic health index. SCAQMD’s threshold for cancer risk is ten-in-one-million and the chronic noncancer hazard index is one. Projects that do not exceed these thresholds would not result in a significant impact.

The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM10 (used as a proxy for DPM). It should be noted that there is no acute reference exposure level (REL) for DPM and acute health risk cannot be calculated. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the U.S. EPA Human Health Evaluation Manual (1991) and the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015).

Based on the AERMOD outputs, the highest unmitigated annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations from diesel truck traffic and offroad diesel equipment near sensitive receptors located near the northeast corner of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue would be 0.1426 µg/m3 . The
calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from Phase I operations at off-site sensitive receptors is 80 per million, which exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. The highest unmitigated concentrations at future on-site sensitive receptors would be 0.1076 µg/m3 , with a carcinogenic risk of 60
in one million. Therefore, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7are required to reduce impacts.

Implementation of operational mitigation measures reduces the diesel exhaust PM10 concentrations at the northeast corner of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue to 0.0010 µg/m3 . As such, the mitigated
carcinogenic risk at the northeast corner of Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue would be reduced to

0.57 in one million. Sensitive receptors located near the southeast corner of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue would be exposed to the highest mitigated PM10 concentrations of 0.0018 µg/m3 , with a mitigated
carcinogenic risk of 1.01 in one million. Future on-site sensitive receptors would be exposed to mitigated concentrations of 0.021 µg/m3
, with a carcinogenic risk of 0.57 in one million. Impacts would be less than significant.

Chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA. A chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the chronic exposure by the REL. After incorporating operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7, the highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Phase I operations would be 0.0004 at the southeast corner of Edison Avenue and Sultana Avenue and 0.0002 at future on-site sensitive receptors. As a result, non‐carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Specific Plan – Phase II Future Development Areas
Construction LST
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on910 City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-39 4.3 | Air Quality
site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptors to Phase II is a single-family residence located 110 feet (33 meters) east of the Project. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at 33 meters were utilized for this analysis. Table 4.3-17: Phase II – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase.

Because LST emissions do not include VOCs, MM AQ-1 was not included when calculating construction LST. Table 4.3-17 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors. Significant impacts would not occur concerning LSTs during construction.

Table 4.3-17: Phase II – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition1 22.20 19.90 0.92 0.84
Site Preparation 31.60 60.20 21.07 11.36
Grading 29.70 28.30 10.43 4.79
Building Construction 10.40 13.00 0.43 0.40
Paving 7.12 9.94 0.32 0.29
Architectural Coating 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02
SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4.0 acres at 33 meters) 247 2,109 21 9
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Includes particulate matter from crushing debris, EPA AP-42 Section 11.19.2 Refer to Appendix B1 for Model Data Outputs.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs.

Operational LST
Operational emissions are based on CalEEMod operational outputs and conservatively includes all on-site Project-related stationary sources, on-site off-road equipment (forklifts and hostler/yard trucks. Similar to Phase I, a portion of mobile sources are included to capture on-site vehicle emissions including idling trucks. Based on Project site plans, it was assumed that each vehicle would drive a maximum of one mile on-site (0.5 miles when entering and 0.5 miles when leaving), for a total of 6,605 miles driven on site. In CalEEMod, each passenger car is assumed to drive 25 miles and each truck is assumed to drive 33.2 miles for a total of 163,679 daily miles. Because 6,605 on-site miles is 4.0 percent of the total 163,679 daily miles, on-site mobile emissions are assumed to be four percent of the total mobile emissions. The Phase II operational localized emissions shown in Table 4.3-18: Phase II – Unmitigated Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, indicates that Phase II unmitigated emissions would not exceed thresholds.

Therefore, the Phase II operations would result in a less than significant localized operational impact.

Table 4.3-18: Phase II – Unmitigated Localized On-Site Operational Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site and Mobile Source Emissions1 13.99 134.65 1.40 0.69 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(adjusted for 4 acres at 33 meters) 247 2,109 5 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No

1. Includes all on-site and four percent of mobile source emissions.

Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1 Refer to Appendix B1 for model outputs. 911
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-40 4.3 | Air Quality
Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors for Phase II would be less than significant (refer to Table 4.3-17 and Table 4.3-18). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. However, as discussed above, neither the SCAQMD nor any other air district currently have methodologies that would provide Lead Agencies and CEQA practitioners with a consistent, reliable, and meaningful analysis to correlate specific health impacts that may result from a proposed project’s mass emissions. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized above and discussed in the Regulatory Framework section. Health studies are used by these agencies to set the Federal and State AAQS. None of the health-related information can be directly correlated to the pounds/day or tons/year of emissions estimated from a single, proposed project. Therefore, without thresholds and standards there is no way to ascertain if there is a significant environmental impact.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
As noted above, CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection with approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, any project generating less than 100,000 vehicles per day would not exceed the CO standard. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 6,272 additional vehicle trips attributable to Phase II. Trip generation is calculated based on Project assumptions (see Appendix I).

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Construction-Related Diesel Particulate Matter
A construction phase HRA was conducted for Phase II (see Appendix B2 for HRA modeling results). Results of the assessment indicate that the highest cancer risk would be 1.02 in one million, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in-one-million. Non-cancer hazards for DPM would be below SCAQMD threshold of 1.0, with a chronic hazard index computed at 0.0010. Therefore, construction risk levels would be less than SCAQMD thresholds. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Diesel Particulate Matter
The HRA for Phase II operations determined the highest annual average diesel PM10 emission concentrations from diesel truck traffic and off-road equipment near sensitive receptors would be 0.0160 µg/m3
. The calculations conservatively assume no cleaner technology with lower emissions in future years. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Phase II operations at off-site sensitive receptors is 8.25 in one million. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Phase II operations would be 0.0285. The highest calculated carcinogenic risk resulting from the Phase II operations at future on-site sensitive receptors is 21 in one million. Therefore, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7 are required to reduce impacts. Implementation of operational 912
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.3-41 4.3 | Air Quality
mitigation measures reduces the diesel exhaust PM10 concentrations at off-site sensitive receptors to