The existing OMC sewer collection system is made up of a network of gravity sewers, pump stations, and force mains. The gravity system consists of approximately 365.7 miles of pipe and 7,582 manholes and cleanouts. The system also includes three pump stations and 11,588 feet of associated force mains. The total existing average sewer load for OMC is estimated at 18.75 million gallons per day (mgd). With an existing population of 174,536 persons, this is equivalent to approximately 107 gallons per day (gpd) per person.
The ultimate sewer collection system would include service to OR. The Project is in the OR and no sewer lines currently run in the vicinity of the Project site. Approximately 140,000 feet of additional trunk sewer would be added to the City’s system in OR, ranging in size from 12-inches to 36-inches. It would be financially infeasible for residential development to bear the cost of infrastructure improvements required to support a residential development.
Wastewater Treatment
Regional wastewater 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 (RP-1) and Regional Plant No. 5 (RP-5) for treatment. RP-1, located south of the Pomona Freeway (SR-60) and west of Cucamonga Creek, has been in operation since 1948 and has a current capacity of 44 mgd.
RP-1 also serves the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Fontana, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County (County). The RP-1 plant treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately 28 mgd. 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. See Figure 3-16: Recycled Water Plan for further detail.
IEUA began operation of RP-5 in March 2004. RP-5 is located in the City of Chino at the southeast corner of Kimball Avenue and El Prado Road. Sewage generated in the OR, as well as the wastewater flows diverted from the OMC sewer pump station tributary areas are treated at RP-5. The plant has a wastewater treatment capacity of 15 mgd and treats an average influent wastewater flow of approximately nine mgd.
IEUA had originally planned to bypass an average flow of up to 20 mgd from RP-1 to RP-5 via the OR sewer system and Kimball Interceptor Sewer located on Kimball Avenue west of Baker Street. The first OR sewer constructed (Eastern Trunk Sewer) was designed to carry nine mgd of bypass flow from RP-1. Currently, IEUA does not expect to pursue the remaining 11 mgd bypass capacity in the OR sewer system.
Groundwater from the Chino Basin is directly pumped by the City into its distribution system or is treated through an ion-exchange facility located at John Galvin Park before pumping it into the distribution system. The CDA desalters, Chino I and Chino II Desalters, consist of groundwater extraction wells connected to pumps and pipelines that direct water to advanced treatment facilities. The final product is a high-quality drinking water.
1290
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-6 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems 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 Project vicinity. However, there is an existing 30-inch IEUA recycled water main in Eucalyptus Avenue south of the Project site. The Project applicant is responsible to provide recycled water service to serve future development and would construct a 12-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 Section 3.0: Project Description, 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.
Local Drainage
The City presently owns and maintains over 136 miles of storm drains, mostly serving the OMC area of the City. In addition to the City-owned storm drains there are the State-owned storm drains along Caltrans’ Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route 60 (SR 60) corridors. All the City-owned and State-owned facilities drain to a number of regional backbone facilities owned and operated by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) that are tributary to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Prado Flood Control Basin.
The City lies in the western portion of the Santa Ana River’s watershed, upstream of the Prado Flood Control Basin. It is in a 277-square-mile area referred to as Zone 1 by SBCFCD. Zone 1 generally slopes towards the south. Four major regional channel systems traverse Zone 1 in a north-south direction; they include San Antonio Channel, Cucamonga Channel, Day Creek Channel and San Sevaine Channel.
Solid Waste Collection
The City collects solid waste from residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. Customers are provided with a refuse container, a commingled recycling container, and a green waste container. City waste trucks collect recycling, green waste, and trash. Each truck contains one type of material, which is then recycled/disposed of appropriately. Computers, televisions, and other electronic waste are recycled free of charge at Ontario's Household Hazardous Waste Facility located at 1430 S. Cucamonga Avenue.
Currently, the Project site is served primarily by the Badlands Sanitary and El Sobrante Landfills but may also be served by the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, Olinda Alpha Landfill, and Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center. Badlands Landfill is owned and operated by the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources, and the El Sobrante Landfill is owned and operated by USA Waste of California, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc.
According to 2019 data (most recent data available) from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 97 percent of solid waste collected from the City was taken to the Badlands and El Sobrante Landfills described in Table 4.17-2: Landfills Serving Ontario. 1291
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-7 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Table 4.17-2: Landfills Serving Ontario
Landfill
Remaining
Capacity
(million cubic
yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Capacity (million
cubic yards)
Maximum
Permitted
Throughput
(tons per day)
Average Daily
Disposal
(2019)1 (tons)
Estimated
Closing Date
Badlands Sanitary Landfill
31125 Ironwood Avenue
Moreno Valley, CA 92555
7,800,000 82,300,000 5,000 2,139 1/1/2059
El Sobrante Landfill
10910 Dawson Canyon Rd
Corona, CA 91719
143,977,170 209,910,000 16,054 10,855 1/1/2051
Total 159.7 244.3 20,854 12,994 -
Source: CalRecycle. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details- El Sobrante Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402. (accessed April 2023).
CalRecycle. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Badlands Sanitary Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367. (accessed April 2023). 1Average daily disposal is estimated based on 300 operating days per year. Each facility is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays.
Collectively, all three landfills have a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 160 million cubic yards.
The El Sobrante Landfill has a disposal capacity beyond the 15-year horizon, as required by Assembly Bill (AB) 939.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by actual disposal rates compared to target rates for residents and employees, respectively; actual disposal rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939.
Target disposal rates for Ontario are 9.9 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 16.4 ppd per employee.
Actual disposal rates in 2021 were 10.2 ppd per resident and 14.9 ppd per employee.6 Thus, solid waste diversion in the City is consistent with AB 939.
Electricity
The Project site is in Southern California Edison’s (SCE) service area, which spans much of southern California from Orange and Riverside counties on the south to Santa Barbara County on the west to Mono County on the north. Total electricity consumption in SCE’s service area was 103,045 GWh in 2021.7 Sources of electricity sold by SCE in 2021, the latest year for which data are available, were:
• 32 percent renewable, consisting mostly of solar and wind • 2 percent large hydroelectric
• 22 percent natural gas
• 9 percent nuclear
• 35 percent unspecified sources – that is, not traceable to specific sources8 6 CalRecycle. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator (accessed May 2023). 7 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx. 8 Southern California Edison. 2022. 2021 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf. (accessed April 2023). 1292
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-8 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems The Project site generates electricity demand for the day-to-day operations of the agricultural and residential uses on-site. Existing use of electricity on-site includes lighting, heating and cooling, ventilation, and milking equipment, such as pumps and cooling systems.
Natural Gas
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides gas service in the City and has facilities throughout the City, including the Project site. The service area of SoCalGas spans much of the southern half of California, from Imperial County on the southeast to San Luis Obispo County on the northwest to part of Fresno County on the north to Riverside County and most of San Bernardino County on the east. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area was 6,755 million therms in 2021.9 The Project site generates natural gas demand for the day-to-day operations of the dairy farm and residences on-site. Estimated annual natural gas demand for the existing on-site operations is 387,510 kilo-BTU per year (kBTU/year) or 3,876 therms.3 Natural gas demands on-site mainly stem from the use of space and water heaters, cooking appliances, and laundry and water appliances.
4.17.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act and National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes regulations to control the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulates water quality standards for surface waters (U.S. Code, Title 33, Section 1251 et seq.). Under the CWA, the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is authorized to set wastewater standards and runs the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under the NPDES program, permits are required for all new developments that discharge directly into waters of the United States. The federal CWA requires wastewater treatment of all effluent before it is discharged into surface waters. NPDES permits for such discharges in the Project region are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal law intended to ensure safe drinking water to the public, was enacted in 1974 and has been amended several times since it came into law. The Act authorizes the U.S. EPA to set national standards for drinking water, called the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants. These standards set enforceable maximum contaminant levels in drinking water and require all water providers in the United States to treat water to remove contaminants, except for private wells serving fewer than 25 people. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conducts most enforcement activities. If a water system does not meet standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers.
9 California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx. (accessed April 2023).
1293
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-9 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations), Part 258, contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design (liners, leachate collection, run-off control, etc.), groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills.
State
California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was created in 1974 as the State’s principal energy planning organization in order to meet the energy challenges facing the state in response to the 1973 oil embargo.
The CEC is charged with six basic responsibilities when designing State energy policy:
• Forecast statewide electricity needs.
• License power plants to meet those needs.
• Promote energy conservation and efficiency measures.
• Develop renewable energy resources and alternative energy technologies. • Promote research, development, and demonstration.
• Plan for and direct the state’s response to energy emergencies.
California Energy Benchmarking and Disclosure
AB 1103 (2007) requires that electric and gas utilities maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service and that by January 1, 2009, upon authorization of a nonresidential building owner or operator, an electric or gas utility shall upload all of the energy consumption data for the specified building to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Energy Star Portfolio Manager in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the customer.
This statute further requires a nonresidential building owner or operator disclose Energy Star Portfolio Manager benchmarking data and ratings, for the most recent 12-month period, to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender. Enforcement of the latter requirement began on January 1, 2014.
On October 8, 2015, AB 802 was signed into law. AB 802 would revise and recast the above provisions.
AB 802 directs the CEC to establish a Statewide energy benchmarking and disclosure program and enhances the CEC's existing authority to collect data from utilities and other entities for the purposes of energy forecasting, planning, and program design. Among the specific provisions, AB 802 would require utilities to maintain records of the energy usage data of all buildings to which they provide service for at least the most recent 12 complete months. By January 1, 2017, AB 802 required each utility, upon the request and the written authorization or secure electronic authorization of the owner, owner’s agent, or operator of a covered building, as defined, to deliver or provide aggregated energy usage data for a covered building to the owner, owner’s agent, operator, or to the owner’s account in the Energy Star Portfolio Manager, subject to specified requirements. AB 802 also authorized the commission to specify additional information to be delivered by utilities for certain purposes. 1294
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-10 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.), which was passed in California in 1969 and amended in 2013, the SWRCB has authority over State water rights and water quality policy. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act divided the state into nine regional basins, each under the jurisdiction of a RWQCB to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis at the local and regional level. RWQCBs engage in a number of water quality functions in their respective regions.
RWQCBs regulate all pollutant or nuisance discharges that may affect either surface water or groundwater. The City is overseen by the Santa Ana Area RWQCB.
California Senate Bill 610 and 221
SB 610 and SB 221 were amended in 2001 to assure coordination between the local water and land use decisions to confirm that California cities and communities are provided with adequate water supply.
Specific projects are required to prepare a WSA. The WSA is composed of information regarding existing and forecasted water demands, as well as information pertaining to available water supplies for the new development.
The following projects are required to prepare a WSA:
• Residential developments consisting of more than 500 homes; • A business employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 500,000 square feet (sf); • A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 people or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space;
• A hotel having more than 500 rooms;
• A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 sf of floor area; and
• A mixed-use project that requires the same or greater amount of water as a 500 dwelling-unit project.
SB 221 requires written verification that there is sufficient water supply available for new residential subdivisions that include over 500 dwelling units or meet the other requirements listed above. The verification must be provided before commencement of construction for the project.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983 (Water Code Section 10610 et seq.) requires water suppliers to:
• Plan for water supply and assess reliability of each source of water over a 20-year period in fiveyear increments. • Identify and quantify adequate water supplies, including recycled water, for existing and future demands in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years.
1295
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-11 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems • Implement conservation and the efficient use of urban water supplies.
Significant new requirements for quantified demand reductions have been added by the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7), which amends the Urban Water Management Planning Act and adds new water conservation provisions to the Water Code.
Mandatory Water Conservation
Following Governor Brown’s declaration of a state of emergency on July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2014-0038. The emergency regulation was partially repealed by Resolution No. 2017-0024.
The remaining regulation prohibits several activities, including (1) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes excess runoff; (2) the use of a hose to wash a motor vehicle except where the hose is equipped with a shut-off nozzle; (3) the application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; (4) the use of potable water in nonrecirculating ornamental fountains; and (5) the application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall. The SWRCB resolution also directed urban water suppliers to submit monthly water monitoring reports to the SWRCB.
The Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7)
The Water Conservation Act of 2009, SB X7-7, requires all water suppliers to increase water use efficiency.
The legislation sets an overall goal of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, with an interim goal of a 10 percent reduction in per capita water use by 2015. Effective in 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by this bill are not eligible for state water grants or loans. The SB X7-7 requires that urban water retail suppliers determine baseline water use and set reduction targets according to specified standards, it also requires that agricultural water suppliers prepare plans and implement efficient water management practices.
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) required the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) by 2009. The State’s model ordinance was issued on October 8, 2009. Under AB 1881, cities and counties were required to adopt a State updated model landscape water conservation ordinance by January 31, 2010, or to adopt a different ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water as the updated Model Ordinance. It also required reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances, with required reports due by December 31, 2015.
2015 Update of the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Per Governor’s Executive Order B-29-15)
To improve water savings in the landscaping sector, the DWR updated the Model Ordinance in accordance with Executive Order B-29-15. The Model Ordinance promotes efficient landscapes in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. The Executive Order calls for revising the Model Ordinance to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, and on-site stormwater capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf.
1296
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-12 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems New development projects that include landscape areas of 500 sf or more are subject to the Ordinance.
This applies to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional projects that require a permit, plan check, or design review. The previous landscape size threshold for new development projects ranged from 2,500 sf to 5,000 sf.
State Water Resources Control Board: Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements The General Waste Discharge Requirements specify that all federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State need to develop a Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan evaluates existing sewer collection systems and provides a framework for undertaking the construction of new and replacement facilities in order to maintain proper levels of service. The Sewer Master Plan includes inflow and infiltration studies to analyze flow monitoring and water use data, a capacity assurance plan to analyze the existing system with existing land use and unit flow factors, a condition assessment and sewer system rehabilitation plan, and a financial plan with recommended capital improvements and financial models.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution The General Pretreatment Regulations establish responsibilities of federal, State, and local government, industry, and the public to implement National Pretreatment Standards to control pollutants which pass through or interfere with treatment processes in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or which may contaminate sewage sludge. Pretreatment standards are pollutant discharge limits which apply to industrial users.
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), includes regulations for how buildings are designed and constructed, and are intended to ensure the maximum structural integrity and safety of private and public buildings. The CBSC, which applies to all applications for building permits, consists of 12 parts that contain CBSC administrative regulations for all State agencies that implement or enforce building standards. Local agencies must ensure the development complies with the CBSC standards. Cities and counties can adopt additional standards beyond the CBSC including CBSC Part 2, named the California Building Code (CBC).
The California Energy Commission (CEC) updates the Energy Code every three years. On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. 1297
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-13 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems California Building Code: Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) The CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code and established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), as well as water conservation and material conservation, both of which contribute to energy conservation. This code features regulations for energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, as well as environmental quality. Also included as part of the CALGreen code are mandatory provisions for commercial, residential, and public school buildings, appendices with voluntary provisions for all of these occupancies, and residential and nonresidential provisions.
Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609) include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce reducing energy demand as well as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
State Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Current State guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions from stationary sources are generally embodied in Executive Orders S-03-05 and B-30-15; AB 32 and AB 197; and SB 32. While these regulations are inherently aimed at reducing GHG emissions, they have a direct relationship to energy conservation.
A detailed discussion of these regulations is provided in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR.
Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476) increased the statewide solid waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020. The law, passed in 2011, mandates recycling for businesses producing four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week. This commercial recycling law took effect July 1, 2012. Under the law, Ontario businesses must separate recyclables from trash and then either subscribe to City recycling services, self-haul their recyclables, or contract with a permitted private recycler.
The City is required to provide a number of programs to meet the requirements of AB 341. They include a public outreach program to inform Ontario businesses about the mandate, monitoring the progress of each business, notifying them if they are not in compliance, and reporting to the State.
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste-management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties 1298
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-14 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems to show 15 years of disposal capacity for all jurisdictions in the county or show a plan to transform or divert its waste.
Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, PRC Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.
Assembly Bill 1826
In October of 2014, Governor Brown signed AB 1826 requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. This law also required that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the State implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste.
Senate Bill 1383
In September of 2016, Governor Brown signed into law SB 1383, establishing methane emissions reduction targets in a Statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP).
SB 1383 requires counties to take the lead collaborating with the jurisdictions located within the county in planning for the necessary organic waste recycling and food recovery capacity needed to divert organic waste from landfills into recycling activities and food recovery organizations.
Local
San Bernardino County Integrated Waste Management Plan
The preparation of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) is one of the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Act. The CIWMP consists of four elements and a Summary Plan. Each jurisdiction (cities and the County) prepared the first three elements:
• Source Reduction and Recycling Element: which analyzed the local waste stream to determine where to focus diversion efforts, and developed diversion programs and funding; • Household Hazardous Waste Element: which provides a framework for recycling, treatment, and disposal practices; and
• Non-disposal Facility Element: which lists planned and existing facilities such as material recovery facilities and composting facilities that recover waste from the waste stream.
The County prepared the Countywide Siting Element which demonstrates that there is at least 15 years of remaining disposal capacity to serve all the jurisdictions within the County. The Countywide Summary Plan, the final element of the CIWMP, contains goals and policies as well as a summary of integrated waste 1299
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-15 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems management issues faced by the County. It summarizes waste management programs and the steps needed to cooperatively implement programs among the County's jurisdictions to continue to meet the statewide diversion mandates. The Countywide Summary Plan is to be updated every five years along with any other affected elements of the CIWMP.
City of Ontario Urban Water Management Plan
Ontario is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) pursuant to Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, effective January 1, 1984.
The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires all urban water suppliers to prepare, adopt, and file a UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources every five years. The City’s 2020 UWMP outlines current water demands, sources, and supply reliability to the City by forecasting water use based on climate, demographics, and land use changes in the City. The 2020 UWMP also provides demand management measures to increase water use efficiency for various land use types and details a water supply contingency plan in case of shortage emergencies.
City of Ontario Landscape Development Guidelines
The City’s Landscape Development Guidelines ensure that the State’s current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance is being implemented in the City. The guidelines include water conservation measures that need to be incorporated into landscape designs, the different elements that need to be incorporated into preliminary landscape plans, and the required landscape construction documents.
Construction documents need to include a water efficient landscape worksheet, grading design, erosion control measures, and a maintenance schedule.
City of Ontario Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual
The Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual assists developers in meeting the City of Ontario's requirements on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Water Quality Control Plants NPDES Permit Wastewater discharge requirements for IEUA RP-1 and RP-5 are detailed in Order No. RS-2015-0036 NPDES No. CA8000409. The permit includes the conditions needed to meet minimum applicable technology-based requirements. The permit includes limitations that are more stringent than applicable federal technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve the required water quality standards.
Inland Empire Utilities Agency Regional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97 The IEUA’s Regional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97 sets forth uniform requirements for industrial users of the IEUA’s regional sewage system to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including the CWA, the General Pretreatment Regulations, and the California Water Code. The objective of the ordinance is to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTWs that will interfere with their operation or that will pass through the POTWs, inadequately treated, into receiving waters. 1300
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-16 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems City of Ontario Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines The City Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines ensures that water and sewer facilities constructed in the City are complete, correctly operating, and in compliance with government codes and good water and wastewater industry practice. The guidelines also provide interested parties with the City’s procedures, policies, and requirements for the design and construction of new water and wastewater infrastructure.
City of Ontario Municipal Code
Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the Ontario Municipal Code (OMC) sets forth uniform requirements and regulations for the direct and indirect users of the refuse and recycling collection services of the City. It also allows for the City to comply with all applicable State and federal laws, including, but not limited to, The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, California Code Title 14 Division 7, and any subsequent amendments to each.
Under Title 6, Chapter 7, the Public Sewer System, of the OMC sets forth uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the City sewerage system and IEUA treatment system, and enables the City to comply with all applicable State and federal laws, including the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations, and subsequent amendments to each.
The purpose of the Water Conservation Plan, in the OMC under Title 6, Chapter 8A, is to minimize the potential for a water shortage through the practice of water conservation, and to minimize the effect of a shortage of water supplies on the water customers of the City. The chapter adopts provisions that will significantly reduce the inefficient consumption of water, thereby extending the available water resources necessary for domestic, sanitation, and fire protection of the community to the greatest extent possible.
The purpose of Water Services, under Title 8B, is to describe rules and regulations regarding service connections, payments and fees, and conditions for pressure, as well as emergency response for repairs and regulations.
The purpose of Title 6, Chapter 8C (Ordinance 2689), Recycled Water Use, is to establish procedures, specifications, and limitations for the safe and orderly development and operation of recycled water facilities and systems within the City's service area, and adopt rules and regulations controlling such use.
City of Ontario Capital Improvements Program
The Capital Improvements Program updates its CIP to prepare and budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements across a five-year planning horizon. The Engineering Departments also prepares a budget for upcoming infrastructure improvements over a five-year planning period.
City of Ontario General Plan – The Ontario Plan 2050
The Land Use Element and Environmental Resources Element of the Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 establishes goals for environmental infrastructure and policies that support system integration, resource conservation and regeneration, and energy independence. The City’s TOP 2050 contains the following goals and policies relevant to utilities and infrastructure. 1301
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-17 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems The following policies contained in the Land Use Element are relevant to the Project:
Land Use Element10
Goal LU-1 A community that has a spectrum of housing types and price ranges that match the jobs in the City and that make it possible for people to live and work in Ontario and maintain a quality of life.
Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity. We require adequate infrastructure and services for all development.
Goal LU-4 Development that provides short-term value only when the opportunity to achieve our Vision can be preserved.
Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing. We require that the necessary infrastructure and services be in place prior to or concurrently with development.
Policy LU-4.4 Shared Infrastructure. We encourage and facilitate the use of shared infrastructure (including shared or managed parking) in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented Place Types.
The following policies contained in the Environmental Resources Element are relevant to the Project:
Environmental Resources Element11
Goal ER-1 A reliable and cost-effective system that permits the City to manage its diverse water resources and needs.
Policy ER-1.1 Local Water Supply. We increase local water supplies to reduce our dependence on imported water. New and redevelopment projects are aligned with our available water supply and/or to enhance our available water supply.
Policy ER-1.2 Matching Supply to Use. We match water supply and quality to the appropriate use.
Policy ER-1.3 Conservation and Sustainable Water Supply. We work with regional water providers and users to conserve water and ensure sustainable local water supplies as more frequent droughts reduce long term local and regional water availability.
Policy ER-1.4 Supply-Demand Balance. We require that available water supply and demands be balanced.
Policy ER-1.8 Wastewater Management. We require the management of wastewater discharge and collection consistent with waste discharge requirements adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
10 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/land-use. (accessed April 2023). 11 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontario-plan-policyplan/environmental-resources. (accessed April 2023) 1302
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-18 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.4 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 the project:
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
4.17.5 Plans, Programs, and Policies
PPP W-1 The Project’s water infrastructure improvements will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the City of Ontario’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines.
PPP W-2 Water conservation measures for the Project will abide by the requirements of the City of Ontario’s Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 8A, Water Conservation Plan, Title 6, Chapter 8B, Water Services, and Title 6, Chapter 8C, Recycled Water Use.
PPP W-3 The Project will follow the City of Ontario’s Landscape Development Guidelines to assure compliance with the State’s current Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
PPP WW-1 The Project will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the IEUA Regional Wastewater Ordinance No. 97. All industrial wastewater discharges into IEUA facilities shall be required to comply with the discharge standards set forth to protect the POTWs.
PPP WW-2 The Project’s sewer infrastructure improvements will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the City of Ontario Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines.
PPP WW-3 The Project will be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with the requirements of the City’s MC Chapter 7, Public Sewer System, to protect the City of Ontario sewerage system and IEUA treatment system.
PPP HYD-1 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the City’s MC Chapter 6, Stormwater Drainage System to ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Ontario by prescribing regulations to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into the City's stormwater drainage system.
PPP HYD-2 Any construction shall be regulated by the SWRCB in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order 1303
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-19 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The City may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.
PPP HYD-3 The Project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the San Bernardino County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036 as renewed by the ROWD submitted on August 1, 2014). The MS4 Permit requires new development and redevelopment projects to adopt a water quality management plan (WQMP) to:
Control contaminants into storm drain systems
Educate the public about stormwater impacts
Detect and eliminate illicit discharges
Control runoff from construction sites
Implement BMPs and site-specific runoff controls and treatments PPP SW-1 The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2019 CALGreen Code, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Ontario shall confirm that a sufficient plan has been submitted, and prior to final building inspections, the City of Ontario shall review and verify the contractor’s documentation that confirms the volumes and types of wastes that were diverted from landfill disposal, in accordance with the approved construction waste management plan.
PPP SW-2 The Project will store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341.
PPP SW-3 The Project will abide by the requirements of San Bernardino County Integrated Waste Management Plan and Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the MC.
PPP SW-4 The Project will abide by the requirements of the City of Ontario’s Refuse and Recycling Planning Manual.
PPP OU-1 New buildings are required to achieve the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11).
PPP OU-2 All new appliances would comply with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609).
4.17.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact 4.17-1 Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
1304
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-20 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project applicant proposes new on-and off-site public sewer, potable water, and storm drain infrastructure, and would receive SCE electrical service. There are power poles and overhead facilities located opposite the site along Eucalyptus Avenue and Sultana Avenue. On-site improvements would include storm drains, water quality systems, a sewer main and sewer lines, water lines, and dry utility connections.
Water
The Project site is currently occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. 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. 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.
Potable water distribution to the Project would be provided by the City of Ontario. There are no existing water mains in the vicinity of the Project that are within the City’s jurisdiction; the extension of City master planned domestic water infrastructure is being developed within the western portion of Ontario Ranch.
The Project applicant proposes the extension of the 16-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. Within the Projectsite, 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 and would include connections to the water main in Edison Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Schaefer Avenue, and Sultana Avenue (see Figure 3-14: Domestic Water Plan for further detail).
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 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 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 1305
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-21 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems 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.
Based on the existing downstream MDP systems, the Project would mitigate on-site runoff to 80 percent of pre-project levels. Therefore, the Project proposes MDP facilities along Euclid Avenue between Schaefer Avenue and Edison Avenue, along Edison Avenue east of Euclid Avenue, and along Schaefer Avenue east of Euclid Avenue. The Project also proposes On-site Drainage Facilities that include a series of catch basins, inlets, storm drain systems, and subsurface systems. Until the ultimate pipeline network for OR has been completed, there may be instances where construction of improvements to serve a project may not meet the required fire flow demands. Therefore, projects within the Project area may be required to construct additional pipelines not indicated in the City’s Water Master Plan or upsize master planned pipelines to meet Fire Department fire flow requirements and/or Water Master Plan criteria. All lines are per the City Water Master Plan, located in road rights-of-way that are already improved, according to the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR. The developer would submit a hydraulic analysis to the City for review and approval to demonstrate adequate fire flow and adherence to the City’s Water Master Plan criteria.
Although water line construction would be necessary for Project operation, these facilities have been planned by the City in its Water Master Plan, and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required. Furthermore, any off-site construction of potable water infrastructure would be implemented in accordance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the standards and specifications of the MC. Off-site water mains required to serve the Project would need to be constructed prior to or concurrent with on-site water improvements. As previously mentioned, 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 within the Project site, and the on-site water system would include connections to the water main in Edison Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Schaefer Avenue and Sultana Avenue.
On-site construction of the proposed infrastructure would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the MC. The necessary installation of on-site water lines is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in other sections of this Draft EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities outside of already improved road rights-of-way or existing City Water Master Plan, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
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. 1306
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-22 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems The City of Ontario’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan shows the existing infrastructure serving the Project area as well as the ultimate sewer system. The ultimate sewer collection system would include approximately 140,000 feet of additional trunk sewer to serve the OR. The sewer master plan includes a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure adequate long-range planning for implementing the City’s sewer infrastructure improvements in line with the City’s 2010 Policy Plan buildout scenario.
The Project includes a network of public sewer mains, consistent with the City’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan.
The Project applicant is responsible to provide sewer service to serve future development and would construct a 15-inch line approximately 1,320 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). A Sewer Sub-Area Master Plan (SSAMP) shall be prepared for each Tract Map and development within the Project Specific Plan.
As shown in the WSA (Appendix J) for the Project, the indoor water demand for the Project is less than the water demand anticipated in the TOP 2050 buildout scenario for the Project site. Therefore, wastewater generation from the Project would be less than wastewater generation rates assumed for the Project site in the TOP 2050. Since the Sewer Master Plan is based on the TOP 2050 buildout scenario, the Project would not require expansion of the wastewater infrastructure specified for the Project site in the sewer plan. Therefore, no additional off-site extensions or expansions to the planned sewer system serving the region would be required. On-site construction of the proposed sewer infrastructure would provide for connections throughout the site. Sewer laterals would connect buildings to sewer mains. Sizing and alignment of sewers would be within constructed in compliance with the City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the Municipal Code. The necessary installation of on-site sewer lines and connections to the existing line is included as part of the Project and would not result in any physical environmental effects beyond those identified in other sections of this Draft EIR.
Therefore, the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Electricity
SCE 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.
Undergrounding of existing overhead power lines would be subject to Section 7-7 of the OMC. Existing power poles along Edison Avenue would need to be relocated. The existing location is within the ultimate roadway. Project operation is expected to use approximately 12.9 million kilowatt hours (kWh) annually (see Section 4.6, Energy for further details). While the Project would increase energy demand at the Project site compared to existing conditions, it would be required to comply with the applicable Building 1307
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-23 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Energy Efficiency Standards and the CALGreen Code. Because the Project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations, it would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. In addition, it is projected that 100 percent of the total outdoor water demand would be served by recycled water, which would contribute to minimizing the energy associated with the distribution and treatment of water. SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area; and the electricity demand due to the Project is within the forecast increase in SCE’s electricity demands. Project development would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Project operation is estimated to use about 31.2 million kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) per year (see Section 4.6: Energy for further details). SoCalGas’ residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’ service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035. SoCalGas forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet Project gas demands, and Project development would not require SoCalGas to obtain new or expanded gas supplies. Therefore, Project development would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas supplies, of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts would be less than significant.
Furthermore, the Project would comply with the requirements of the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11). All new appliances would comply with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1609).
Telecommunications
Like the other dry utilities, telecommunication services would be extended to serve the Project site. This may involve the extension of services for existing providers and the petition for additional services from additional providers not currently present on the Project site. However, the construction of substantial new telecommunication infrastructures would not be required.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project applicant proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.12
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
12 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
1308
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-24 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.17-2 Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Water Demand
The City’s 2020 Water Master Plan and 2020 UWMP used the current (current as of May 2017) TOP land use plan to calculate projected water demands. Using the City’s unit water demand factors, the estimated potable and recycled water demands for the parcels within the Project limits that was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP is shown in Table 4.17-3: Water Demand of the Project Site Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP.
Table 4.17-3: Water Demand of the Project Site Land Uses Assumed in the UWMP Land Use Designation Acres
Potable Water
Demand (AFY)
Recycled Water
Demand (AFY)
Total Water
Demand (AFY)
Office Commercial (0.75 FAR) 40 112 67 179
Medium Density Residential (11.1 – 25
du/ac) 32 240 27 267
Open Space – Non-Recreational 12.01 13 0 13
Total 84.01 365 94 459
Source: Appendix J, page 21.
Notes: AFY = acre feet per year; FAR = floor to area ratio; du/ac = dwelling unit per acre.
As shown in Table 4.17-3, under the land uses assumed for within the UWMP, the potable water demand for the Project is estimated to be 365 AFY (325,851 gpd). The total recycled water demand for the Project is estimated to be 94 AFY (83,918 gpd). The total water demand would be 459 AFY (409,769 gpd).
The potable and recycled water demands of the Project using the City’s current unit water demand factors for potable and recycled water is summarized in Table 4.17-4: Water Demand Estimate for the Project.
Table 4.17-4: Water Demand Estimate for the Project
Land Use Acres Potable Water
Demand (AFY)
Recycled Water
Demand (AFY)
Total Water
Demand (AFY)
Business Park (PA 1 and PA 2) 53.06 107 71 178
Mixed-Use (PA 3) 19.03 85 32 117
Open Space/Non-Recreational 12.01 13 32 45
Total 84.1 205 135 340
Source: Appendix J, page 22.
Notes: PA = Planning Area; AFY = acre feet per year. Calculations conservatively assume potable and recycled water use in the OSNR areas.
As shown in Table 4.17-4, the potable water demand for the Project is estimated to be 205 AFY (183,012 gpd). The total recycled water demand for the Project is estimated to be 135 AFY (120,520 gpd).
The total water demand would be 340 AFY (303,532 gpd).
The 2020 UWMP indicates that the City is capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2020 and 2045. The 2020 UWMP projected water 1309
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-25 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems demands are based on the City’s measurement of its water use through meter data and billing records.
Total potable and recycled water demand within the OMUC service area averaged 39,374 AFY between 2015 and 2020. Potable water demands averaged 32,109 AFY and recycled water demands averaged 7,812 AFY. Over the past ten years, the City’s total water demands (including potable and recycled water demands) have ranged from 36,036 AFY to 45,196 AFY, with an average of 40,831 AFY. In addition, the City recently experienced a five-consecutive-year-drought within its service area from fiscal year (FY) 2011-12 to FY 2015-16. Throughout this consecutive dry year period, the City’s annual water production ranged from 42,603 AFY (2012) to 36,036 AFY (2016), with an average of approximately 41,558 AFY. In the City’s Single-Dry year, annual water production was 43,346 AFY. In 2020, the City’s total demand was 39,921 AFY. The total water supply (potable and non-potable) demands in the year 2045 are projected to be 73,668 AFY. Potable water demands are projected to be 57,609 AFY and recycled water demands are projected to be 16,059 AFY. Projected water demand for the Project site is included in the 2020 UWMP projections but is based on the TOP 2050 and the City’s 2020 Water Master Plan. The estimated total water demand for the Project site that was assumed in the 2020 UWMP is approximately 459 AFY (Table 4.17-3) and the proposed Project’s total water demand is approximately 340 AFY (Table 4.17-4).
Because the City’s water demand projections in the 2020 UWMP were based on a land use scenario with a greater water demand than that which is proposed by the Project, it can be deduced that the water demand for the Project was accounted for in the most recently adopted 2020 UWMP. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not obstruct the City’s ability to meet water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.
Proposed Water Conservation Strategies
Landscaping within the Project area would be implemented in line with the City’s Landscape Development Guidelines. The guidelines include water conservation measures that need to be incorporated into landscape designs, the different elements that need to be incorporated into preliminary landscape plans, and the required landscape construction documents. Construction documents need to include a water efficient landscape worksheet, grading design, erosion control measures, and a maintenance schedule.
Furthermore, the Project includes key provisions for landscaping plans within the Project area which include:
• Selecting drought-tolerant plants such as colorful shrubs and groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, evergreen and deciduous trees, and species native to southern California or naturalized to the arid southern California climate.
• Incorporating water conservation features in landscape and irrigation plans.
In addition to the City having adequate water supply to service the Project, these water conservation measures would decrease water demand and impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and a less than significant impact will occur.
1310
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-26 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and a less than significant impact will occur. The Project proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050.
No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.
13 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.17-3 Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project site is located in Ontario Ranch and is within IEUA’s wastewater service area boundary. The Project would be served by the RP-5 wastewater treatment plant.
Buildout of the Project would generate approximately 303,532 gpd, which is equivalent to 0.304 mgd, as shown in Table 4.17-3. As stated above, the current liquid treatment capacity of RP-5 is 15 mgd, and the plant treats an average of 9 mgd. Thus, RP-5 has a remaining wastewater treatment capacity of 6 mgd.
The Project’s generated wastewater would represent five percent of the RP-5’s remaining treatment capacity. Therefore, wastewater generated by the Project would be adequately treated at the RP-5.
RP-5 is required by federal and State law to meet applicable standards of treatment plant discharge requirements subject to Order No. RS-2015-0036 NPDES No. CA8000409. The permit includes the conditions needed to meet minimum applicable technology-based requirements. The NPDES permit regulates the amount and type of pollutants that the system can discharge into receiving waters. RP-5 is operating in compliance with and would continue to operate subject to State waste discharge requirements and federal NPDES permit requirements, as set forth in the NPDES permit and order.
Furthermore, the Project would comply with IEUA’s Ordinance No. 97 ensuring that wastewater discharge into the sewer system is compliant with the NPDES permit conditions, bio-solid use, and disposal requirements, and any other federal or State laws.
The additional wastewater (quantity and type) that would be generated by the Project and treated by the RP-5 would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant as the wastewater treatment provider, will have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
13 Ibid.
1311
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-27 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems Conclusion
As noted above, the additional wastewater that would be generated by the Project and treated would not impede the treatment plant’s ability to continue to meet its wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed 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 Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.14 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 4.17-4 Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact 4.17-5 Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant
Specific Plan - Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas Construction and Operations
Prior to construction of the Project, on-site structures would need to be demolished and its debris moved off-site to appropriate landfills. The site contains numerous single-family residential structures, as well as agricultural related buildings and open structures. Two SCE easements extend across the Project site, however no structures are located within these easements, although they have been used for various agricultural uses historically. The demolition of the existing structures may cause a strain on existing landfill capacities if waste exceeds the daily permitted capacity for the landfills serving the City.
Collectively, the two primary landfills, Badlands Sanitary Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill, have a daily maximum permitted capacity of 20,854 tons per day (tpd), and average daily disposal of 12,994 tpd, as reported in 2019. Therefore, the two landfills have a residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The 3,041 tons of demolition waste that would be disposed of in landfills would occur over a period of approximately two and a half months and would not exceed the daily residual capacity of the landfills. Buildout of the Project is estimated to generate 14,745 ppd of solid waste, as shown in Table 4.17-5: Estimated Solid Waste Generation.
Table 4.17-5: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Buildout Solid Waste Generation Rate (ppd) Solid Waste Generation (ppd) Commercial
Retail/Office 290,110 square feet 2.5 per 1,000 sf 725
Business Park 1,386,777 square feet 6 per 1,000 sf 8,321 Mixed-Use 466 dwelling units 12.23 per household 5,699
Total 14,745
Source: CalRecycle 2019e.
Notes: sf = square feet; ppd = pounds per day
14 Ibid.
1312
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-28 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems As detailed in Table 4.17-5, the two landfills serving the City have residual capacity of 7,860 tpd. The estimated 14,745 ppd or 7.4 tpd generated by the Project would be adequately served by the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill.
Overall, sufficient landfill capacity is available in the region for the estimated solid waste generated by the Project during operations, and Project development would not require an expansion of landfill capacity.
Impacts would be less than significant for the operational phase.
Regulatory Compliance
Additionally, AB 341 requires all businesses in California that generate four cubic yards or more of waste per week to implement one of the following actions in order to reuse, recycle, compost, or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal:
• Source separate recyclable and/or compostable material from solid waste and donate or self-haul the material to recycling facilities.
• Subscribe to a recycling service with their waste hauler in the service area. • Provide recycling service to their tenants (if commercial or multifamily complex). • Demonstrate compliance with the requirements of California Code of Regulations Title 14.
Furthermore, the Project would implement the requirements of the City’s Integrated Waste Department's Refuse & Recycling Planning Manual on refuse and recycling storage and access for service, as well as addressing the City's recycling goals. The requirements of Chapter 3, Integrated Waste Management, of the MC would also be implemented to ensure that the Project complies with all applicable State and federal laws, including, but not limited to, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. A construction waste management plan would be submitted and implemented in compliance with Section 4.408 of the CALGreen Code. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur as the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Furthermore the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed 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 Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050.15
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
15 Ibid.
1313
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-29 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative water supply impacts is the City. Other projects in the service area would increase water demands. The City forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies in its service area over the 2020 to 2040 period (see “Water Demand” under Impact 4.17-2). Other projects of certain sizes and types that would meet the requirements of SB 610 would be required to have a WSA prepared to show reliability of water supplies for the project, considering normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year horizon. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, future projects would be served by existing and planned future water infrastructure and facilities, as planned within the City’s Water Master Plan and no extensions or capacity expansions beyond the planned system would be required. Any future water infrastructure or facility would be constructed in compliance with City’s Water and Sewer Design Development Guidelines and the OMC. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment is IEUA’s RP-5 service area. The area considered for cumulative impacts to wastewater conveyance systems is the OR area. Future growth in the OR, in accordance with TOP, would result in increases in wastewater flow. These include increases in residential, office space, and mixed-use effluent. Expansion and/or capacity upgrades to the existing sewer collection lines would be required due to the change in land use in the OR. The Sewer Master Plan projects daily wastewater generation in line with land use changes associated with TOP. The sewer master plan presents preliminary sizes, alignments and construction cost estimates needed to mitigate existing drainage deficiencies and support future build-out conditions. Sewer collection system expansions would be based on the Sewer Master Plan and would be constructed with development in the OR. Through the use of connection fees and agreements, the IEUA is able to maintain and expand its wastewater collection system as necessary and is able to ensure that new developments pay their fair-share costs associated with increased demand. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater collection.
The City wastewater effluent in the OR is directed mainly to RP-5. The 2035 projected quantities of wastewater that need to be treated at RP-5 is 18.4 mgd, an increase of 9.4 mgd from current production rates. The 20-year IEUA’s CIP includes expanding the capacity of RP-5 to 22.5 mgd. The CIP also developed a capacity fee charged to new development to fund the needed capacity. Furthermore, IEUA annually prepares a wastewater treatment master plan and flow projections for all its contracting agencies, including the City. The IEUA improvement plan is sequenced considering the rate of development to ensure adequate treatment capacity exists at time of building permits but is phased to eliminate premature construction of unneeded capacity. Assuming the proposed plant expansions would be completed prior to increased urban development and the treatment of water at these plants would continue to meet the water quality standards of the Santa Ana RWQCB, there would be no significant cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment.
The area considered for cumulative impacts to electricity supplies and facilities is SCE’s service area, and the area considered for natural gas is SoCalGas’ service area. Forecast total electricity and natural gas 1314
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-30 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems supplies for the respective service areas are identified above. Other projects would increase electricity and natural gas demands.
Electricity demand forecasts are based on climate zones; economic and demographic growth forecasts, and the California Department of Finance; forecast electricity rates; effects of reasonably foreseeable energy efficiency and energy conservation efforts; anticipated partial electrification of portions of the transportation sector, including increasing adoption of light-duty plug-in electric vehicles; demand response measures, such as electricity rates that increase during high-demand times of day; and effects of climate change.
Natural gas demand forecasts are based on economic outlook; California Public Utilities Commission– mandated energy efficiency standards and programs; renewable electricity goals; and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure.
It is anticipated that electricity and natural gas demands by most other projects would be accounted for in the above-referenced demand forecasts. Other projects would be subject to independent CEQA review, including analysis of impacts to electricity and natural gas supplies. Implementation of all feasible mitigation measures would be required for any significant impacts identified. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the area serviced by the Badlands and the El Sobrante Landfills. Collectively, Badlands and El Sobrante Landfills have a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 160 million cubic yards and El Sobrante Landfill has a disposal capacity beyond the 15-year horizon, as required by AB 939. Thus, there is sufficient landfill capacity in the region for the cumulative increase in solid waste disposal. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.17.8 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
No significant unavoidable impacts have been identified.
4.17.9 References
CalRecycle. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyplan.aspx.
California Energy Commission. 2016. Gas Consumption by Planning Area. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyplan.aspx.
CalRecycle. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details- El Sobrante Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402. 1315
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 4.17-31 4.17 | Utilities and Service Systems CalRecycle. 2023. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details – Badlands Sanitary Landfill. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367.
City of Ontario. 2021. Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf City of Ontario, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Figure 2 – Historical Water Use by Source, page 6-3. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/FINAL%20City%20of%20Ontario%202020%20UWMP.pdf City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Environmental Resources Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/aboutontario-ontario-plan-policy-plan/environmental-resources.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050, Land Use Element. https://www.ontarioca.gov/about-ontario-ontarioplan-policy-plan/land-use.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf.
JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. March 2023. Hydrology & Hydraulic Report for Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G1).
JLC Engineering & Consulting Inc. March 2023. Preliminary Water Quality Plan for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. (Appendix G2).
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company. May 2023. Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan (File No. PSP22-001). (Appendix J).
Southern California Edison. 2022. 2021 Power Content Label, Southern California Edison. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/customfiles/Web%20files/2021%20Power%20Content%20Label.pdf. 1316
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 5-1 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides a discussion of additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact considerations, including Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth-inducing Impacts.
5.1 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project should it be implemented.
Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines state:
“Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highways improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.” Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The proposed irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources are not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
In the case of the proposed Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project), its implementation would involve a land use, development, and implementation framework to support up to a maximum build-out of 1,676,887 square feet (sf) of business park and mixed-use land uses, in addition to up to 466 residential units and associated onsite and off-site infrastructure improvements within the City of Ontario (City).
Significant irreversible changes that would be caused by implementation of the Project would be:
• Construction activities that would entail the commitment of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources; human resources; and natural resources such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, water, and fossil fuels. • Operation that would require the use of natural gas and electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The commitment of resources required for the operation of the Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project.
Increased traffic on area roadways (see Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic); Emissions of air pollutants associated with operations (see Section 4.3: Air Quality); and 1317
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 5-2 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Consumption of non-renewable energy associated with operation of the Project due to the use of automobiles, lighting, heating and cooling systems, and appliances (see Section 4.6: Energy, and Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions). • An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, sewer, and water services) would also be required. The energy and social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed.
• Employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s (SCAB) nonattainment designations for ozone, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS and NAAQS, respectively), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the CAAQS.
Given the low likelihood that the land would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes. However, as discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description, the Project is committed to sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into the design and construction process.
Appropriate strategies would be determined for each phase of the Project. Strategies include, but are not limited to:
Sustainable Construction & Technology Concepts
• Design and construct energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental impacts from energy production and consumption. • Employ passive design including skylights, building orientation, landscaping, and strategic colors to improve building energy performance.
• 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. • Use recycled and other environmentally-friendly building materials wherever possible. • Incorporate skylights into at least two percent of warehouse/distribution building roof area to provide natural light and reduce electric lighting demand. • Use energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) (or similar) products. • Provide interior or exterior bicycle storage consistent with the California Green Building Standards Code.
• 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.
• Employ high-performance dual-pane window glazing in office storefronts. 1318
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 5-3 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
Water Quality
• Utilize landscape areas including retention/infiltration swales and basins, or employ bio-treatment when infiltration is infeasible, as required by the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit and Water Quality Management Plan. • Select native and drought-tolerant plants to reduce water demand. • Integrate permeable pavement and perforated curbs throughout the Project area as feasible to allow stormwater to enter planter areas, assist with filtration, and control runoff. • Use captured runoff to augment irrigation systems whenever possible. • Employ irrigation systems that respond to changing weather conditions, irrigate by hydro zone, and use micro-irrigation techniques.
• 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 Recycled Water Master Plan.
The commitment of resources to the Project is not unusual or inconsistent with projects of this type and scope. However, once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the Project area would revert back to its current condition. Thus, the Project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of the structures.
5.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section is provided to examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. To address this issue, potential growth-inducing effects will be examined through analysis of the following questions:
• Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? • Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
• Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
• Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Please note that growth-inducing effects are not to be construed as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This issue is presented to provide additional information on ways in which this Project could contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the land use concept examined in the preceding sections of this Draft EIR. 1319
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 5-4 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
1. Would this project remove obstacles to growth, e.g., through the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area, or through changes in existing regulations pertaining to land development? The removal of a physical obstacle to growth, such as the construction or extension of major infrastructure facilities that are not presently in the area, would be considered a potentially growth inducing impact. As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description, Section 4.15: Transportation, and Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would include various new infrastructure improvements onsite and off-site, including water, wastewater, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, and dry utilities (natural gas, electricity, telecommunications).
Implementation of the Project would require the construction and improvement of roadways and extension of major infrastructure into areas off-site that would facilitate additional planned growth pursuant to The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. Although the infrastructure improvements are planned for in the City’s master plans, the improvements would allow further development to occur within the Ontario Ranch area. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated Final Supplemental EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Therefore, the Project would remove obstacles to growth to accommodate the demands of this Project at full buildout, which could allow for future development in the area once adequate infrastructure is in place and would be considered growth inducing.
2. Would this project result in the need to expand one or more public services to maintain desired levels of service?
As the City continues to develop, it requires the further commitment of public services in the form of fire protection, police services, and other public facilities. As discussed in Section 4.14: Public Services, none of the public service agencies consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR indicated that the proposed Project would necessitate the immediate expansion of their existing resources in order to maintain desired levels of service. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated Final Supplemental EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. The Project would not, therefore, have significant growth-inducing consequences with respect to public services.
3. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment?
During Project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. However, construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region and the construction phase would be temporary.
As discussed in Section 4.13: Population and Housing, the Project would result in the creation of approximately 1,655 new long-term jobs (Table 4.13-6: Project Generated Employment). As the number of employees in the Project area grows, these employees would seek shopping, entertainment, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. This would facilitate economic 1320
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 5-5 5.0 | Other CEQA Considerations
goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses to address these economic needs.
However, the increase in opportunities for employees would not create substantial growth inducement because it would improve the jobs-housing ratio, growth could be accommodated within regional and local projections, and jobs would be filled by the local workforce. As stated in Section 4.13: Population and Housing, the proposed Project would result in an improvement in the jobs-household balance, which is currently in a housing-rich area. The majority of new jobs that would be created by implementation of the Project would be positions that do not require a specialized workforce, and this type of workforce exists in the City and surrounding areas. Thus, due to the availability of a workforce within the City, it is anticipated that new jobs would be filled by people within the City and the immediately surrounding communities and would not induce an unanticipated influx of new labor into the City. Although, the proposed Project would result in new permanent employment opportunities and stimulate economic activity, it would meet future employment demands anticipated in SCAG’s regional growth projections.
Lastly, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated Final Supplemental EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Overall, the Project would not result in increased levels of growth that would otherwise not occur. Therefore, the Project would not encourage or facilitate economic effects that could significantly affect the environment.
4. Would approval of this project involve some precedent-setting action that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment? The Project consists of a Specific Plan to allow for 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. Pressures to develop other land in the surrounding area would derive from regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial, and mixed-use land uses that are not directly or indirectly influenced by zoning actions on a particular property. Lastly, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 and its associated Final Supplemental EIR, which evaluated long-term implications associated with the site’s land use designations. Approval of the proposed Project would not, therefore, involve a precedent-setting action that could be applied to other properties and thereby encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur.
Environmental Impacts of Induced Growth
As described above, implementation of the proposed Project would provide development to accommodate City forecasted employment demands. All physical environmental effects from construction of development have been analyzed in all technical sections of this Draft EIR. For example, activities such as excavation, grading, and construction as required for the proposed business park and mixed-use uses were analyzed in the Sections 4.3: Air Quality; 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
4.12: Noise; and 4.15: Transportation and Traffic. Therefore, construction of the Project has been analyzed in this Draft EIR and would be adequately mitigated either through implementation of Plans, Programs, and Policies (PPPs) and/or mitigation measures contained in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, through Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems, of this Draft EIR. 1321
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-1 6.0 | Alternatives
6.0 T ME ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Introduction
Purpose and Scope
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). As required by CEQA, this section identifies and evaluates potential alternatives to the Project.
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines explains the foundation and legal requirements for the alternative’s analysis in an EIR. Key provisions are:
• [T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the Project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly.” (Section 15126.6[b])
• “The specific alternative of ‘no project’ shall also be evaluated along with its impact.” (Section 15126.6[e][1])
• “The no project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (Section 15126.6[e][2])
• “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (Section 15126.6[f])
• “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent)” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).
• “Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” (Section 15126.6[f][2][A]) • “An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” (Section 15126.6[f][3]) 1322
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-2 6.0 | Alternatives
For each development alternative, this analysis:
• Describes the alternative.
• Analyzes the impact of the alternative as compared to the Project. • Identifies the impacts of the Project that would be avoided or lessened by the alternative. • Assesses whether the alternative would meet most of the basic Project objectives. • Evaluates the comparative merits of the alternative and the Project.
According to Section 15126.6(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “[i]f an alternative would cause…significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Project Objectives
As described in Section 3.0: Project Description, the following objectives have been established for the Project and would aid decision makers in their review of the Project, the Project alternatives and associated environmental impacts.
• Objective 1: 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.
• Objective 2: Provide the entitlement and framework for office retail development and multiple family residential units.
• Objective 3: Provide the entitlements and framework for the development of business park uses. • Objective 4: Provide employment opportunities for the surrounding community. • Objective 5: Facilitate the implementation of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to serve the Project site. • Objective 6: Expand Ontario’s retail, office and business park uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks.
• Objective 7: Create an economic driver for future growth in the western portion of Ontario Ranch that acts as a catalyst for the development of infrastructure improvements in the area and implementation of the City’s long term planning vision. • Objective 8: Provide opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within close proximity. • Objective 9: Provide a logical extension of planned community trails and bikeways.
6.2 Alternatives to the Project
Based on the Project objectives listed above, the following three alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range 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 the following sections. 1323
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-3 6.0 | Alternatives
• 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 Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. Section 6.6, Environmentally Superior Alternative, identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
6.3 Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible
The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in this Draft EIR.
Alternative Development Areas
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the Project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the Project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the Project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[5][B][1]). In addition, an alternative site need not be considered when implementation is “remote and speculative,” such as when the alternative site is beyond the control of a project applicant.
There are no suitable alternative sites within the control of the Project Applicant. In the event land could be purchased of suitable size and developmental characteristics, based on the known general conditions in the southern portion of the City, an alternative site would likely have similar impacts as the Project.
Given the size and nature of the Project and the Project objectives, it would be impractical and infeasible to propose the Project on an alternate site in the area with fewer environmental impacts.
Additionally, other land in the vicinity of the Project site or within the southern portion of the City are similarly used for agricultural purposes and include agricultural soils. The loss of Prime Farmland would still occur with an alternative site. Given the size and type of the Project, a similarly sized project and use elsewhere in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) would result in the same Project-level and cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is not likely to be changed by a different location. Also, an alternative site would have similar traffic impacts in other jurisdictions that would be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot guarantee implementation of improvements outside of its jurisdiction. Therefore, analysis of an alternative site for the proposed 290,110 square feet of commercial retail/office uses, up to 466 residential units, and 1,386,777 square feet of business park uses is neither meaningful nor necessary, because the significant impacts resulting from the Project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by its implementation. 1324
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-4 6.0 | Alternatives
6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
No Project/No Build Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of the No Project Alternative. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the No Project/No Build Alternative for a development project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the Project does not proceed as provided by Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) provides that, “In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Project would not be developed, and no new development would occur; however, the existing conditions would remain in operation.
The Project site is occupied by agricultural uses, including the raising of livestock, dairy farming activities, and a commercial nursery. 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. 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 structures are located within the SCE easements; however, they have been used for various agricultural uses historically. The agricultural uses, SCE easements, structures, and single-family residential uses would remain. Accordingly, the No Project/No Build Alternative provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project.
Aesthetics
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the visual character and quality of the Project site would be maintained in its existing condition. No new structures, landscaping, or lighting would be introduced on the Project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not have the potential to conflict with the character or quality of existing and planned development surrounding the Project site and would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would impact nighttime views in the area. No impacts related to aesthetics would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, under this Alternative, impacts regarding aesthetics, light, and glare would be reduced when compared to the Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agricultural uses on the Project site.
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project. No future development areas would be developed under this alternative; therefore, impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
1325
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-5 6.0 | Alternatives
Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction or demolition activities and related emissions would occur. In addition, by maintaining existing dairy, agricultural, and residential uses throughout the Project site, the increase in operational traffic-related air emissions would not occur. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced, and the significant and unavoidable construction-related and operational-related emission impacts would be eliminated.
Further, this alternative would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts related to inconsistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). No impacts related to air quality would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds that may be present on the Project site. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid all on- and off-site disturbances.
Phase I of the Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources after implementation of mitigation measures. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to biological resources within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to historical resources or subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Additionally, the three historic Milk Parlors would not be removed under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, the alternative would avoid the Project’s significant impact on historic resources and would avoid the Project’s less than significant with mitigation incorporated impacts on archaeological resources. Impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Energy
Under this alternative, no demolition of existing structures or construction of new buildings would occur.
Therefore, energy demand for electricity, natural gas and fuel consumption would remain as is, and no impact would occur under this alternative. The Project would have a less than significant impact on energy. Compared to the proposed Project, impacts on energy would be reduced.
Geology and Soils
No new construction activities, including demolition and grading, would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, impacts concerning seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse within the Project site would not occur. However, the buildings and structures 1326
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-6 6.0 | Alternatives
that exist on the Project site were built before current seismic safety codes; therefore, by retaining older buildings and structures, this alternative could expose some people to greater hazards from strong seismic ground shaking than the proposed Project. Phase I of the Project would have a less than significant impact on geological hazards after implementation of mitigation measures. Despite the potentially significant and unavoidable geological impacts, development within the Phase II area would remove the hazards posed by the existing buildings and structures. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to geological hazards within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be greater than the Project for geological hazards.
This alternative would not result in impacts to paleontological resources since no grading would occur.
Therefore, the paleontological resources impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction, demolition, or operational activities would generate GHG emissions. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative the existing, minimal emissions would continue. These emissions would be incorporated and accounted for in the City’s long-range planning efforts and would therefore act as a baseline for the City’s air quality goals. Furthermore, this alternative would not increase GHG emissions by 24,271 MTCO2e per year, unlike the proposed Project and would avoid the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no development would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials would occur. Under this alternative, fuels, lubricants, and greases in construction equipment and coatings would not be utilized. The fallow or cultivated fields, private recreational vehicle facility, scrap yard, agricultural related buildings, and residential structures would remain on-site. The agricultural uses and contaminated soils would remain on-site. Although this alternative would avoid the Project’s potential effects related to hazards and hazardous materials, no cleanup of contaminated soils would occur as a result of the Project. Phase I of the Project would have a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials after implementation of mitigation measures. However, because the extent of impacts within the Phase II area cannot be known at this time, Project impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials within the Phase II area are considered potentially significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of recommended mitigation. While portions of the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on hazards and hazardous materials with mitigation incorporated, remediation of on-site contamination is a benefit of the proposed Project that would not be realized under this alternative. Therefore, hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be greater under the alternative than compared to the proposed Project. 1327
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-7 6.0 | Alternatives
Hydrology and Water Quality
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project have the potential to impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff.
Existing water quality conditions, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, and runoff water amounts would remain “as is” under this alternative because no new development would occur and no new sources of water pollutants from either the construction or operation phases of development to the Project would be introduced. Additionally, this alternative would not require off-site storm drain facility improvements required by the proposed Project. However, this alternative would not include installation of new lowimpact development (LID), source control, site design, and treatment control best management practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff and water pollution, which would occur under the proposed Project. Under existing conditions, stormwater leaving the site would not be filtered and would continue to contain sediment and other potential pollutants associated with the dairy, agricultural, and residential uses and the water quality improvements that would occur under the proposed Project would not occur, therefore hydrology and water quality impacts would be greater compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses. The proposed Project is consistent with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 land use designations for the site and would result in a less than significant impact. However, under the No Project/No Build Alternative, the existing agriculture and residential uses would be inconsistent with the TOP 2050 land use designations for business park and mixed-use uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be greater compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in construction; therefore, would not generate any noise or vibration associated with construction. Mobile-source and stationary noise volumes would be lower under this alternative compared to the proposed Project, given the lack of urban development, and associated vehicular traffic noise; noise from business park and mixed-use uses; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and other noise sources. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Population and Housing
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses.
Employment growth would not occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative because no new businesses or other infrastructure would be constructed. Employees on the Project site would remain as is under this alternative, and the alternative would have no impact to population and housing. The employment growth under the proposed Project was determined to be within the growth projections for the area and impacts to population and housing were determined to be less than significant, but would still result in more residential uses and employment opportunities compared to the No Project/No Build Alternative. Therefore, population and housing impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
1328
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-8 6.0 | Alternatives
Public Services
The existing number of residents and workers on the Project site would remain under the No Project/No Build Alternative. There would be no increase in demand for fire or police services, and the alternative would have no impact on public services. Although the proposed Project’s impacts related to fire and police services were determined to be less than significant, the public services impacts would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Traffic
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. Under this alternative, no new employees or structures would be introduced on the Project site, and existing VMT would be maintained. Therefore, there would be no impacts under this alternative, and the less than significanttraffic impacts that would occur from the proposed Project would be avoided.
Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would continue the existing agriculture and residential uses on the Project site. No grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be no potential impacts to tribal cultural resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Therefore, the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid site disturbances on the Project site and the Project’s potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would not occur. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not demand more utilities or services than those currently servicing the Project site. No new development or employee increases would occur under the No Project/No Build Alternative and no new water or wastewater infrastructure would be constructed. No additional demand for regional water supplies would occur, and no additional wastewater would be conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment facilities. The alternative would have no impacts on utilities and service systems. Project operations would create a demand for water, and increase wastewater and solid waste generation, but impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant. Therefore, the impacts related to water supplies and wastewater would be reduced compared to the Project.
Similarly, no additional drainage infrastructure would be developed by the No Project/No Build Alternative, and runoff in the Project site would remain in its current condition and would not connect to or require capacity in the regional stormwater system. Solid waste generation would remain the same as existing conditions and increases in solid waste generation would not occur with the No Project/No Build Alternative. Furthermore, the demand on dry utilities would remain the same as existing conditions and increases in dry utilities would not occur with the No Project/No Build Alternative. There would be no impacts under the alternative. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
1329
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-9 6.0 | Alternatives
No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, 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 TOP1 , 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 for urban development of the Project site. The Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050.
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 (SPAG), 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 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 20-65 du/ac respectively. With the TOP 2050 and zoning changes noted in Program 13, all sites identified support densities necessary to facilitate lower- and moderate-income housing development.4
Aesthetics
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same development area as the proposed Project. The existing dairy, agricultural, and residential uses would be removed from the Project site and replaced with buildings, parking lots, and landscaping characteristic of mixed-use and business park uses.
However, the Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics, similar to the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 1 City of Ontario. 2022. LU-01 TOP 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). 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.
1330
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-10 6.0 | Alternatives
under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same development area as the proposed Project. The existing dairy, agricultural, and residential uses would be removed from the Project site.
However, the Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, similar to the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Air Quality
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would generate a similar amount of employmentgenerating building square footage and would result in a similar number of employees. This alternative would result in up to 466 dwelling units, 1,517 residents, and 1,655 employees. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed Project. Therefore, construction and operation related air quality emissions would be similar and would remain significant and unavoidable. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. Impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures from the Project would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level wherever feasible. Therefore, impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered archaeological resources on the Project site as the proposed Project and would result in a significant impact to historic resources. Grading or development would occur under this alternative, therefore there would be potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. This No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to the Project’s potential for disturbing human remains. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/Existing 1331
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-11 6.0 | Alternatives
General Plan Alternative would be similar compared to the Project. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Energy
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. Therefore, building energy and fuel consumption would be similar to the proposed Project under this alternative and would result in a less than significant impact. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses.
Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, grading and development of the Project site would still occur and would still result in exposing additional persons and structures in the Project area to risks associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic hazards. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. Impacts to geological hazards under the alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
This alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered paleontological resources on the Project site on the proposed Project. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources from the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. This alternative would result in up to 466 dwelling units, 1,517 residents, and 1,655 employees.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed Project.
Therefore, construction and operation related greenhouse gas emissions would be similar and would remain significant and unavoidable. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. The use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, State, and local laws and permitting requirements as would be done by the proposed Project. In addition, this 1332
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-12 6.0 | Alternatives
alternative would include cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the Project site during construction activities and would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures that would be implemented for the proposed Project. No more severe impacts are anticipated under this alternative because the uses of the proposed Project would be similar to the uses identified in TOP 2050. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the area of impervious surfaces would be similar compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative would result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. This alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities as well. However, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs similar to the proposed Project. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. TOP 2050 designates the Project site for development of Business Park (0.6 FAR), and Mixed-Use at 14.0 to 65.0 du/ac; 1.5 FAR office; 1.0 FAR retail. This alternative would be consistent with TOP 2050 and zoning designations and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a less than significant impact, same as the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Noise
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. This alternative would result in up to 466 dwelling units, 1,517 residents, and 1,655 employees.
Overall, there would be a similar impact compared to the proposed Project in total building square footage. Additionally, this alternative would result in a similar number of vehicle trips when compared to the proposed Project. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would still implement similar mitigation to that of the proposed Project. Therefore, the alternative would result in a less than significant impact, same as the proposed Project. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 1333
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-13 6.0 | Alternatives
under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Population and Housing
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would increase employees and residents on the Project site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The addition of housing under this alternative would be consistent with TOP 2050. Growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. The proposed Project would involve the development of up to 466 residential units within Planning Area (PA) 3B consistent with TOP 2050. Impacts under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be less than significant, the same as the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Public Services
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would introduce Business Park and Mixed-Use development to the area. This would generate new residents at the Project site which would increase the demand for public services, including fire and police. The proposed Project would have less than significant impacts to fire and police services. Similar to the Project, this alternative would require payment of fees, and compliance with applicable plans and regulations. This alternative would have the same environmental impacts as compared to the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Traffic
The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 land use designations. Therefore, under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, transportation and traffic impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed Project due to the amount of vehicle trips associated with business park, office spaces, and residential uses. Additionally, the alternative would be required to implement similar roadway improvements as the Project. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
1334
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-14 6.0 | Alternatives
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in a similar potential to adversely affect tribal cultural resources on the Project site as the proposed Project, as this alternative would require the same ground disturbing activities as the Project. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, impacts that could occur by the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Project is consistent with the land use designations approved in TOP 2050. The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts to utilities and service systems due to the Business Park and Mixed-Use land uses that comply with TOP 2050. This No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would increase the demand for water and wastewater, solid waste services, and gas and electricity services compared to the Project sites existing conditions. Under the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, similar improvements to water or wastewater infrastructure would be constructed to accommodate the mixed-use and business park designations. Similar to the proposed Project, demand for regional water supplies would occur, and additional wastewater would be conveyed to the regional wastewater treatment facilities.
Similarly, additional drainage infrastructure would be developed by the No Project/ Existing General Plan Alternative, and runoff in the Project area site would increase and would connect to or require capacity in the regional stormwater system. Increases in solid waste generation would occur with the No Project/ Existing General Plan Alternative due to the mix of land uses allowed under the TOP 2050. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be similar compared to the proposed Project.
All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
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.
1335
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-15 6.0 | Alternatives
Aesthetics
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses and have the same impact area to the proposed Project. The existing dairy, agricultural, and residential uses would be removed from the Project site and replaced with buildings, parking lots, and landscaping characteristic of mixed-use and business park uses. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the Project, as would light and glare impacts, although at slightly reduced intensity.
Therefore, implementation of the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to aestheticsthat would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
All future development areas under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be developed with the same mixed-use and business park uses as the proposed Project, and therefore Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses and have the same impact area to the proposed Project. The existing dairy, agricultural, and residential uses would be removed from the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the ReducedIntensity Alternative would result in significant impacts to agricultural and forestry resources that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. Thus, impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
All future development areas under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be developed with the same mixed-use and business park uses as the proposed Project, and therefore Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Air Quality
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, with similar mitigation incorporated, a reduced volume of construction activities and the related emissions would occur; however, the alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact for Project operationsrelated air quality from NOx as they would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds. In addition, the reduced amount of square footage that would be developed by this alternative would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site and less transportation-related air emissions than the proposed Project. Therefore, overall air quality impacts would be reduced in comparison to the proposed Project. However, the volume of NOX emissions from mobile sources generated by the ReducedIntensity Alternative would remain significant and unavoidable due to the volume of trips that would occur from operation of 1,230,517 square feet of business park and mixed-use uses. With mitigation implemented, the air quality emissions would be reduced to approximately 135 pounds per day of NOX generated for this alternative. The SCAQMD threshold for NOX is 55 pounds per day. Therefore, significant and unavoidable impacts due to exceedance of NOX emissions would continue to occur. Impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project but would remain significant and 1336
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-16 6.0 | Alternatives
unavoidable. All future development areas under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be developed with the same mixed-use and business park uses as the proposed Project, and therefore Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Biological Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would continue to cover the same impact area as the Project site.
Impacts to sensitive wildlife species and migratory and nesting birds would continue to occur, and similar mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to such resources to a less than significant level wherever feasible. Therefore, impacts would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Cultural Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts to existing historic resources with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered historical or archaeological resources on the Project site.
Grading or development would occur under this alternative, and there would be potential impacts to subsurface archaeological resources that may exist beneath the ground surface. Similar to the Project, significant and unavoidable impacts would occur to historical resources under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. This Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be similar to the Project’s potential for impacts to archaeological resources and disturbing human remains and would require similar mitigation. Therefore, impacts under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be similar compared to the Project.
Energy
Under this alternative, allowable building square footage would be reduced, and the associated energy demand would also be reduced by approximately 25 percent. Additionally, the reduction in vehicle trips associated with this alternative would reduce fuel consumption. Impacts under the alternative would remain less than significant. Construction and operational activities associated with this alternative would have reduced energy demand compared to the proposed Project and impacts under the alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Geology and Soils
Grading and development of the Project site would still occur under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative.
The new structures under this alternative would still result in additional persons and structures in the Project area that would be subject to risks associated with seismic ground shaking and geologic hazards.
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be required to meet the same regulatory requirements as the proposed Project. Impacts to geological hazards would be similar to those of the Project.
Regarding paleontological resources, the alternative would have similar potential to adversely affect any undiscovered resources. This alternative would result in a similar potential to impact paleontological resources, and implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant wherever feasible. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources under the alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
1337
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-17 6.0 | Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and associated GHG emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced square footage would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site, and less traffic related GHG emissions than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 24,271 MTCO2e per year, which would be reduced by approximately 25 percent to 18,204 MTCO2e per year under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. This alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, since it would exceed the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, and mitigation measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the alternative would have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions, but would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, and therefore the same type of hazardous materials typically used for construction and operation of the proposed Project would be used under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. Similarly, the use and storage of hazardous materials would be regulated by the same federal, State, and local laws and permitting requirements as would be done by the proposed Project. In addition, this alternative would include cleanup of contaminated soils that exist on the site during construction activities and would be required to implement the same type of mitigation measures proposed for the Project. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
All future development areas under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be developed with the same mixed-use and business park uses as the proposed Project, and therefore Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would reduce the total building square footage; however, the area of impervious surfaces would be similar compared to the proposed Project as the area would be paved.
Therefore, this alternative would result in similar runoff and potential for impacts to drainage, erosion, and water quality. Like the proposed Project, this alternative would introduce new sources of water pollutants from construction and operation activities. Additionally, this alternative would be required to include storm drain facility improvements, LID, source control, site design, and treatment control BMPs.
Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the ReducedIntensity Alternative would result in impacts to hydrology and water quality that are similar to those that would occur from the proposed Project.
Land Use and Planning
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still be consistent with TOP 2050 and the SCAG RTP/SCS policies.
Furthermore, this alternative would comply to the City’s Development code and airport plans. Therefore, 1338
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-18 6.0 | Alternatives
like the proposed Project, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in a less than significant impact related to land use.
Noise
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Construction and operation noise impacts would be reduced under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the development area by 25 percent. Although construction of this alternative would still generate the same peak noise volumes and similar type and volume of construction noise as the proposed Project, the duration of construction and the associated noise would be slightly reduced compared to the Project (due to less total building square footage). Operational noise would also be slightly reduced under this alternative as traffic-generated and stationary noise sources would decrease in relation to the proposed Project. Noise impacts from the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would be less than significant and reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Population and Housing
Under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative, buildout would result in an approximate 25 percent reduction in residential units along with residents and employees on-site. Under this alternative, the population, housing, and employment at buildout would be consistent with the City’s growth projections identified in SCAG’s RTP/SCS. However, growth associated with the proposed Project was also within growth projections. Furthermore, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would provide fewer employment opportunities. Overall, impacts to population and housing would remain less than significant with this alternative and reduced to the proposed Project.
Public Services
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. This alternative would reduce buildout of the Project area by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of residents and employees on the Project site. This alternative would reduce the amount of new residences on the Project site, which could lessen the demand on public services, such as fire and police protection services, schools, or other public facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with compliance of other applicable plans and regulations, and payment of fees. Overall, the need for public services would be reduced under this alternative compared to the proposed Project.
Transportation and Traffic
Construction and operation-related traffic and truck trips would be reduced under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative because this alternative would decrease the business park and mixed-use development area by 25 percent in comparison to the proposed Project. Transportation impacts are determined to be less than significant for the proposed Project, and therefore these impacts would remain less than significant under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. Impacts would remain less than significant and overall traffic would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
1339
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-19 6.0 | Alternatives
Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts with a potential to adversely affect any undiscovered tribal cultural resources on the Project site. However, like the proposed Project, mitigation measures would be required to reduce the alternative’s potential impacts on tribal cultural resources to less than significant. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be similar to those associated with the proposed Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would reduce buildout of the Project site by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. This would reduce the number of residents and employees on the Project site in relation to the proposed Project, and would therefore also reduce the demand for utilities and service systems.
The demand for regional water supplies and generation of wastewater and solid waste would be approximately 25 percent less than the proposed Project. Thus, the impacts related to water supplies, wastewater, and solid waste would result in less than significant impacts. Therefore, impacts under the alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.
6.5 Comparison of Alternatives
No Project/No Build Alternative Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems that would occur from implementation of the proposed Project. However, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, as well as hydrology and water quality would be greater under this alternative.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/No Build Alternative means that new development would not occur on the Project site, and none of the Project objectives would be achieved under this alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not 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 (Objective 1); provide the entitlement and framework for a total of approximately 290,000 square feet of office retail development and a maximum of 466 residential units (Objective 2); provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.39 million square feet of business park uses (Objective 3); provide employment opportunities for the surrounding community (Objective 4); facilitate the implementation of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to serve the Project site (Objective 5); expand Ontario’s retail, office and business park uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 6); create an 1340
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-20 6.0 | Alternatives
economic driver for future growth in the western portion of Ontario Ranch that acts as a catalyst for the development of infrastructure improvements in the area and implementation of the City’s long term planning vision (Objective 7); provide opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within close proximity (Objective 8); and provide a logical extension of planned community trails and bike ways.
No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Conclusion Ability to Reduce Impacts
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, 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 would be similar compared to the proposed Project as the proposed Project is also consistent with TOP 2050.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would meet seven of the nine Project objectives as the proposed Project is consistent with TOP 2050. For example, this alternative would not provide the entitlement and framework for a total of approximately 290,000 sf of office retail development and a maximum of 466 residential units (Objective 2); and provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.39 million sf of business park uses (Objective 3). The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would create a professional, well-maintained and attractive environment for the development of a vibrant Mixed-Use development along Edison Avenue and a multipurpose business park complex (Objective 1); and it be an economic driver for future growth in the western portion of Ontario Ranch that acts as a catalyst for the development of infrastructure improvements in the area and implementation of the City’s long term planning vision (Objective 7). This alternative would provide employment opportunities for the surrounding community (Objective 4); facilitate the implementation of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to serve the Project site (Objective 5); expand Ontario’s retail, office and business park uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 6); provide opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within close proximity (Objective 8); and provide a logical extension of planned community trails and bike ways (Objective 9).
TOP 2050 envisions the Ontario Ranch area will include housing, commercial and Business Park areas, parks, recreational uses, trails and bike links. Specific plans are required to guide development in Ontario Ranch to ensure the City objectives are achieved. The Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan, the proposed Project, is a major “next step,” creating a specific plan to implement the vision outlined by the City of Ontario for the western portion of the Ontario Ranch area, formerly New Model Colony. 1341
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-21 6.0 | Alternatives
Reduced-Intensity Alternative Conclusion
Ability to Reduce Impacts
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage, residents, employees, and associated vehicular trips.
Ability to Achieve Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would achieve the nine Project objectives, but not to the extent as would be achieved by the proposed Project. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would 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 (Objective 1); provide employment opportunities for the surrounding community (Objective 4); facilitate the implementation of roads, utilities, and other infrastructure investments that will be sufficiently sized to serve the Project site (Objective 5); expand Ontario’s retail, office and business park uses in proximity to local airports and regional transportation networks (Objective 6); create an economic driver for future growth in the western portion of Ontario Ranch that acts as a catalyst for the development of infrastructure improvements in the area and implementation of the City’s long term planning vision (Objective 7); provide opportunities for residents to live, work and shop within close proximity (Objective 8); and provide a logical extension of planned community trails and bike ways (Objective 9). However, the 25 percent project reduction would provide less housing and commercial uses. This alternative would not fully meet Objective 2 to provide the entitlement and framework for a total of approximately 290,110 square feet of office retail development and a maximum of 466 residential units. Furthermore, the 25 percent Project reduction would attract fewer or smaller businesses and less employment opportunities to area residents. In addition, the smaller development would provide less flexibility to meet the needs of an ever-changing business market. This alternative would not fully meet Objective 3 to provide the entitlements and framework for the development of approximately 1.39 million square feet of business park uses.
6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative” and, in cases where the “No Project” Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, the environmentally superior development alternative must be identified. The Reduced Intensity Alternative has been identified as “environmentally superior” to the proposed Project.
Reduced-Intensity Alternative
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-superior alternative because it would result in reduced impacts related to noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems and similar impacts related to agriculture and 1342
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 6-22 6.0 | Alternatives
forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources. However, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and transportation and traffic. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.
CEQA does not require the lead agency (the City of Ontario) to choose the environmentally superior alternative. Instead, CEQA requires the City to consider environmentally superior alternatives, weigh those considerations against the environmental impacts of the proposed Project, and make findings that the benefits of those considerations outweigh the harm. “Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]).
1343
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-1 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant
7.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
7.1 Introduction
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21003 (f) states: “…it is the policy of the state that…[a]ll persons and public agencies involved in the environmental review process be responsible for carrying out the process in the most efficient, expeditious manner in order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” This policy is reflected in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.2(a), which states that “[a]n EIR [Environmental Impact Report] shall identify and focus on the significant environmental impacts of the Project” and Section 15143, which states that “[t]he EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment.” State CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR. This section briefly describes effects found to have no impact or a less than significant impact based on the analysis conducted during the Draft EIR preparation process.
7.2 Mineral Resources
Impact 7.2-1 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Impact 7.2-2 Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas There are no known mineral resources either on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the site that would be impacted by the Project. The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 does not identify any known or suspected mineral resources in the Project site that could be impacted. The Project is located in Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) MRZ-3 as identified in the TOP 2050 Final Supplemental EIR Areas of Mineral Resource Significance figure.
1 Areas designated by the State of California Geologist as MRZ-3 include land that the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from the available data. Since there are no known mineral resources present that are of value to the State in the Project site, the Project would not impact mineral resources. Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource and no impact would occur. Furthermore, the Project site has no known mineral resources of value to the region and residents of the City according to the TOP 2050. 1 City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Figure 5.12-1 Areas of Mineral Resource Significant, page
5.12-3. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. (accessed March 2023).
1344
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-2 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of availability of any locally important mineral resource and no impact would occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project will not result in significant mineral resource 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
7.3 Recreation
Impact 7.3-1 Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Impact 7.3-2 Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project proposes 466 residential units along with business park and mixed-use land uses that would create additional demand for park and recreational facilities. The need for recreations amenities would be addressed through the Project’s provision of multi-purpose trails along Euclid and Schaefer Avenues and public accessible sidewalks along Euclid, Schaefer and Sultana Avenues and Edison Avenue.
Furthermore, the Project will comply with the City’s Development Code Section 6.08.030: Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Regulations, to provide two acres of park per 1,000 residents onsite and pay an in-lieu fee for the equivalent of three acres of park per 1,000 residents for a total of five acres per 1,000 residents to ensure that recreational facilities are within walking distance of future residents within the Project area.
With the development of the proposed open space, it is anticipated that the Project would not significantly increase the use of other nearby off-site neighborhood parks, regional parks, or recreational facilities.
Additionally, the Project would pay applicable park impact fees as established by the City, pursuant to the Quimby Act and local City Regulations. Based on the proposed development plans, the Project's estimated 1,570 residents (assumes an average of 3.37 occupants per residence for this type of community and 466 households) would equate to a dedication requirement of 7.8 acres.2 The Project will comply Quimby Act and City regulations through the dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees for 2 California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020 -2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020- 2022/, (accessed March 2023).
1345
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-3 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant parks/recreation purposes, as determined by the City. Therefore, impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities will be less than significant.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project will not result in significant impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
7.4 Wildfire
Impact 7.4-1 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Level of Significance: No Impact
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA).3 According to CAL FIRE’S Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) Viewer,4 the Project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone and is within a Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) zone. Within the LRA, the Project site is not designated as a VHFHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ to is approximately 5.0 miles south from the Project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not in or near an SRA or Very High FHSZ zone, 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
3 State of California. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area – San Bernardino County. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/vcym3avh/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_sanbernardino_ada.pdf. (accessed March 2023). 4 State of California. 2021. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414. (accessed March 2023).
1346
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-4 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Impact 7.4-2 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone nor is it within an SRA. Additionally, Project development would remove the existing agriculture and vegetation on site, reducing the risk of any potential fire outbreak. Thus, wildfire is not anticipated to occur on-site that would expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Worse-case extreme high winds that could exacerbate wildfire would not expose construction workers to pollutant concentrations since all agriculture uses would be removed. The Project site is also in a well vehicularly circulated area with existing roadways which would be further improved once the Project is completed.
The Project site and its surrounding areas do not contain tall trees that would experience a crown fire.
Furthermore, due to the presence of surrounding development, non-contiguous nature of the existing undeveloped areas, presence of area roadways, lack of steep slopes, and fire-resistant materials utilized for construction of the Project, it is not likely to be affected by a wildfire during construction or operations.
In addition, the surrounding agricultural areas would be separated from the structures by roads, landscaping, parking, and other accommodating Project features. Lastly, the construction of the Project would be designed in accordance with the latest California Building Code standards, which utilizes fireresistant materials. Specifically, the site would be built consistent with the California Building Code Chapter 7A requiring new buildings to use ignition-resistant construction methods and materials. It is anticipated that these design elements would reduce exposure of the Project site and structure to wildfire.
Furthermore, the City’s plan for fire prevention requires that all plans are reviewed and are required for all new buildings and for changes to existing buildings. The Ontario Fire Department reviews these plans to help ensure that the applicable codes, ordinances, and standards are being followed, and to prevent unnecessary hazards. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not in or near an SRA or Very High FHSZ zone, 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
1347
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-5 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant Impact 7.4-3 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone nor is it within an SRA. The Project would include the construction of roadways, landscaping, signage, lighting, and utility improvements. The Project site is consistent with the area’s land use and would be consistent with the City’s zoning designation. The Project site would include installation of utilities and roads within the Project area. The Project does not include any fuel breaks and does not require a fuel break. In addition, emergency water sources are not required beyond water supply needed to comply with applicable building codes as well as the City’s Municipal Code. No elements of the Project would exacerbate the risk of wildfire. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not in or near an SRA or Very High FHSZ zone, 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
Impact 7.4-4 If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Level of Significance: Less Than Significant
Specific Plan – Phase I and Phase II Future Development Areas The Project site is not within Very High FHSZ zone nor is it within an SRA. Aerial imagery indicates that the Project is in a semi-rural part of the City and is not adjacent to a wildland-urban interface or in an area subject to landslide after a wildland fire event. Development of the Project would alter existing ground contours of the Project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns interior to the site. The overall Project would result in a network of drainage lines on- and off-site to accommodate stormwater runoff flows. The drainage plan for the Project site is designed according to the City of Ontario’s Master Plan standards. The new storm drain would increase the efficiency of the drainage infrastructure in that area and provide an updated conveyance system. Additional on-site storm drain improvements would include stormwater 1348
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 7-6 7.0 | Effects Found Not to be Significant detention/retention/water quality basins, which would capture, treat, and/or gradually release stormwater into the downstream public storm drain system. On-site stormwater treatment would incorporate underground chambers installed within each building’s parking area. The installation of the drainage design features would prevent flooding on- and off-site. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes and a less than significant impact would occur.
Conclusion
As noted above, the Project is not in or near an SRA or Very High FHSZ zone, 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.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.
7.5 References
California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020 -2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-5-populationand-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.
City of Ontario. 2022. TOP 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Figure 5.12-1 Areas of Mineral Resource Significant, page 5.12-3.
https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf State of California. 2021. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.
State of California. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area – San Bernardino County. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/vcym3avh/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_sanbernardino_ada.pdf. 1349
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 8-1 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation
8.0 EIR CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION
This section is consistent with the requirements set forth in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21153 and Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: “The EIR shall identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” Refer to Section 2.2, Notice of Preparation, for a summary of public notification and consultation.
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix A: Notice of Preparation & Public Scoping Meeting, of this Draft EIR. The City of Ontario (City) provided multiple opportunities for public input, both as part of the CEQA process and as part of Project scoping. In addition to required public notifications under CEQA, the City has engaged in extensive consultation with the Native American tribes, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, as discussed further in Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources, and provided in Appendix D: Cultural Resources Documentation of this Draft EIR.
8.1 EIR Consultation
Lead Agency
City of Ontario (CEQA Lead Agency)
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
Contacts: Edmelynne Hutter, AICP, Senior Planner (Project Planner) Rudy Zeledon, Assistant Director of Community Development Scott Murphy, AICP, Executive Director of Community Development Jeff Tang, P.E., Senior Associate Engineer
Angela Truong, Assistant Engineer
Raymond Lee, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
Project Applicant
RCCD, Inc.
Contact: Jason Lee, Vice President of Land Acquisition
Public Agencies/Organizations
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company
Contacts: Dennis Mejia, Utilities Engineering Manager
Thom Lambertson, PE, PMP, Senior Associate Engineer
1350
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 8-2 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation EPD Solutions, Inc. (Specific Plan/Development Advisor) Contacts: Jeremy Krout, AICP, President
Norah Jaffan, Senior Project Manager
Interested Parties
As noted above, the City engaged in public and agency consultation through the NOP and public scoping process. The following entities provided comments on the NOP, which have been considered as part of this EIR preparation process.
City of Chino Chris Cortez, Assistant Planner
Council of Carpenters Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorneys for Southwest Regional Redlands HQ / Southeast Region Will Liao, Region Planning Supervisor Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Jackie Vega, Urban Regional Planner I Native American Heritage Commission Cameron Vela, Cultural Resource Analyst Southern California Association of Governments Frank Wen, Ph.D., Manager, Planning Strategy Dept South Coast Air Quality Management District Sam Wang, Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
8.2 List of Preparers
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, California 92501
Contacts: Kevin Thomas, CEP, ENV SP, Vice President (Project Manager) Meghan D. Karadimos, Senior Environmental Analyst
Olivia Chan, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas/Health Risk Assessment/Noise/Energy Sabrina Wallace, Environmental Analyst, Graphics Designer Cameron Bauer, Environmental Analyst, Graphics Designer Amanda McCallum, Document Production
Technical Subconsultants
Cadre Environmental
(Biological Resources Technical Report)
701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92011
Contact: Ruben Ramirez
1351
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 8-3 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation BCR Consulting LLC
(Cultural Resources Assessment)
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, California 91711
Contact: David Brunzell, Principal Investigator/Archaeologist Structural Focus
(Relocation of Milking Parlors – Feasibility Study)
19210 S. Vermont Ave.,
Bldg. B, Suite 210,
Gardena, CA 90248
310-323-9924
Contact: Russell Kehl, S.E., Principal Engineer
Converse Consultants
(Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Organic Soil/Manure Evaluation Report) (Geotechnical Evaluation Report of Soil Stockpile)
(Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report)
(Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report) 2021 Rancho Drive, Suite 1
Redlands, CA 92373
909-796-0544
Contact: Hashmi S. E. Quazi, Ph.D., GE, PE, Principal Engineer JLC Engineering & Consulting, Inc.
(Hydrology and Hydraulic Report)
(Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan)
41660 Ivy Street, Suite A
Murrieta, California 92562
Contact: Joseph L. Castaneda, R.C.E.59835
Albert A. Webb Associates
(Water Supply Assessment)
3788 McCray Street
Riverside, CA 92506
(951) 686-1070
Contacts: Autumn DeWoody
Sam I. Gershon, RCE
1352
City of Ontario
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report December 2023 8-4 8.0 | EIR Consultation and Preparation Urban Crossroads
(Traffic Analysis)
(Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis)
20341 SW Birch Street, Suite 230
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 660-1994
Contacts: Charlene So, PE, Principal
Connor Paquin, PE
Jared Brawner
Aric Evatt, PTP
1353
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2023020281
Prepared for:
Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner
City of Ontario
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, CA 91761
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3801 University Avenue, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501
July 2024
1354
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Ontario July 2024
i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Organization of the Final EIR ................................................................................................1-2
1.3 CEQA Requirements for a Final EIR.......................................................................................1-2
1.4 Clarifications, Amplifications and Modifications to the Draft EIR ..........................................1-3 Section 2: Comments and Responses to Draft EIR
2.1 Introduction to Comments and Responses...........................................................................2-1 Comment Letter L1 – South Coast Air Quality Management District.....................................2-3 Responses to Comment Letter L1.......................................................................................2-11 Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino.......................................................................................2-23 Responses to Comment Letter L2.......................................................................................2-29 Comment Letter O1 –Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ......................................2-33 Responses to Comment Letter O1......................................................................................2-81 Comment Letter O2 - Western States Regional Council of Carpenters..................................2-101 Response to Comment Letter O2 .......................................................................................2-369 Comment Letter O3 - Western States Regional Council of Carpenters..................................2-373 Response to Comment Letter O3 .......................................................................................2-375 Section 3.0: Errata to the Draft EIR
3.1 Introduction to the Errata ....................................................................................................3.0-1
3.2 Changes to the Draft EIR ......................................................................................................3.0-2 Section 4.0: FINAL EIR APPENDICES
4.1 DEIR Distribution Package
1355
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Ontario July 2024
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
1356
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario July 2024
1-1
Section 1.0 Introduction
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA Guidelines. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 indicates that the contents of a Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed.
(b) The EIR may be prepared as a separate document, as part of a general plan, or as part of a project report. If prepared as a part of the project report, it must still contain one separate and distinguishable section providing either analysis of all the subjects required in an EIR or, as a minimum, a table showing where each of the subjects is discussed. When the Lead Agency is a state agency, the EIR shall be included as part of the regular project report if such a report is used in the agency’s existing review and budgetary process.
(c) Draft EIRs shall contain the information required by Sections 15122 through 15131. Final EIRs shall contain the same information and the subjects described in Section 15132. (d) No document prepared pursuant to this article that is available for public examination shall include a “trade secret” as defined in Section 6254.7 of the Government Code, information about the location of archaeological sites and sacred lands, or any other information that is subject to the disclosure restrictions of Section 6254 of the Government Code.
The Final EIR includes all of these required components.
In accordance with § 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Ontario (City), as the lead agency for the proposed Project, evaluated comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) and has prepared responses to the comments received. The preceding Table of Contents and Section 1.0 provides of a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. Section 2.0 includes the Responses to Comments received on the Draft EIR. It should be noted that responses to comments also result in various editorial clarifications and corrections to the original Draft EIR text. Added or modified text is shown in Section 3.0, Errata, by underlining (example) while deleted text is shown by striking (example). The additional information, corrections, and clarifications are not considered to substantively affect the conclusions within the EIR. This Response to Comments document is part of the Final EIR, which includes the EIR pursuant to § 15132 of the State CEQAGuidelines.
After review and discussion by City staff and the City Planning Commission, responses to comments will be sent to commenting agencies and individuals. This satisfies the requirement of Section 21092.5 of CEQA to send responses to the public agency comments received on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to Project approval. This document includes responses to all written and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR. 1357
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario July 2024
1-2
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
This Final EIR provides the requisite information required under CEQA and is organized as follows:
Section 1.0 Introduction. This section provides an introduction to the Final EIR, including the requirements under CEQA, the organization of the document, as well as brief summary of the CEQA process activities to date.
Section 2.0 Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft Subsequent EIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number.
Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR. This section details changes to the Draft EIR.
Appendix. This section provides additional content where needed and cross-referenced from the body of the Final EIR.
1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL EIR
As described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088, 15089, 15090 and 15132, the Lead Agency must evaluate comments received on the Draft EIR and prepare written responses and consider the information contained in a Final EIR before approving a project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft EIRs should be:
“…on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises:
“Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” 1358
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario July 2024
1-3
Section 15204(d) also states:
“Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204(e) states:
“This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the Draft EIR, that the Lead Agency either revise the text of the Draft Subsequent EIR or include marginal notes showing that information. The Final Subsequent EIR for the Project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 indicates that the contents of a Final EIR shall consist of:
“The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
The City has evaluated comments on environmental issues from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and has prepared a written response, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), the City provided written responses to comments to any public agency that commented on the Draft Subsequent EIR, at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council consideration of certifying the EIR as adequate under CEQA. Written responses to comments will also be provided to nonpublic agency individuals, organizations, and entities that commended on the Draft EIR. In addition, the Final EIR will be made available to the general public at the City’s Planning Division office and on the City’s website a minimum of 10 days prior to the City Council public hearing.
The Final EIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, will be considered by the City’s Council.
1.4 CLARIFICATIONS, AMPLIFICATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE
DRAFT EIR
Section 3.0, Errata to the Draft EIR, details the proposed changes to the Draft EIR. In response to public comments, text changes have been made to Draft EIR sections to clarify and amplify the analysis or mitigation measures, and to make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. This information does not rise to the level of significant new information as the resulting impact analysis and alternatives considered remain essentially unchanged, and no new or more severe impacts have been identified. These changes 1359
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 1 - Introduction City of Ontario July 2024
1-4
do not warrant Draft EIR recirculation pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines §15088.5.
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes when an EIR requires recirculation prior to certification, stating in part:
“(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to apply it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).
(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” As discussed herein and as elaborated upon in the respective Response to Comments, none of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted, nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” Draft EIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments, master responses and Draft EIR Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Here, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or an unadopted feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters. Therefore, this Final EIR is not subject to recirculation prior to certification.
1360
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-1
Section 2.0 Comments and Responses to Draft EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states that: “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments that were received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In accordance with these requirements, this section of the Final EIR provides the City of Ontario’s responses to each of the comments on the Draft EIR received during the public comment period.
Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Draft EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period.
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments have been numbered as shown below, with responses to each comment following the respective comment letter.
Letter Date Received Organization/Name
Local
L1 February 1, 2024 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) L2 February 6, 2024 City of Chino
O1 February 5, 2024 Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance) O2 February 5, 2024 Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC]) O3 February 29, 2024 Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC]) 1361
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-2
This page intentionally left blank.
1362
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-3
Comment Letter L1 - South Coast Air Quality Management District 1363
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-4
1364
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-5
1365
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-6
1366
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-7
1367
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-8
1368
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-9
1369
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-10
1370
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-11
Responses to Comment Letter L1 - South Coast Air Quality Management District Response L1-a
Comment is introductory and general in nature. Therefore, no further action needed.
Response L1-b
The Draft EIR evaluated impacts based on, amongst other data, the assumption that “Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032,” as stated in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, page 3-7. It should be noted that specific details regarding development of the parcels in Phase II are not known at this time. The Draft EIR’s air quality analysis assumed construction of Phase II would begin subsequent to Phase I construction completion. Actual development would be subject to market conditions. It is not possible to know the specific timing and characteristics of potential future projects occurring in the planning area and, therefore, evaluating potential combined emissions scenarios would be speculative and would not provide meaningful information or analyses.
As such, for purposes of providing a conservative air quality analysis, the operations for buildout of the entire development are anticipated to begin in 2026 (as discussed in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-14). Conducting the air quality modeling in this way is considered conservative as emissions factors would decrease over time as emissions regulations become more stringent and cleaner construction equipment would be more readily available. As construction of Phase II and full buildout operations would occur at a later date than was analyzed in the Draft EIR, the emissions presented are, accordingly, conservative. No correction to the construction schedule or buildout operational dates are needed. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-c
The Draft EIR evaluated impacts based on, amongst other data, the assumption that “Phase I is expected to start construction in 2024, with an anticipated opening year in 2032,” as stated in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, page 3-7. For Phase II, it was assumed that construction would start right after Phase I construction is complete/at the start of Phase I operations and used model defaults as there is no detailed phasing. Thus, the City has analyzed sequential construction of Phase I with Phase II in the Draft EIR.
The commenter’s recommendation to combine construction emissions with operational emissions, i.e., an overlap, is not consistent with other South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance documents, recommendations, and impact analyses. For example, neither the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, or Air Quality Significance Thresholds imply or explicitly recommend combining emissions from distinct construction and operational activities into a single lump sum emissions total. Rather, each of these documents discusses potential sources, mitigation measures, and thresholds of significance for construction and operational emissions separately.
As stated in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, page 3-18, Phase II may be developed in several subphasesin response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly completion of infrastructure improvements. Additionally, as stated in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, 1371
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-12
page 4.3-14, “for purposes of this analysis, construction of Phase I of the Project is not anticipated to overlap with the construction of Phase II of the Project as there are still no proposals for this portion of the Project.” 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. Actual development would be subject to market conditions. It is not possible to know the specific timing and characteristics of potential future projects occurring in the planning area and, therefore, evaluating potential combined emissions scenarios would be speculative and would not provide meaningful information or analyses.
Nonetheless, the Final EIR will include the following discussion on impacts from the potential overlapping of Phase I operational activities with Phase II construction activities (refer to Draft EIR Appendix B for modeling outputs):
Table 4.3-12a: Emissions from Overlapping Phase I Operation and Phase II Construction Sources
Pollutants (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Phase I Operations (2026)1 68.73 191.98 611.85 1.01 23.53 10.07 Phase II Construction (2026)2 206.00 31.70 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40 Total Unmitigated Overlapping Emissions 274.73 223.68 658.75 1.07 44.83 21.47 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Phase I Operations (2026)1 59.89 145.59 207.35 0.91 21.93 8.64 Phase II Construction (2026)2 31.90 14.50 46.90 0.06 21.30 11.40 Total Mitigated Overlapping Emissions 91.79 160.09 254.25 0.97 43.23 20.04 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold Yes Yes No No No No
1. Refer to Draft EIR Table 4.3-9: Phase I – Maximum Daily Operation Emissions
2. Refer to Draft EIR Table 4.3-10: Phase II – Maximum Daily Construction-Related Emissions Note that Phase II construction would occur in 2025 and 2026. This table provides the maximum daily emissions, which would occur in 2026.
As shown in Table 4.3-12a of the Final EIR, Project emissions from the operation of Phase I combined with concurrent maximum day construction emissions of Phase II could result in maximum worst-case unmitigated daily emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO in excess of applicable thresholds. Overlapping emissions of SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the applicable thresholds. Implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce impacts from CO to below the applicable thresholds and impacts from CO emissions would be reduced to less than significant. Even with implementation of applicable mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR, and as disclosed in the Draft EIR, mitigated emissions of VOC and NOX would remain in excess of applicable thresholds.
Comparing the results summarized in Table 4.3-12a of the Final EIR, with the total Project buildout (Phase I and Phase II) emissions as reported in Table 4.3-12 in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR demonstrates that emissions for all six criteria pollutants studied are less during the overlapping scenario than at Project buildout. As such, Table 4.3-12 in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR presents the worst-case maximum daily emissions from the Project (i.e., exceedances of VOC and NOX regional daily mass emissions thresholds). The Draft EIR identifies all feasible mitigation to reduce construction and 1372
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-13
operational impacts. Combining Phase II construction with Phase I operations (i.e., the phases that would potentially overlap) would not result in a new threshold exceedance, would not make additional mitigation feasible, and no new impact would occur. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-d
The Draft EIR evaluated air quality impacts based on, amongst other data, trip generation and average vehicle trip distance for passenger vehicle and trucks as provided by Urban Crossroads in Appendix I:
Transportation Reports, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Project vehicle trip generation was obtained from the Project’s Traffic Analysis Study (Appendix I1: Traffic Analysis of the Draft EIR), which includes 7,938 total daily passenger car vehicle trips and 882 daily truck trips. In order to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project, trip-generation statistics published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used to estimate the trip generation. As discussed below, the City contends the use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual is justified and disagrees with the assertion that the modeling underestimated Project emissions from truck trips.
The commenter’s recommendation to utilize other trip generation rates, such as those presented in the City of Fontana’s 2003 Truck Trip Generation Study, is not consistent with other City guidance documents, recommendations, and impact analyses. The City of Fontana’s 2003 Truck Trip Generation Study is more than 20 years old and therefore, it is not representative of current trucking/industrial industry data, such as those released by other national sources. The latest Institute of ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, published in 2021) includes truck mix percentages for most of the industrial land use categories including those used for the Project. The ITE provides a mix of passenger cars versus total trucks and is an industry standard/source that is used across the country. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has preferred mix of trucks by axle-type for non-cold storage and cold storage warehouse uses. The use of these mixes in the traffic analysis, as was done for the Project, ensures that the traffic operations analysis and forecasts align with other technical studies that rely on the same data, such as air quality. Thus, the ITE Trip Generation Manual is an accepted methodology for estimating trip generation.
The air quality modeling is consistent with the trip generation of fleet assumptions of the traffic analysis, included as Appendix I of the Draft EIR. As shown in Table 4-2 of the Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis (included as Appendix I of the Draft EIR), total trucks generated by the truck/trailer parking lot, warehouse, and business park uses (total of 882 trucks) would consist of approximately 34.6 percent of the total 2,548 trips associated with those uses. The commenter miscalculated the truck percentage based on total trips for the entire Project Site, which includes uses that only account for passenger car trips. The remaining passenger car trips shown on Table 4-2 of the Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan Traffic Analysis are associated with residential, restaurant, and retail trips and application of Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study to those uses would not be appropriate. As such, the modeled truck fleet mix for applicable Project land uses (generating 882 trucks out of a total of 2,548 trips) is more conservative (34.6 percent) than the 20.4 percent trucks suggested in the comment. Therefore, the comment that the fleet mix assumptions underestimate operational emissions is incorrect. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
1373
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-14
Response L1-e
The Air Quality Assessment, provided as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, used a truck trip length of 33.2 miles in the emissions modeling based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) document Emissions Estimation Methodology for On-Road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. It should be noted that this distance is specific to transloading/local distribution facilities and is the longest (i.e., most conservative) distance identified in the study for the South Coast Air Basin. Shorter distances are identified for other locations such as off-terminal and intermodal facilities.
The CARB study used GIS to estimate travel distances. CARB explains that that estimating travel distances to/from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to distribution and transloading facilities is complicated because there are thousands of facilities and the number of trips to each facility and location of each facility is unknown. Therefore, CARB used the Ports’ truck trip origin and destination (O-D) survey data to estimate distribution center travel distances.
The CalEEMod methodology uses average trip lengths, which accounts for some longer trips (e.g., to/from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach or other location) and some shorter trips (e.g., to/from other facilities or warehouses in the area). Goods movement can involve several steps (i.e., origin and destination) between the port and a particular warehouse, intermodal facility, or other facility. Each step would be a separate trip. As such, not all truck trips would originate from the Ports; some trips may be from intermodal facilities, storage warehouses, cross-dock warehouses, distribution centers, retail stores, etc. Truck trips would likely be redistributed from other existing locations. As described above, the CARB truck trip lengths used in the Air Quality Assessment are based on substantial evidence and representative of warehouse truck trips to/from the ports in the South Coast Air Basin (i.e., the region where the Project is located). Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-f
The City acknowledges that health risk assessment (HRA) modeling does not include the building downwash option (where the potential for pollutants to be trapped in a recirculating pattern near buildings is accounted for) in the AERMOD dispersion model for operations. The purpose of building downwash is to determine if stack discharge might become caught in the turbulent wakes of structures within close proximity. A plume drawn into a turbulent wake is temporarily trapped in a recirculating cavity, increasing ground-level pollutant concentrations near the building than if the building weren’t present. The City disagrees that the dispersion modeling must include building downwash. The SCAQMD Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis (August 2003) includes guidance for truck idling, ship hoteling at ports and train idling. Page 6 of said document further describes that volume or area source options (where the movement of sources, such as trucks, within a given area is accounted for) are most appropriate for the diesel particulate matter sources associated with truck idling and movement and that point source treatment is most appropriate for ship activity and train idling emissions where the source of emissions has little to no movement (i.e., ships idling at the port). Additionally, the treatment of downwash in AERMOD is based on the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) model which is integrated into AERMOD for point sources (Schulman et al. 2000) only and is therefore only applicable to point and flare 1374
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-15
emission source types. In addition, PRIME algorithms have not been updated and the current treatment of downwash does not reflect more recent research and the current understanding of downwash effects.1 The Draft EIR modeled the mobile sources in the AERMOD dispersion model as line-volume sources consistent with SCAQMD guidance that represent on- and off-site truck movements and idling and is consistent with industry standard analysis. As the building downwash modeling option is applicable to point and flare emissions source types, it is not applicable to line-volume sources that were modeled for the Project.
With regard to emissions from backup generators, tenants of the proposed buildings are not known and it is not possible to know if or where backup generators would be installed. In addition, area sources (which encompass a general area on the site as opposed to a specific location for a point source) assume less dispersion due to a lower release height of pollutants (closer ground level) and lower exit velocity (speed at which pollutants are emitted from the exhaust) compared to a point source with a higher release height and exit velocity. The lower release height and lower exit velocity associated with the area sources assumed in the modeling results in a more conservative analysis in that greater pollutant concentrations near the ground-level (in closer proximity to receptors) released at lower speeds would disperse slower.
Therefore, areas sources were modeled to account for backup generators throughout the Project Site to provide a more conservative analysis. The modeling data is available in Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-g
Though not required by CEQA, the analysis in the Draft EIR (Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-46, and Appendix B2: Health Risk Assessment Data of the Draft EIR) conservatively analyzed localized impacts from Project operations on future on-site residential receptors.
As discussed in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-32 through 4.3-46, mitigated buildout operations would not result in significant impacts related to localized criteria pollutant emissions (see Tables 4.3-19 and 4.3-20 in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR) or carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks (see Tables 4.3-21 and 4.3-22 in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR), at off-site or future on-site residential receptors. Based on California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 5.504.5.3 requirements, most residential heating, air conditioning, and ventilation (HVAC) systems are rated for MERV13. The use of filters greater than MERV13 is not required and no presumed effectiveness or feasibility of a particular HVAC filter to filter out DPM or VOC has been accounted for in the analysis. It is noted that maintenance of the HVAC systems including filters would be performed by the building manager to ensure filters are changed regularly and that systems are fully functioning. Additionally, buildings are required to be energy efficient, meeting the strict standards of Title 24 (Part 6 and Part 11), which would offset the HVAC system energy consumption. Therefore, no further action needed.
Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required. 1 U.S. EPA, Issues Related to Building Downwash in AERMOD. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 01/documents/downwash_overview_white_paper.pdf.
1375
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-16
Response L1-h
The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant levels of emissions during construction and operation of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR also includes a number of Plans, Programs, and Policies, standard conditions, andmitigation measures to reduce impacts from the proposed Project. These Plans, Programs, and Policies are provided within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-15 through 4.3-16; Regulatory Requirements are included within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-27 through 4.3-28; and mitigation measures are provided within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-28 through 4.3-30 and page 4.3-44. The City disagrees that the suggested performance standards must be adopted in the Final EIR, as discussed further below.
The City requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints during construction through the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1. The City designed air quality mitigation measures to require strategies which can reasonably be seen as feasible at the time Project operations are expected to begin. For example, it would not be feasible to require the Project Applicant to use more electric construction equipment than stated in the Draft EIR or zero emissions or near zero emissions heavy-duty trucks because such equipment suitable for project construction are not now nor are they expected to be commercially available to meet the construction needs of the Project within the Project schedule.
Specifically, 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 program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure, and MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use.
MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. MM GHG-1 requires that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Climate Action Plan Screening Tables. Incorporation of eligible design features such as low-flow water fixtures and renewable energy would result in reduced operational emissions. Additionally, Standard Condition (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.
This comment provides a list of recommended additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s operational VOC and NOX emissions. The Draft EIR identifies a number of Plans, Programs, and Policies, standard conditions, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts from the proposed Project. These Plans, Programs, and Policies are provided within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-15 through
4.4-16; Regulatory Requirements are included within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-27 through 4.3-28; and mitigation measures are provided within Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-28 through 4.3-30 and page 4.3-44. The City disagrees that the suggested additional mitigation measures are necessary and feasible. The applicability and feasibility of each of these proposed measures is discussed below:
Mitigation Measures for Operational Air Quality Impacts from Mobile Sources 1) Require zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) on-road haul trucks.
The suggested measures contained in the comment related to ZE or NZE vehicles are not feasible to implement, because the availability of vehicles equipped with such technology in the opening 1376
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-17
year is speculative. Even with adoption of CARB’s Advanced Clean Truck Rule, CARB acknowledges that it will take time for ZE and NZE vehicles to become commercially availability and to penetrate market.
Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards, and neither the City nor the Project has control over these standards. Federal and State agencies regulate and enforce vehicle emission standards. Trucks accessing the Project site would be subject to the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy, CARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and CARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement. Additionally, trucks are subject to the Heavy-Duty Low NOX Omnibus Regulation. As noted in the comment, these regulations are required for all trucks. These suggested mitigation measures are already part of the existing regulatory environment and would not be considered mitigation under CEQA. For example, CARB already regulates truck emissions with the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, the Mobile Source Strategy (including the low-NOX engine emissions standard), the Sustainable Freight Action Plan, and the Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement, among others. As these regulations are already required, they do not represent CEQA mitigation for the Project.
2) Require a phase-in schedule to incentivize the use of cleaner operating trucks to reduce any significant adverse air quality impacts.
Refer to response L1-h(1), above. As these regulations are already required, they do not represent CEQA mitigation for the Project.
3) At a minimum, require the use of a 2010 model year that meets CARB’s 2010 engine emissions standards.
The CARB Truck and Bus Regulation required trucks to be upgraded to 2010 or new model year engines. The Truck and Bus regulation has been in effect since December 2008 and the final deadline for the last replacement phase of the regulation was January 1, 2023. As this regulation is already required, it does not represent CEQA mitigation for the Project. 4) Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the Final CEQA document.
The analysis provided in the Draft EIR is based on a set of realistic, but conservative, assumptions regarding the magnitude of potential activities resulting from the proposed Project, including truck trip estimates. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence that the Proposed Project would exceed this estimate and therefore such an action would not reduce any potentially significant impacts.
5) Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations or, at a minimum, provide electrical infrastructure, and electrical panels should be appropriately sized. Electrical hookups should be provided for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment.
1377
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-18
Draft EIR PDF GHG-2 ensures that the tilt-up concrete warehouse buildings shall have rooftops that can support tenant improvements for solar panels (i.e., solar-ready). As discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-37, the Project would comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and energy efficiency measures implemented by the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Consistent with the CAP, the buildings developed under the Project would have rooftops that can support solar panels (i.e., solar-ready) which will comply with solar ready requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would enable future tenants to install a PV system.
Further, MM AQ-4 requires electrical conduit for future electric trucks. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
Commenter-Recommended Mitigation Measures for Operations Air Quality Impacts from Other Area Sources
1) Maximize the use of solar energy by installing solar energy arrays.
The proposed Project would promote renewable energy sources including passive solar collection, subject to the City of Ontario policies and development regulations, within the Business Park and Mixed-Use Districts. Draft EIR PDF GHG-2 ensures that the tilt-up concrete warehouse buildings shall have rooftops that can support tenant improvements for solar panels (i.e., solar-ready). As discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-37, the Project would comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), and energy efficiency measures implemented by the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Consistent with the CAP, the buildings developed under the Project would have rooftops that can support solar panels (i.e., solar-ready) which will comply with solar ready requirements of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would enable future tenants to install a PV system. The residential buildings on-site would be prewired for the future installation of solar collection improvements. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
2) Use light-colored paving and roofing materials.
California’s Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards includes cool roof requirements for new and existing buildings. These requirements are in the following sections of the 2022 Title 24, Part 6 standards:
• Section 10-113(a): (Mandatory Labeling of Roofing Product Reflectance and Emittance) • Section 10-113(b): (Mandatory Certification)
• Section 110.8(i): (Mandatory Insulation, Roofing Products & Radiant Barriers) • Section 140.1: (Performance Approach: Energy Budgets [Nonresidential]) • Section 140.2: (Prescriptive Approach [Nonresidential]) • Section 140.3(a)(1): (Prescriptive Requirements for Building Envelopes [Nonresidential]) Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure. 1378
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-19
3) Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances. 2022 Title 24, Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards includes requirements to meet or exceed Energy Star standards. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
Commenter-Recommended Design Considerations
1) Clearly mark truck routes with trailblazer signs.
Draft EIR MM AQ-5 requires the Project to post signs that direct trucks to truck routes and away from sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
2) Design the Proposed Project such that truck entrances and exits are not facing sensitive receptors and trucks will not travel past sensitive land uses to enter or leave the Proposed Project site.
As discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-34, the Project is located in proximity to existing truck routes and freeways. As mentioned, MM AQ-5 requires the Project to post signs that direct trucks to truck routes and away from sensitive receptors, consistent with City requirements that truck traffic to be routed to minimize the impact on sensitive land uses (e.g., access locations, use of traffic control features, signage). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure. 3) Design the Proposed Project such that any truck check-in point is inside the Proposed Project site to ensure no trucks are queuing outside.
As described above, the City has requirements for truck traffic. In addition, Section 4.8:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.15-20, states that the “truck/trailer component of the Project is anticipated to provide overflow or excess trailer parking for nearby warehouses and distribution centers.” The truck storage lot is anticipated to serve nearby warehouses and distribution facilities that would be seeking to locate overflow truck/trailer storage as close as possible to the primary warehouse or distribution facility. As a result, the trips are expected to be local serving. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
4) Design the Proposed Project to ensure that truck traffic inside the Proposed Project site is as far away as feasible from sensitive receptors.
As described above, the City requires truck traffic to be routed to minimize the impact on sensitive receptors, (e.g., access locations, use of traffic control features, signage). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
5) Restrict overnight truck parking in sensitive land uses by providing overnight truck parking inside the Proposed Project site.
The Project is required to provide adequate on-site parking in accordance with the City’s parking standards. The City requires facilities to provide adequate on-site parking and queuing for trucks/trailers away from sensitive receptors and prohibit commercial truck and/or trailer parking 1379
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-20
on the public road right- of-way or adjacent to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with this recommended measure.
As discussed above, the City designed six operational air quality mitigation measures and one greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation measure to require strategies which can reasonably be seen as feasible at the time Project construction and operations are expected to begin. 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 program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure, and MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. Additionally, the applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-i
This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-j
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: Air Quality Emissions Model Data of the Draft EIR). Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD. SCAQMD rules considered in the analysis are discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-9 and 4.3-10, and includes Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 431.2 (Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels), Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings), and Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). Typical construction equipment assumed by CalEEMod includes the use of generators.2In order to provide a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR included emissions associated with backup generators based on general assumptions and associated calculations are included in Appendix B. Therefore, the construction and operations emissions estimations conservatively include the use of generators (see Appendix B1: Air Quality Emissions Model Data of the Draft EIR, Section 5.2 Off-Road Equipment of CalEEMod output files).
In addition, MM AQ-2 provides the following guidance, should the City deem generators necessary: “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.” If stationary equipment, such as generators, is needed, the end user would be required to 2 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1 User Guide. https://www.caleemod.com/user-guide.
1380
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-21
obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to installation. Stationary equipment would be required to implement SCAQMD’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and comply with applicable SCAQMD Rules, such as Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines). In order to provide a conservative analysis, the Draft EIR also included emissions associated with backup generators based on general assumptions (see Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-19) and the associated calculations are included in Appendix B1. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L1-k
The comment is general in nature, summarizing portions of California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines and includes the author’s salutation. The City of Ontario intends to fully comply with the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 as requested in the comment. That is, the comment requests that the City comply with CEQA when responding to SCAQMD’s comments. As requested, the City’s responses to SCAQMD’s comments will be sent to the SCAQMD as part of the Final EIR distribution prior to certification of Final EIR. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. The comment is included here to provide a complete record of the SCAQMD’s letter. The comment will become part of the administrative record and will be considered by the decision-makers. The comment does not raise any CEQA related issues, and no response is therefore warranted. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required. 1381
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-22
This page intentionally left blank.
1382
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-23
Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino
1383
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-24
1384
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-25
1385
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-26
1386
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-27
1387
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-28
This page intentionally left blank.
1388
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-29
Response to Comment Letter L2 – City of Chino
Response L2-a
Comment is introductory and general in nature. Therefore, no further action needed. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L2-b
The commentor states that the Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic Analysis) does not assess impacts that are likely to occur in the City of Chino. The City disagrees with this assertion. Roadways and intersections that could likely be substantially affected by Project traffic were identified through the Project Traffic Study Scoping Agreement, included within Appendix I1: Traffic Analysis of the Draft EIR.
The City of Ontario (the CEQA Lead Agency) has reviewed and approved the Traffic Study Scoping Agreement.
The Traffic Study Scoping Agreement identifies roadways and intersections located north, south, and east of the Project site as likely travel routes for traffic accessing the Project site. This is consistent with the Project location in the context of regional travel corridors, and the most direct travel routes available to Project traffic connecting with regional traffic corridors. More specifically, State Route 83 (SR-83, Euclid Avenue) comprises the Project site western boundary. Direct access to State Route 60 (SR-60) to the north, and State Route 71 (SR-71) to the south is provided by SR-83. Edison Avenue comprises the Project site southern boundary. Direct access to Interstate 15 (I-15) to the east is provided by Edison Avenue. It is considered unlikely that substantial traffic accessing the Project site would take a circuitous route traversing the City of Chino located west of the Project site, across SR-83. Please refer also to the Traffic Study Scoping Agreement, which is provided as Appendix 1.1: Traffic Study Scoping Agreement to Appendix I1: Traffic Analysis of the Draft EIR.
City of Chino Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines cited by the commentor are recognized. The Project is located in the City of Ontario (the CEQA Lead Agency). Accordingly, the Project Traffic Analysis has been prepared consistent with City of Ontario requirements.
As a general note, commentor concerns regarding Traffic Impact Analysis roadway performance standards (Level of Service [LOS] impacts) are recognized. However, LOS is not an environmental concern recognized under CEQA. The Traffic Analysis and LOS information presented in the Draft EIR are provided for the purposes of developing roadway general design and performance parameters. The City may employ these designs and standards in future planning and development of the area circulation system. LOS considerations do not affect findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR.
Based on the preceding, findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L2-c
Comment noted. The comment makes no specific claim regarding the validity of the Draft EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), a lead agency is only required to evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues, and thus no further response is necessary. The City of Ontario 1389
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-30
will coordinate with the City of Chino regarding improvements to Euclid Avenue including the modification of traffic signals at Schaefer Avenue, Red Bud Lane, and Edison Avenue. Generally, the City of Ontario will coordinate with the City of Chino to ensure compatible design(s) and construction of shared public improvements, and public improvements transitions. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L2-d
City of Chino General Plan Air Quality Chapter requirement for a 1,000-foot separation between distribution warehouse operations with 100 or greater trucks per day and sensitive receptors is recognized. The 1,000-foot separation is intended to buffer or avoid air pollutant effects of warehouse operations at proximate sensitive land uses. The Project is closer than 1,000 feet to the sensitive uses identified by the commentor; also depicted in Section 4.12: Noise of the Draft EIR, Figure 4.12-1: Sensitive Receptors and Noise Measurement Locations.3The Project in total would generate more than 100 truck trips per day, as discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, page 4.15-13.
The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) Policy ER-4.9 incorporates provisions similar to those adopted by the City of Chino addressing protection of sensitive land uses. TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9 requires that new developments conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for land uses that generate more than 100 trucks per day, or 40 trucks per day for trucks with transportation refrigeration units (TRU's), if these developments are located within 1,000 feet of sensitive land uses.
Consistent with City of Ontario requirements, a construction and operational phase HRA has been prepared for the Project and is incorporated in Section 4.3: Air Quality and Appendix B of the Draft EIR.
In this manner, the Draft EIR fully considers and addresses the Project’s potential localized air quality impacts at sensitive uses, including those uses cited by the commentor. The analysis presented in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-30 through 4.3-44, and in the Project HRA Modeling within Appendix B of the Draft EIR substantiate that localized air quality impacts to all areas having sensitive receptors (including sensitive receptors located in the City of Chino) would be less-thansignificant as mitigated by MM AQ-1 through AQ-8. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-28, MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-28 and 4.3-29, MM AQ-2 requires that all cargo handling equipment used on a daily basis (yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, etc.) be electric. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-29, MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-29 and 4.3-30, MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate electric vehicle infrastructure, and MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-30, MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-30, MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. As shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-44, MM AQ-8 requires off-road equipment 3 The nearest sensitive receptor to Project Phase I is a single-family residence located 135 feet (41 meters) west of the Project [in the City of Chino] (Draft EIR. p. 4.3-31)
1390
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-31
50 horsepower or greater to meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final standards. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L2-e
The commenter is requesting clarification on the scope of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan that was prepared on March 16, 2023, for the Phase I area. The Phase II area is being evaluated only at a programmatic level, and there are no specific development proposals at this time. Upon commencement of project-level CEQA review for the Phase II area, a WQMP for the Phase II area would be conducted, similar to that of the Phase I analysis.
During future development of the Phase II area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which could include debris capture, onsite filters, and full trash capture devices, would be incorporated as necessary.
Additionally, Section 4.10: Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.10-15, states that, while the Phase I development structures and associate would alter the existing hydrological characteristics of the site, impacts associated with water quality would be less than significant, as the Project would not increase the time of concentration and the post-development runoff volume would incorporate applicable BMPs. Therefore, the comment is noted for the record and no further revision to the Draft EIR is warranted.
Response L2-f
The commenter requests that dust control and circulation of traffic during construction should be maintained. As stated in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.3-15, Project construction activities would be conducted in compliance with any applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations, including SCAQMD Rule 403. SCAQMD Rule 403 for Fugitive Dust requires fugitive dust sources to implement BMPs for all sources. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are warranted.
Response L2-g
Comment noted. The comment makes no specific claim regarding the validity of the Draft EIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a), a lead agency is only required to evaluate and respond to comments raised on environmental issues, and thus no further response is necessary. The Project would allow for approximately 12 acres of open space designated for non-recreational uses. While no buildings are proposed within this area, it is suitable for uses such as landscape plant nurseries, recreational vehicle and truck/trailer storage and other uses allowed by the City zoning. No further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response L2-h
Comment is introductory and general in nature. Therefore, no further action needed. 1391
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-32
This page intentionally left blank.
1392
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-33
Comment Letter O1 - Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance) 1393
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-34
1394
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-35
1395
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-36
1396
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-37
1397
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-38
1398
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-39
1399
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-40
1400
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-41
1401
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-42
1402
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-43
1403
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-44
1404
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-45
1405
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-46
1406
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-47
1407
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-48
1408
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-49
1409
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-50
1410
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-51
1411
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-52
1412
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-53
1413
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-54
1414
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-55
1415
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-56
1416
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-57
1417
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-58
1418
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-59
1419
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-60
1420
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-61
1421
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-62
1422
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-63
1423
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-64
1424
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-65
1425
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-66
1426
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-67
1427
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-68
1428
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-69
1429
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-70
1430
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-71
1431
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-72
1432
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-73
1433
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-74
1434
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-75
1435
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-76
1436
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-77
1437
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-78
1438
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-79
1439
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-80
1440
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-81
Response to Comment Letter O1 - Blum, Collins & Ho LLP (Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance)
Response O1-a
Introductory comments are noted for the record. The commenter provides a general introductory and requests to be added to the public interest list are noted to the record. All attachments to the comment letter have been received. As the specific comments in the letter re-state the comments in the attachments, responses to the letter also fully respond to the attachments. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O-1b
The commenter’s summary of the Project is noted for the record. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-c
The City disagrees that the Draft EIR must include analysis of potential environmental justice issues, as CEQA does not require consideration of potential implications to environmental justice or socioeconomics as a specific resource, further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines.4 The remainder of the comment presents data from California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA) CalEnviroScreen. The City further notes that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not recommend analysis of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from shortterm construction activities associated with land use development projects.5 As well, a construction health risk assessment (HRA) is not required by SCAQMD and no guidance for HRAs for construction has been adopted by SCAQMD or the City. Although SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not require an HRA for short-term construction emissions, a construction HRA was conservatively prepared for the Project and is provided in the Draft EIR in Section 4.3: Air Quality. The 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 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
As analyzed in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-35 and 4.3-36, in Project construction activities, including TACs from equipment exhaust would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project-related TAC impacts during construction would be less than significant with mitigation measures Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1 through MM AQ-8. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints; 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 4 Title 14. Natural Resources. (2018). Retrieved from: http://files.resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. 5 South Coast Air Quality Management District. (2024). Air Quality Analysis Handbook. Retrieved from: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 1441
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-82
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; MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices for residential fireplaces; MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage; and MM AQ-8 requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required to reduce the cancer risk.
An operational phase HRA was also conducted for this Project (see Appendix B of the Draft EIR). The analysis included both on-site and off-site impacts from the diesel trucks accessing the warehouse development on nearby residential and worker receptors. Chronic impacts were also evaluated in the HRA.
The operational HRA determined that incorporating operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7, would reduce potential hazards to be within acceptable limits. 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 TDM program to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit; MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure; MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use; and MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage. Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR determined that Project construction and operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and operations would not exceed SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs), would not create a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot, and would not generate concentrations of DPM that would result in carcinogenic, chronic, or acute health risk effects. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-d
This comment is noted for the record. See Response O1-c.
Response O1-e
This comment is noted for the record. See Response O1-c.
Response O1-f
This comment is noted for the record. See Response O1-c.
Response O1-g
This comment is noted for the record. See Response O1-c.
Response O1-h
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR must use one of three state-approved compliance modeling software for non-residential buildings and that the Draft EIR does not comply with the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The software programs listed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) concern the performance approach method, which provides maximum flexibility to trade off the energy performance of different building components to achieve compliance for the 2022 Energy Standards. As stated in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod, which was used by the City, utilizes widely 1442
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-83
accepted methodologies for estimating emissions combined with default data. The sources for the methodologies include studies commissioned by the CEC and also utilize energy conservation standards subject to Title 24.6
The energy analysis and associated thresholds are provided on Draft EIR Section 4.6: Energy. The analysis specifically responds to the guidance for energy analysis in the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, which requires a determination on if a project would increase the need for new energy supplies. The analysis is used to disclose the amount of energy that the Project would require and is not utilized to demonstrate compliance for performance. Additionally, the Draft EIR discloses the Project’s electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuel consumption and determined that the Project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful as the Project will be required by the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) to comply with the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Nonresidential) published by the CEC, which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Therefore, the Project used the appropriate model to calculate and disclose the Project’s energy use, and also demonstrated that the Project would be required to comply with the CALGreen Code and Title 24. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-i
GHG emissions and impacts were fully analyzed within Draft EIR Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
As discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-14, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to determine thresholds of significance that illustrate the extent of an impact and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(3), when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, the lead agency should consider “the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.” As stated in the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CAP), the CAP is in concert with Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and international efforts to address global climate change and includes specific local requirements that will substantially lessen the cumulative problem and therefore the CAP is the type of mitigation called for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) and Section 15183.5.
The Draft EIR’s GHG analysis quantifies the Project’s GHG emissions for informational-purposes only and determines significance based on the Project’s consistency with the CAP, adopted in 2022. The CAP utilizes screening tables that assign point values to document implementation of CAP strategies, ensuring compliance with CEQA provisions for evaluating and mitigating climate change impacts. The Screening Tables provides a menu of options that both ensures implementation of the reduction strategies and flexibility. According to the adopted CAP, projects garnering at least 100 points on the CAP Consistency Tables would be considered consistent with the reduction quantities in the City’s CAP and are considered less than significant with regards to GHG emissions. Therefore, the quantitative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e threshold raised by the comment has no relevancy to the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis.
Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required. 6 CalEEMod User’s Guide. (2021). Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-sguide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 1443
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-84
Response O1-j
The City disagrees that Table 4.8-8 in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, provides an erroneous and misleading consistency analysis. The commenter claims that the Project is not consistent with Transportation Strategy 9 due to the lack of transit in the Project vicinity. However, the consistency analysis states that the Project would construct transit turnouts within the Specific Plan Area. This Project feature is intended to support the expansion of transit service in the Project vicinity, specifically the BRT service that the City is coordinating with regional transit agencies in order to serve Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would directly support the expansion of transit service into the Project Area by constructing turnouts and the Draft EIR correctly concludes that the Project would be consistent with Transportation Strategy 9. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-k
As the commenter notes, there is no site plan or development information for the residential portion of the proposed Project, which has been analyzed programmatically in the Draft EIR. Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Ontario Development in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-28, includes a list of reduction measures that individual developments can implement to show consistency with the CAP. Projects that achieve 100 points are considered to be consistent with the CAP and would result in less than significant impact with regard to consistency with GHG reduction planning.
The commenter incorrectly claims that the Draft EIR assigns the points shown in Table 4.8-9 in Section 4.8:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, to the Project. However, as discussed in Table 4.8-9 in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 4.8-28, “identifies potential design features and their associated scores” and is included to show “that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables” given the amount of available points. The discussion in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-28, has been revised to clarify that Table 4.8-9 lists all available design features and points potential and is not intended to provide that the Project would implement all of the design features listed; see Section 3.0: Errata, of the Final EIR.
Table 4.8-9 in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR has also been updated to include the design features and points value according to the latest version of the CAP screening tables (2022), which is also included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O-1l
The City disagrees with the assertion that achievement of CAP screening points is not possible. MM GHG-1 requires the achievement of 100 points per the CAP screening tables and the incorporation of design features in development plans prior to the issuance of building permits. As shown in Table 4.8-9 of the Final EIR, CAP screening tables provide development projects with design options that could provide a total of 218 possible multi-family residential points and a total of 238 possible warehouse points.
Therefore, as discussed in the Draft EIR, consistency with the CAP through achievement of 100 points on the screening tables is both feasible and required. The less than significant impact conclusion is solely 1444
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-85
based on the Project’s feasible and required achievement of 100 points on the screening tables and not on a quantification of GHG emissions reductions. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O-1m
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR provides inadequate consistency analysis as to the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). The consistency analysis in the Draft EIR serves to determine the Project’s consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and explains, specifically, that the Project is consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals 5, 6, and 7.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 5 aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve air quality. The Project is consistent with Goal 5 because the reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures. Further, the Project includes the construction of bus turnouts, which would serve future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service currently being coordinated by the City of Ontario and regional transit agencies. The future BRT service would target destinations along corridors, including Euclid Avenue on the western boundary of the Project site. The Project would directly support the expansion of transit services in the Project area. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 6 aims to support healthy and equitable communities. The Project is consistent with Goal 6 as it would be constructed to comply with the current building codes, State and federal requirements, including Green Building Standards.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 7 aims to adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. The Project is consistent with Goal 7 as it would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes, State and federal requirements including Green Building Standards. In addition, as discussed in Goal 5, the Project would support the expansion of transit services in the Project vicinity through the construction of bus turnouts to service future BRT services. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O-1n
The City disagrees with this assertion in that the Draft EIR does not adequately or accurately analyze the proposed Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Environmental Checklist threshold, “For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.”
As discussed in Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, page 4.9-5, the Project site is located approximately 1.2 miles north of the Chino Airport and is approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the Ontario International Airport. Chino Airport is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino and situated within the incorporated limits of the City of Chino in the southwestern corner of the County 1445
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-86
of San Bernardino. Operations at Chino Airport affect lands within Riverside County less than two miles to the east, thus necessitating Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission adoption of a Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the portion of the airport influence area lying within Riverside County.7 The Project site is within the Chino Airport Influence Area and is within the Zone E compatibility zone, as depicted in Draft EIR Figure 4.9-1: Chino Airport Compatibility Zones. Zone E is categorized as other airport environs and prohibits only hazards to flight. Zone E places no requirements on open land, no limit on residential densities, and discourages major spectator-oriented facilities such as sports stadiums, amphitheaters, and concert halls beneath principal flight tracks. In addition, airspace review is required for objects that exceed 100 feet tall. Zone E requirements align with the Project Specific Plan.
Furthermore, the maximum building height for the Project is 45 feet in the Business Park district and 55 feet in the Mixed-Use district and the Project does not require ALUCP review. Additionally, the City disagrees with the assertion that the Project site, including the southern residential portion of the site, is within Safety Zone III, of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. According to The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) EIR Figure 5.9-2: Airport Safety Zones, the Project site is not located within a Chino Airport Safety Zone.8 As discussed in Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, pages 4.9-37 through 4.9-38, the San Bernardino County Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the Project site not being within a Safety Zone of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook), further depicted in Draft EIR Figure 4.9-2: Airport Safety Zones that shows the Project site on TOP 2050 EIR Figure 5.9-2. Therefore, as concluded in the Draft EIR, the Project is not anticipated to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-o
The City disagrees with this assertion that the Draft EIR omits discussion and analysis regarding the Project’s consistency with other land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In particular, the commenter asserts that the Project will have a significant and unavoidable cumulatively considerable impact to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. As identified within Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. As stated in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, discussion regarding reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be found in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, and discussion regarding improvements to air quality can be found in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, page 4.11-10.
The reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures. In addition, it is anticipated that less emissions would occur due to the mixed-use nature of the Project, which encourages an environment that is 7 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13-PDFGeneral-plannewplan-36--20Vol.-202-20Chino.pdf. 8 City of Ontario. The Ontario Plan 2050, Figure 5.9-2. Page 5.9-29: Airport Safety Zones. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/The%20Ontario%20Plann/EIR/Final_DraftSEIR_TOP2050.pdf. 1446
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-87
accessible through walkability and other sustainable alternatives. The Project would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes and state and Federal requirements including CALGreen Code. Additionally, the proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s General Plan, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050. Furthermore, the Project Specific Plan would promote orderly development to coincide with adjacent land uses. As shown in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project embodies the goals and policies in the applicable long-range planning documents. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies, and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Therefore, no further revision to the cumulative projects analyzed in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O-1p
See Response O1-c. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide information regarding the buildout conditions of the City’s TOP 2050. The Draft EIR provides cumulative analysis for each focus area in its respective section associated with development and growth in the City and region.
Further description of the portion of the Draft EIR referenced in this comment is not necessary.
Cumulatively significant effects were individually discussed in each environmental topic area’s (Sections 4.1: Air Quality through 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR) cumulative Impacts subsection. Further, the cumulative project list was considered to evaluate cumulative impacts per Sections 15130 and 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further revision to the cumulative projects analyzed in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O-1q
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion in that the Draft EIR provides inadequate consistency analysis that focuses on the broad policy-oriented goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The Project is consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goals 5, 6, and 7. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 5 aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve air quality. The Project is consistent with Goal 5 as the reduction of energy use, improvement of air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged through the existing and proposed alternative transportation modes, sustainable building and landscaping design techniques, and other best management practices for structures and non-structures. Further, the Specific Plan area is within walking distance of the Eucalyptus and Euclid Omnitrans Bus Route 83. Omnitrans Bus Route 83 directly connects the site to the cities of Chino and Upland and to several stops in the City of Ontario, as well as the Chino Transit Center and Ontario Civic Center Transfer Station. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 6 aims to support healthy and equitable communities. The Project is consistent with Goal 6 as it would be constructed to comply with the current building codes, State and federal requirements, including Green Building Standards.
2020-2045 RTP/SCS Goal 7 to adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. The Project is consistent with Goal 7 as it would construct new roads, infrastructure, and buildings to support uses consistent with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and consistent with current building codes, State and federal requirements including Green Building Standards. In addition, as 1447
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-88
discussed in Goal 5, the Project would be located within walking distance of public transit, thereby reducing the potential use of vehicles. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-r
See Response O1-n. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide an accurate consistency analysis with all land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, specifically with Policy LU5-7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations. As discussed in Section 4.9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR, pages 4.9-37 through 4.9-38, the San Bernardino County Chino Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies the Project site not being within a Safety Zone of the Chino Airport Overlay (Generic Safety Zones for General Aviation Airports from the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics – California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook), as depicted in Draft EIR Figure 4.9-2: Airport Safety Zones. Therefore, Project implementation is not required to comply with the criteria of the Chino Airport final composite safety zones, and no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-s
See Response O1-n. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not adequately or accurately analyzed the Project’s consistency with the San Bernardino County ALUC Chino Airport Compatibility Plan. Additionally, the Project Specific Plan allows for up to 466 residential units and a maximum of 1,676,887 square feet of employment generating land uses within the Project area. The Specific Plan includes future transit stops and near planned transit lines and helps to improve jobs housing balance in the City and the surrounding region with the provision of varied land use alternatives within the Mixed-Use District. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.11: Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-30, the Specific Plan is consistent with the City TOP 2050, Policy ER4-3, which aims to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, State, and federal regulations. The Project is consistent with TOP 2050 Policy ER4-3 as it would be constructed in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code; including but not limited to, using energy-efficient LED products, choosing roof and paving materials that possess a high level of solar reflectivity, and employing high-performance dualpane window glazing in office storefronts. As such, the Project would help reduce GHG emissions in accordance with regional, State, and federal regulations and be consistent with TOP 2050 Policy ER4-3.
Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-t
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has provided a misleading and inaccurate qualitative analysis of the project’s GHG emissions that cannot be feasibly assured to reduce GHG emissions to less than significant levels. As stated in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the Project’s construction and operational emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). Details of the modeling assumptions and emission factors are provided in Appendix B1: Air Quality Emissions Model Data of the Draft EIR. For construction, CalEEMod calculates emissions from off-road equipment usage and on-road vehicle travel associated with haul, delivery, and construction worker trips. GHG emissions during construction were forecasted based 1448
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-89
on the proposed construction schedule and applying the mobile-source and fugitive dust emissions factors derived from CalEEMod. The Project’s construction-related GHG emissions would be generated from offroad construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles.
The Project’s operations-related GHG emissions would be generated by vehicular traffic, off-road equipment, area sources (e.g., landscaping maintenance, consumer products), electrical generation, natural gas consumption, water supply and wastewater treatment, and solid waste. The increase of traffic over existing conditions as a result of the Project was obtained from the Project’s Traffic Analysis Study (see Appendix I1: Traffic Analysis) prepared by Urban Crossroads (January 2023). Project trip generation from the Trip Generation Analysis is based on the following Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use categories:
• ITE Land Use 130: Industrial Park
• ITE Land Use 150: Warehousing
• ITE Land Use 220: Multifamily Low-Rise Residential
• ITE Land Use 822: Strip Retail
• ITE Land Use 933: Fast-Food Restaurant Without Drive-Through • ITE Land Use: 934: Fast-Food Restaurant With Drive-Through The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not contain trip generation rates for truck/trailer parking lots.
Therefore, the traffic study developed rates with data from other truck/trailer parking facilities located in the surrounding area, as discussed in Appendix I of the Draft EIR. Truck mix percentages are based on the SCAQMD Truck Trip Generation Study applied to ITE truck percentages. Other operational emissions from area, energy, and stationary sources were quantified in CalEEMod based on land use activity data, as discussed in Appendix B and Appendix I of the Draft EIR.
As concluded in Table 4.8-7 in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, Project Buildout would generate approximately 36,129 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. Since the majority of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions. While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the adopted Community Climate Action Plan (CAP), projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points are considered less than significant. At the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B of the Draft EIR). The City requires that an applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, the Project impact is less than significant.
1449
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-90
In addition, the Project would include several sustainable design features as required by MM GHG-1 that would help reduce GHG emissions. Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed; nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
The majority of the GHG reductions from the Scoping Plan would result from continuation of the Cap-andTrade regulation. AB 398 extends the State’s Cap-and-Trade program through 2030 and the Scoping Plan provide a comprehensive plan for the state to achieve its GHG targets through a variety of regulations enacted at the State level. Additional reductions are achieved from electricity sector standards (i.e., utility providers to supply 60 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and 100 percent renewable by 2045), doubling the energy efficiency savings at end uses, additional reductions from the LCFS, implementing the short-lived GHG strategy (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons), and implementing the Mobile Source Strategy and Sustainable Freight Action Plan.
The Project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) or state efforts to improve system efficiency. As discussed above and in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 would reduce mobile source emissions and would support the State’s transition to ZEVs. The Project would also benefit from implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks.
The CAP establishes a city points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project. The CAP Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. As discussed above, both Phase I and Phase II of the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points individually, based on the completion of preliminary Screening Tables (see Appendix B of the Draft EIR). Achieving 100 points ensures that the Project would not impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1. Therefore, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 Policy ER4-6. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-u
See Response O1-c above. As analyzed in Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR, pages 4.3-35 and 4.3-36, Project construction activities, including TACs from equipment exhaust would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Project-related TAC impacts during construction would be less than significant with mitigation measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-8. MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints; 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 TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit; 1450
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-91
MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure; MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use; MM AQ-6 prohibits the installation of wood-burning and natural gas devices; MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage; and MM AQ-8 requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment is required to reduce the cancer risk.
Additionally, incorporating operational MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM AQ-7, would reduce potential hazards to be within acceptable limits. 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 TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit; MM AQ-4 requires the buildings to be designed to accommodate EV infrastructure; MM AQ-5 prohibits idling when engines are not in use; and MM AQ-7 prohibits refrigerated warehouse space/cold storage.
Section 4.3: Air Quality of the Draft EIR determined that Project construction and operations would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction and operations would not exceed SCAQMD Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs), would not create a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot, and would not generate concentrations of DPM that would result in carcinogenic, chronic, or acute health risk effects. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. No further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-v
Per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15131 and 15384, CEQA analysis addresses a project’s potential impacts on the physical environment; economic or social issues of a project are not treated as significant effects on the environment, or as substantial evidence if they do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the proposed Project Specific Plan is consistent with the City’s TOP 2050, land use and zoning designations, and therefore, a general plan amendment is not required.
Therefore, TOP 2050 Policies CE3-1 and CE3-2, which concern economic issues not required to be assessed in the Draft EIR. These policies can be considered by the City Council as part of its policy deliberations concerning the Project. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-w
The City disagrees with the assertion the Draft EIR does not provide adequate analysis of the application of the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) program to mitigate deficient level of service (LOS) intersections.
As a preliminary matter, LOS-related impacts are no longer potential environmental impacts under CEQA.
TOP 2050 Policy M1-5 Level of Service requires roadways to maintain a peak hour Level of Service (LOS) E or better at all intersections. The Project would comply with the Functional Roadway Classification Plan of the Mobility Element which aims to comply with federal, State, and local design and safety standards, meet the needs of multiple transportation modes and users, and maintain a LOS of E or better at all intersections addressed in the Draft EIR. The Project would be required to comply with the City’s DIF program, which helps fund transportation improvements. The City’s DIF includes regional improvements to comply with Measure I. As discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, page 4.15-11, if roadway improvements are not included in the DIF program, the Project would be required to provide funding on a fair share basis where appropriate, as determined by the City. The City 1451
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-92
shall collect these fees, with the proceeds solely used as part of a funding mechanism aimed at ensuring that regional highways and arterial expansions keep pace with the projected population increases.
Therefore, the Project is consistent with TOP 2050 Policy M1-5. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O-1x
Comment noted for the record.
Response O1-y
Comment noted. As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, the Specific Plan is consistent with the land use and zoning designations within the City’s TOP 2050. The existing zoning designation for the site is SP (Specific Plan) Zoning District. The SP District designation requires approval of a specific plan by the City for urban development of the project site. The Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan will be the zoning for the Project site, consistent with TOP 2050. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-z
See Response O-1x above.
Response O1-aa
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not identified and analyzed the potential impact of developing replacement sites for the net loss in residential capacity for 774 units as a result of adopting the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan. As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, the City’s TOP 2050 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). As analyzed within Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR, the Project would provide 466 high-density residential development which would contribute to the City’s RHNA Allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period. The Project site has been identified as a Housing Opportunity Area where residential neighborhoods would be balanced by mixed-use, commercial, and public places and organized around a regional-scale park. The City’s housing strategies for this area promote the creation of mixed-income communities in the western Ontario Ranch. The Project would be consistent with the goals and growth projection for the City and the region, which accounts for the 466 planned high-density residential units. While the development of new business associated with Phase I development and the development of new residences associated with Phase II development would directly result in population growth, growth of 1,571 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.13-2 in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR,). 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 Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Therefore, the Project would not result in residential capacity loss. No further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
1452
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-93
Response O1-bb
See Response O-1x above.
Response O1-cc
See Response O-1x above.
Response O1-dd
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not provided any analysis to demonstrate that adoption of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan will yield 338 affordable units in the income categories specified in the Housing Element. As analyzed within Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR, the Project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth in the area. The Project would provide 466 high-density residential development which would contribute to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period. The Project site has been identified as a Housing Opportunity Area where residential neighborhoods would be balanced by mixeduse, commercial, and public places and organized around a regional-scale park. The City’s housing strategies for this area promote the creation of mixed-income communities in the western Ontario Ranch.
The Project would be consistent with the goals and growth projection for the City and the region. While the development of new business associated with Phase I development and the development of new residences associated with Phase II development would directly result in population growth, growth of 1,571 residents would be well within the growth projections assumed for the City and the SCAG region, specifically, 96,900 by 2045 in the City and 674,000 by 2045 in the County (see Table 4.13-2 in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR). 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 Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-ee
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not provide a calculation of construction jobs generated by the Project. The Draft EIR determines that the Project would not introduce new population or housing to the Project site as the development would include business park and mixed uses, which would result in jobs for residents in the surrounding area. As stated in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR, the construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy. The unemployment rate is approximately 4.1 percent within the jurisdictions in the Project vicinity of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Area as of 2021.
Because many of the employment opportunities are expected to be filled by persons within the local economy, it is anticipated that an adequate number of persons are available to fill the employment positions without constructing new residential units. Furthermore, the small percentage of skilled and managerial positions could either be filled by the local economy or by persons outside the local economy. 1453
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-94
Therefore, the implementation of the Project would result in less than significant growth inducement impacts in the Project vicinity.
CEQA does not require that an EIR provide estimates on the demographics and geographic location for qualified workers. As discussed in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR, page 4.13-10, construction phase of the development would generate temporary employment opportunities, including short-term design, engineering, and construction jobs. The forecast increase in Project employment is within SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City, which is 55,400 jobs and the forecast employment increase for the County of San Bernardino, which is 273,000 by 2045 (see Table 4.13-2 in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR). The San Bernardino Council of Governments region is housing rich. The Project would produce more jobs and therefore would support the improvements designated by SCAG in pursuit of an improved jobs-housing-balance for the County.
Because the region is housing-rich, it is expected that jobs at the Project site would be drawn from the local and regional labor force. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-ff
The referenced documents are available for review at the City Planning Department offices.
Response O1-gg
See Response O1-dd above.
Response O1-hh
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR “does not provide any cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2016 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed the employment/population growth forecasts by SCAG and/or the General Plan.” As analyzed in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR, impacts are analyzed using County projections in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Demographics and Growth Forecast. Development of the Project in conjunction with the related project list in Table 4-1: Related Approved and Pending Projects in Section 4.0: Environmental Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR, would not result in cumulative wide population and/or housing impacts, as mixed-use business park projects would further improve the jobshousing balance. This would encourage alignment with objectives set by SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as it would increase employment opportunities in an area that is predominantly residential. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the goals set forth in TOP 2050 by providing long-term employment opportunities associated with the buildout of the Project. Related projects would be reviewed by the City, and development would be required to be consistent with adopted State and City development standards, regulations, plans, and policies to minimize the effect of the increase in population on physical impacts on the environment. Additionally, the indirect effect of Project employment on housing and population growth in the City has been anticipated in TOP 2050, and therefore in regional housing and population forecasts provided in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively adverse growth impacts. Upon approval, the Project would improve the jobs-housing balance in the County which is considered a housing-rich area. Therefore, the Project combined with related projects 1454
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-95
would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to population and housing as no substantial new unplanned growth would occur. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-ii
See Response O1-w above.
Response O1-jj
The City disagrees with the assertion that the VMT analysis has underestimated the proposed projects VMT generation. The VMT analysis was prepared consistent with the City of Ontario’s adopted VMT guidelines and thresholds as adopted by City Council in June 2020 (File No.: SB 743 VMT Thresholds). The City’s resolution states that SBTAM is the appropriate tool to use when preparing a VMT analysis. As SBTAM was utilized to formulate and establish the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold it is appropriate for land use projects follow the methodologies used to establish these thresholds.9 In addition, the City disagrees with the assertion that the VMT analysis does not adequately or accurately represent the VMT impacts of the Project. As part of the preparation of the VMT analysis, 1,333 new employees were added to the Project’s TAZ to ensure the inclusion of the Project’s industrial warehouse uses; therefore, the analysis includes the additional traffic from both passenger cars and trucks associated with the Project’s proposed land uses. Furthermore, as noted in the VMT analysis, the City’s VMT analysis guidelines require the calculation of total VMT as derived from the SBTAM model’s origin/destination (OD) trip matrices. These matrices include internal to internal (II), internal to external (IX), and external to internal (XI) vehicle trips for all vehicle types (i.e., passenger car and commercial vehicles).
Lastly, the truck/trailer component of the Project is anticipated to serve nearby warehouses and distribution facilities that would be seeking to locate overflow truck/trailer storage as close as possible to the primary warehouse or distribution facility. As a result, the trips are expected to be local serving.
Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-kk
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses; or the project’s potential to result in inadequate emergency access.
As discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR, page 4.15-24, roadway improvements and installation of driveways that would be implemented during construction of the Project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 7-3.07, which requires that prior to any activity that would encroach into a right-of-way, the area be safeguarded through the installation of safety devices that would be specified by the City’s Engineering Department during the construction permitting process to ensure that construction activities would not increase hazards. In the conduct of such activity or encroachment, materials, supplies, excavated material, and equipment shall be properly placed, and the permittee shall provide and maintain such safety devices, including, but not limited to, lights, barricades, signs, and guards, as are necessary to protect the public. Additionally, during 9 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 2018. Page 30-31. Retrieved from: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416- 743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.
1455
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-96
construction and long-term operation of the Project, adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles would be maintained along public streets that abut the Project site. Access roads to the site would be constructed throughout the Project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be kept or maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage for emergency response vehicles. The City, as part of its discretionary review process, reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that circulation on the Project site was adequate for emergency vehicles.
The City has adopted an Emergency Operations Plan to identify evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and equipment available to effectively deal with emergency situations. No revisions to the adopted Emergency Operations Plan would be required as a result of the Project. The Project includes the construction and/or improvement of 17 driveways to and from the Project site from adjacent roadways. Exhibit 1-4 in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix I1) illustrates and describes access to the Project site. The Project’s proposed circulation and off-site improvements would be constructed accordingly with Recommendations 1 through 16 listed in the Project Traffic Analysis to accommodate on-site access.
Additionally, all roadway improvements would be designed consistently with the City’s TOP 2050 Mobility Element programs, plans, goals and policies, and City Traffic and Transportation Guidelines, and PPP TR-1 and PPP TR-2. Therefore, direct access to the Project site would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design features or dangerous intersections and a less than significant impact would occur.
Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-ll
See Response O1-kk above.
Response O1-mm
Comment noted. The City disagrees with this assertion. 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 intent and purpose of the Project is to provide zoning regulations for development of the Project site by establishing permitted land use, development standards, infrastructure requirements, and implementation requirements for development. A comprehensive set of design guidelines and development regulations are included to guide and regulate site planning, architectural character, and landscape within the community, ensuring that excellence in community design is achieved during project development. The Draft EIR, as an informational document evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the Project, does not include revisions of the final document. The Specific Plan establishes the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the Project site and does not serve as land entitlement approval for each development project on site. The Project is considered under a Legislative Action Application by the City of Ontario. Any new development within the Specific Plan area would be required to submit a discretionary permit/action application and obtain approval from the City.
Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR discusses the conceptual grading plan and earthwork analysis. The information provided in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR regarding grading 1456
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-97
plan and earthwork analysis are adequate analysis of the contents within the Specific Plan, and no revisions or recirculation of the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-nn
Comment noted. The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR has not provided any analysis of the available horizontal and vertical sight distance at the intersection of the project driveways and adjacent streets. As identified in Appendix I: Transportation Reports of the Draft EIR, sight distance at each project access point shall be reviewed with respect to standard Caltrans and City of Ontario sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans.
Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-oo
See Response O1-pp, below. Further, the Draft EIR cumulative project list was considered to evaluate cumulative impacts per Sections 15130 and 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was distributed on February 10, 2023. The data available at the time of the preparation of the NOP was the most current at that time. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-pp
The Draft EIR provides cumulative analysis for each focus area in its respective section. Further description in the portion of the Draft EIR referenced in this comment is not necessary. Cumulatively significant effects were individually discussed in each environmental topic area’s (Sections 4.1: Aesthetics through 4.20:
Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR) Cumulative Impacts subsection. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-qq
The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR has not adequately discussed or analyzed the commitment of resources relating to consistency with regional and local growth forecasts.
Additionally, the commenter asserts that the Project would result in air quality and GHG impacts that exceed with the forecasts of the applicable air quality plans (e.g., AQMP). As discussed in Response O1-I, GHG emissions and impacts were fully analyzed within Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR. Based on the discussion therein, the quantitative threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e threshold raised by the comment is not relevant to Draft EIR’s conclusions regarding GHG emissions.
As discussed in Response O1-ee, the forecast increase in Project employment is within SCAG’s forecast employment increase for the City of 55,400 and the forecast employment increase for the County of 273,000 by 2045 (see Table 4.13-2 in Section 4.13: Population and Housing of the Draft EIR). The Project, including the Specific Plan, has been evaluated for its consistency with relevant goals and policies in TOP 2050 and the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As discussed in Section 4.11: Land Use of the Draft EIR, pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-30, the Project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.
The proposed Project Specific Plan proposes the same land uses as contained in the City’s TOP 2050.
Furthermore, the Project Specific Plan would promote orderly development to coincide with adjacent land 1457
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-98
uses. As shown in Section 4.11: Land Use of the Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project embodies the goals and policies in the SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and City TOP 2050. No mitigation is required other than compliance with applicable plans, policies and programs, including the proposed Project Specific Plan and TOP 2050. Therefore, the City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR must be revised to ensure that the proposed Project is within the TOP 2050 EIR’s analysis.
Cumulative projects could include General Plan amendments and/or zone changes, and modifications to existing land uses. However, such amendments do not necessarily represent an inherent negative effect on the environment, particularly if the proposed changes involve changes in types and intensity of uses, rather than eliminating application of policies that were specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Past and present cumulative projects do not involve amendments that would eliminate application of policies that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Determining whether any future project might include such amendments and determining the cumulative effects of any such amendments would be speculative since it cannot be known what applications that are not currently filed might request. Thus, it is expected that the land uses of cumulative projects would be consistent with policies that avoid an environmental effect; therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts from cumulative projects related to policy consistency would be less than significant. Therefore, no further revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O1-rr
The City disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR does not adequately analyze a ‘reasonable range of alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states: “An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of 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. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.”
Apart from the analysis of the No Project alternative however, there is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the “reasonable range” of other alternatives to be discussed, other than the “rule of reason” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) & (f); see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990); Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988)).
What constitutes a “reasonable range” of alternatives will vary with the facts of each project and should be guided only by the purpose of offering substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal which may be “feasibly accomplished in a successful manner” considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) (citing Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21002, 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15364)).
An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a); Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012)). The alternatives considered may include alternative approaches, sites, or both (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). 1458
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-99
Consistent with this rule of reason, it is generally uncommon (though not strictly prohibited) for an EIR to evaluate only the No Project alternative. In such a case, the Lead Agency has the relatively difficult legal burden of establishing that, given the circumstances at hand, no other feasible alternatives could satisfy the project objectives while resulting in fewer environmental impacts than the proposed project (see Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012)).
In consideration of the above, the inclusion of “only two alternatives beyond the required No Project alternative” (page 22 of Comment Letter) does not, itself, constitute an inadequate range of alternatives.
Additionally, the commenter claims that the “No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative” does not represent an actual alternative to the Project as the “No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative” results in the same quantity and type of development as the proposed Project. As described in Section 6.0:
Alternatives of the Draft EIR, page 6-4 and 6-9, the “No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative” is distinct from the “No Project/No Build Alternative” in that, under the “No Project/No Build Alternative,” the Project site would not be developed, and no new development would occur. In other words, the existing conditions of the Project site would remain. Accordingly, the “No Project/No Build Alternative” provides a comparison between the environmental impacts of the Project as compared to the current environmental conditions, resulting from not approving or denying the Project. Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate and analyze the impacts of the “No-Project” Alternative. When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no-project alternative is the continuation of the plan, policy, or operation into the future.
Therefore, under the “No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative,” the current TOP 2050 land uses and zoning would remain in effect. Development in accordance with the existing GTOP 2050 and zoning would occur. The inclusion of both a “No Project/No Build Alternative” and the “No-Project” (“No Project/existing General Plan Alternative”) is intended to provide decisionmakers with a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project within the unique parameters of the proposed Project.
In addition, the commenter asserts that the Draft EIR should analyze a “mixed-use project” alternative that “provides affordable housing and local-serving commercial uses that may reduce VMT, GHG emissions, and improve Air Quality.” In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), this mixeduse/commercial alternative would not meet the basic project objectives as outlined in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, page 3-5 and 3-6. Therefore, no further revision to the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR is required.
Response O1-ss
The commenter’s request for the Draft EIR’s recirculation is noted for the record. However, the commenter has raised no substantial or substantiated criticisms of the Draft EIR which would necessitate recirculation. The commenter’s request for subsequent public noticing and hearing information is noted for the record. Therefore, no further revision to the analysis in the Draft EIR is required. 1459
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-100
This page intentionally left blank.
1460
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-101
Comment Letter O2 - Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC])
1461
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-102
1462
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-103
1463
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-104
1464
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-105
1465
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-106
1466
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-107
1467
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-108
1468
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-109
1469
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-110
1470
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-111
1471
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-112
1472
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-113
1473
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-114
1474
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-115
1475
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-116
1476
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-117
1477
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-118
1478
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-119
1479
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-120
1480
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-121
1481
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-122
1482
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-123
1483
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-124
1484
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-125
1485
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-126
1486
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-127
1487
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-128
1488
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-129
1489
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-130
1490
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-131
1491
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-132
1492
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-133
1493
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-134
1494
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-135
1495
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-136
1496
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-137
1497
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-138
1498
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-139
1499
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-140
1500
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-141
1501
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-142
1502
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-143
1503
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-144
1504
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-145
1505
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-146
1506
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-147
1507
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-148
1508
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-149
1509
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-150
1510
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-151
1511
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-152
1512
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-153
1513
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-154
1514
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-155
1515
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-156
1516
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-157
1517
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-158
1518
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-159
1519
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-160
1520
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-161
1521
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-162
1522
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-163
1523
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-164
1524
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-165
1525
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-166
1526
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-167
1527
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-168
1528
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-169
1529
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-170
1530
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-171
1531
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-172
1532
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-173
1533
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-174
1534
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-175
1535
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-176
1536
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-177
1537
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-178
1538
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-179
1539
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-180
1540
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-181
1541
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-182
1542
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-183
1543
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-184
1544
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-185
1545
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-186
1546
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-187
1547
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-188
1548
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-189
1549
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-190
1550
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-191
1551
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-192
1552
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-193
1553
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-194
1554
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-195
1555
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-196
1556
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-197
1557
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-198
1558
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-199
1559
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-200
1560
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-201
1561
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-202
1562
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-203
1563
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-204
1564
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-205
1565
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-206
1566
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-207
1567
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-208
1568
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-209
1569
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-210
1570
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-211
1571
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-212
1572
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-213
1573
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-214
1574
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-215
1575
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-216
1576
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-217
1577
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-218
1578
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-219
1579
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-220
1580
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-221
1581
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-222
1582
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-223
1583
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-224
1584
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-225
1585
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-226
1586
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-227
1587
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-228
1588
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-229
1589
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-230
1590
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-231
1591
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-232
1592
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-233
1593
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-234
1594
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-235
1595
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-236
1596
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-237
1597
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-238
1598
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-239
1599
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-240
1600
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-241
1601
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-242
1602
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-243
1603
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-244
1604
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-245
1605
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-246
1606
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-247
1607
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-248
1608
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-249
1609
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-250
1610
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-251
1611
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-252
1612
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-253
1613
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-254
1614
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-255
1615
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-256
1616
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-257
1617
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-258
1618
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-259
1619
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-260
1620
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-261
1621
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-262
1622
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-263
1623
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-264
1624
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-265
1625
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-266
1626
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-267
1627
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-268
1628
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-269
1629
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-270
1630
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-271
1631
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-272
1632
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-273
1633
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-274
1634
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-275
1635
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-276
1636
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-277
1637
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-278
1638
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-279
1639
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-280
1640
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-281
1641
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-282
1642
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-283
1643
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-284
1644
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-285
1645
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-286
1646
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-287
1647
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-288
1648
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-289
1649
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-290
1650
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-291
1651
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-292
1652
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-293
1653
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-294
1654
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-295
1655
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-296
1656
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-297
1657
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-298
1658
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-299
1659
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-300
1660
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-301
1661
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-302
1662
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-303
1663
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-304
1664
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-305
1665
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-306
1666
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-307
1667
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-308
1668
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-309
1669
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-310
1670
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-311
1671
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-312
1672
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-313
1673
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-314
1674
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-315
1675
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-316
1676
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-317
1677
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-318
1678
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-319
1679
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-320
1680
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-321
1681
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-322
1682
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-323
1683
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-324
1684
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-325
1685
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-326
1686
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-327
1687
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-328
1688
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-329
1689
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-330
1690
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-331
1691
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-332
1692
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-333
1693
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-334
1694
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-335
1695
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-336
1696
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-337
1697
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-338
1698
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-339
1699
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-340
1700
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-341
1701
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-342
1702
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-343
1703
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-344
1704
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-345
1705
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-346
1706
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-347
1707
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-348
1708
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-349
1709
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-350
1710
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-351
1711
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-352
1712
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-353
1713
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-354
1714
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-355
1715
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-356
1716
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-357
1717
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-358
1718
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-359
1719
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-360
1720
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-361
1721
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-362
1722
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-363
1723
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-364
1724
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-365
1725
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-366
1726
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-367
1727
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-368
1728
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-369
Response to Comment Letter O2 - Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC])
Response O1-a
This comment does not raise any substantive issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The commenter requests to be included on the noticing list for all future notices referring or related to the Project related to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The commenter has been added to the noticing and mailing list.
The City of Ontario intends to fully comply with the requirements of California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., 21092.2, and 21167(f), California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65000-65010), and California Government Code Section 65092. That is, the comment requests that the City comply with CEQA when responding to Western States Regional Council of Carpenters’ (WSRCC) comments. As requested, the City’s responses to WSRCC’s comments will be sent to the WSRCC as part of the Final EIR distribution prior to certification of Final EIR. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted. The comment is included here to provide a complete record of WSRCC’s letter. The comment will become part of the administrative record and will be considered by the decisionmakers. The comment does not raise any CEQA related issues, and no response is therefore warranted.
Response O2-b
The commenter requests that the City include a mitigation measure to require the Project to be built using local workers (i.e., residing within 10 miles of the Project) in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), improve jobs/housing balance and the economic performance of the Project and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The commenter also requests that the City require the Project to be built with construction workers who have graduated from a specified apprenticeship program in order to produce a positive economic impact of the Project. The Draft EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project. CEQA does not require an analysis of the Project’s economic effects or allow mitigation measures intended to address economic characteristics of the Project. 14. Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15064(e), 15064(f)(6), 15131(a) and 15382. Accordingly, the commenter’s request for the City to require construction labor requirements in order to improve economic conditions does not raise any CEQA issues. This comment will be provided to the City’s decision-makers for their policy consideration.
Regarding VMT as to construction workers, CEQA provides the lead agency with discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT (14. Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15064.3[b][4]).
CEQA does not require a separate VMT analysis for construction worker trips or for the construction phase of the Project. The Project’s Traffic Analysis (provided as Appendix I1 of the Draft EIR) was conducted in accordance with San Bernardino County’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Additionally, the VMT analysis in the Traffic Analysis concluded that the Project would have a less than significant impact related to VMT, as analyzed in Section 4.15: Transportation and Traffic of the Draft EIR. 1729
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-370
The Project would have a less than significant impact regarding the GHG emissions from construction, as discussed in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, pages 4.8-18 through 4.8-23. As indicated in Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, Table 4.8-2, the combined 30-year amortized construction GHG emissions for Phase I and II would be 145 metric tons of carbon dioxideequivalents (MTCO2e; 92 and 53 MTCO2e, respectively). This would account for approximately 0.4 percent of all GHG emissions related to the Project, including operational emissions, which is approximately 36,129 MTCO2e (refer to Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, page 4.8-22).
The commenter included a letter from Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) dated March 8, 2021, which discusses GHG emissions associated with trip lengths for construction workers traveling to a job site. The SWAPE letter provided calculations for GHG emissions reductions resulting from local hire provisions being applied to the Project’s construction. The SWAPE letter concludes that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17 percent. However, the SWAPE letter, and the calculations provided, utilized data and information related to a different project in a separate jurisdiction, the Village South Specific Plan and City of Claremont, respectively. The SWAPE letter also uses CalEEMod 2016, while the current version available is CalEEMod 2022.1. The SWAPE letter also uses EMFAC2014 data, while EMFAC2021 is the latest. Therefore, the calculations do not pertain to the Project and are not based on the correct modeling. In comparison, the analysis provided in the Draft EIR utilizes the most up to date and most relevant modeling for the Project.
Furthermore, the SWAPE letter states that it ran a model “reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles…” (page 4 of the SWAPE Letter). Thus, the SWAPE letter assumes that a local hire program would produce 100 percent local residents as a project’s construction workforce, while being located within 10 miles of the project site. In fact, most local hire programs are able to ensure that only a small percentage of construction workers reside locally. For example, the Community Workforce Agreement between the City of Moreno Valley and the Construction Workers Union (CWA) governing public works contracts defines “Local Residents” as residing in the City of Moreno Valley or Riverside County. The CWA only requires that contractors use “best efforts” to hire local residents and sets a goal of 30 percent of the workforce be local residents. Accordingly, the commenter’s suggestion that all construction workers live within 10 miles of the Project site is unrealistic.
Using the attainment of the 30 percent goal as an example of an existing local hire program and utilizing the SWAPE letter’s assumption that 100 percent local resident workforce would reduce constructionrelated GHG emissions by 17 percent (and assuming the SWAPE letter’s conclusions are transferrable to the Project), implementing a local hire program for the Project would result in a 5.1 percent reduction in construction-related GHG emissions (30 percent of 17 percent). This would represent a reduction of
7.4 MTCO2e of construction-related GHG emissions or approximately 0.02 percent of the Project’s mitigated construction and operational mitigated emissions combined (36,129 MTCO2e of construction and operational GHG emissions) or approximately 0.020 percent of the Project’s unmitigated emissions (37,931 MTCO2e). This would not constitute a significant reduction in GHG emissions and therefore the implementation of a local-hire provision as a mitigation measure would be ineffective in reducing GHG emissions. The City’s “duty to condition project approval on incorporation of feasible mitigation measures only exists when such measures would ‘substantially lessen’ a significant environmental effect 1730
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-371
(Public Resources Code Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15021, subd. [a][2]). Thus, the [City] need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention or proposed in the project EIR…” (San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco [1989] 209 Cal.App.3d 1502.) Furthermore, it is quite possible that the 30 percent goal would not be attained and the reduction in GHG emissions could be substantially less. In addition, the local hire program would require extensive record-keeping and monitoring that would not be justified in light of the insignificant reduction in GHG emissions (i.e., the mitigation would not be roughly proportional to the impact as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, subd. [a][4][A]–[B]). Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
Response O2-c
The commenter requests that the City require certain construction protocols to address the possibility of COVID-19 infections among construction worker during the construction process. This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis and/or document. This comment is noted for the record. In addition, at this time, COVID-19 public health restrictions on workplace activities functions have been repealed and are no longer in effect. If COVID-19 infections were to increase in severity, it is expected that applicable public health authorities would impose new restrictions and protocols for testing, distancing and other measures on construction sites to address these public health concerns. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.
1731
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-372
This page intentionally left blank.
1732
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-373
Comment Letter O3 - Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC])
1733
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-374
This page intentionally left blank.
1734
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-375
Response to Comment Letter O3 - Mitchell M. Tsai (Western States Regional Council of Carpenters [WSRCC])
Response O3-a
The commenter is stating their withdrawal of the prior comment letter received February 5, 2024, and expresses their support of the project. No further response is warranted. 1735
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 2 – Comments and Responses to Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
2-376
This page intentionally left blank.
1736
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-1
Section 3.0 Errata to the Draft EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (a), this section of the Final EIR provides changes to the Draft EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or supplement the information provided in that document. This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Draft EIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the Draft EIR.
These changes and additions are due to recognition of inadvertent errors or omissions, and to respond to comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The changes described in this section do not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR.
More specifically, CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states:
New information added to an EIR is not ‘significant’ unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. ‘Significant new information’ requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
• A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
• The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[re]circulation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.” As demonstrated in this Final EIR, the changes presented in this section do not constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the Draft EIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.
1737
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-2
As explained below, none of the changes adds any new significant information and recirculation is not required.
The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the Final EIR.
City of Ontario staff has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed or analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.
Changes to the Draft EIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision. Changes are identified as follows:
• Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.
• Additions are indicated by underline text.
3.2 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR.
Section 1.0: Executive Summary
The Draft EIR Executive Summary (Section 1.0) is hereby revised to incorporate the minor revisions to mitigation measures noted below.
Section 4.3 Air Quality
1. Mitigation Measure AQ-6 on page 4.3-30 is revised as follows:
MM AQ-6 In residential uses, tThe installation of wood-burning and natural gas equipmentfireplaces and stoves 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 fireplaces and stoves used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future residential property owners/tenants to obey.
Section 4.5: Cultural Resources
1. The third paragraph on Page 4.5-20 is revised as follows:
The City Development Code Article 26, Historic Preservation, promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare by:
• Safeguarding the character and history of the City which is reflected in its unique cultural, historical, and architectural heritage, with emphasis on the “Model Colony” as recognized by an Act of Congress and presented at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904; • Promoting public knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the City’s past; 1738
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-3
• Fostering civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; • Promoting the enjoyment and use of Historical Resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
• Enhancing the visual and aesthetic character, diversity, and interest of the City; • Enhancing property values and stabilizing neighborhoods within the City; • Recognizing Historical Resources and protecting areas of historical buildings from encroachment of incompatible designs;
• Providing economic benefits to the City and its inhabitants through financial incentives for preservation;
• Protecting and enhancing the City’s attraction to tourists and visitors, • Stimulating business and industry;
• Promoting public awareness of the benefits of preservation; and • Encouraging public participation in historic preservation, thereby increasing civic pride in the City’s heritage.
The Project area would comply with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, ensuring all historicallysignificant findings within the City, including the Project area, would align with the above standards.
The City Development Code Section 4.02.040 through 4.02.065 and, establishes processes and procedures for the historic preservation of the City through discretionary permits and actions, including:
• Procedures by which Local Historic Landmarks and Districts, Historic Resource Tiering, and Architectural Conservation Areas may be designated,
• A process by which a historic resource may rescind or amend its assigned status, including a Local Landmark or Local District Designation, a Tier Designation, an Eligibility Determination, or an Architectural Conservation Area,
• a process to ensure that any alteration to, or demolition of, an eligible or designated historic resource within the City is in keeping with the historic character of the resource, • a process to ensure that denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness and/or a Demolition Application does not create any undue hardship upon the owner of a Tier I or Tier II historic resource, • a process to expedite the review process for project areas in which numerous historic resources within a single project area would require the issuance of multiple Certificates of Appropriateness for proposed work to those Historic Resources, and
• a process by which economic incentives may be provided for the preservation of a designated historic landmark or contributing structure within a designated historic district.
The City Development Code Division 7.01, Historic Preservation, specifies significance criteria for the designation of historic resources, procedures for designation, and review procedures to:
1739
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-4
• Safeguard the character and history of the City, which is reflected in its unique culturally, historically, and architecturally significant structures and heritage, with emphasis on the “Model Colony,” as recognized by an Act of Congress and presented at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904; • Encourage and promote the adaptive reuse of the City's historic resources; • Enhance, perpetuate, and preserve architecturally and historically significant structures and promote revitalization of historic neighborhoods and commercial areas; • Ensure that the rights of the owners of historic resources are safeguarded; • Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past by promoting private stewardship of historic resources that represent these accomplishments; • Fulfill the City's responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under Federal preservation laws; • Promote the identification, documentation, and evaluation of the significance of individual historic resources and districts;
• Implement the historic preservation goals, policies, and programs of the Policy Plan (General Plan) component of The Ontario Plan;
• Promote the City as a destination for tourists and as a desirable location for business; • Promote public awareness of the value of rehabilitation, restoration, and maintenance of the existing building stock as a means to conserve reusable material and energy resources; • Recognize the City's historic resources as economic assets and provide economic financial incentives for historic preservation;
• Stabilize and improve property values, and enhance the aesthetic and visual character, place making, diversity, and environmental amenities of the City's historic properties and areas; • Promote public knowledge, appreciation, and understanding of the City’s past, and foster civic and neighborhood pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past; • Promote the enjoyment and use of historic resources appropriate for the education and recreation of the people of the City;
• Recognize historic resources and protect areas of historic structures from encroachment of incompatible designs;
• Promote public awareness of the benefits of preservation; and • Encourage public participation in historic preservation, thereby increasing civic pride in the City’s heritage.
2. Mitigation measures listed on page 4.5-29 through 4.5-30 are revised as follows:
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Prior to issuance of a demolition building permit, every effort shall be made to relocate the Milk Parlor (front portion). If determined by the feasibility study pursuant MM CUL-6 that the historic property is able to be relocated, every effort shall be made to facilitate 1740
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-5
the relocation. The buildings shall be offered at no cost for those who can relocate offsite. 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 Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of historic properties addressed to 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, or 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue at the same time or separately, a HABS (level 3) documentation, including but not limited to as built drawing, historical narrative, and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) photographs of the subject historic resource pursuant to HABS Level 3 standards shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review, approval, and subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room prior to issuance of demolition building permit. Digital files and 2 printed copies are required (one archival and one non-archival).
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 building permit for demolition of the historic resources located at 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, and 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue. 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 Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of historic properties addressed to 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, or 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue, A a determination shall be made by the Planning Department whether items within or on the historic properties 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 the issuance of building permit.
MM CUL-6 Prior to issuance of a demolition building permit, A a feasibility study of the relocation and adaptive reuse shall be completed by a qualified architect and structural engineer who specializes in historic buildings in consultation with contractors who specialize in moving buildings for the Milk Parlor within the area identified as Phase II. MM CUL-1 shall be implemented if determined relocation is feasible.
MM CUL-7 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 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Final Occupancy for the first building constructed within the project area.
MM CUL-8 Produce a A short video documentary (12-15 minute) on the operations of a functioning dairy located within the Ontario Ranch area. The 12-15 minute documentary should focus 1741
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-6
focusing on the dairy history, themes, site, building, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context and recent dairy surveys shall be produced and submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy for the first building constructed within the project area.
Section 4.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. The second and third paragraphs on page 4.8-23 are revised as follows:
As shown in Table 4.8-7, Project Buildout would generate approximately 36,129 MTCO2e per year with the implementation of operational air quality MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6. Since the majority of emissions are from mobile sources and neither the Project Applicant nor the City have regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce the Project’s impacts with respect to mobile operational emissions . While the Project has some control over GHG emissions (refer to MM AQ-2 through MM AQ 6), the majority of emissions are beyond the Project’s control. MM GHG-1 would require that the Project incorporate project design features to achieve a minimum score of 100 points on the Screening Tables. As stated in the Community CAP, projects that achieve a minimum score of 100 points are considered less than significant. At the time of this analysis, the Project is in the design phase, where project design features needed to achieve consistency with the Screening Tables are being considered and implemented. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B). The applicant must complete and submit a final set of screening tables showing the achievement of the required 100 points prior to issuance of the building permit, as required by MM GHG-1. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-6 and MM GHG-1, this Project impact is less than significant.
The Project would be pursuant to TOP 2050 and would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. The City has long anticipated that this area would transition from dairy/agricultural to urban uses, and the Project Specific Plan is implementing TOP 2050. Pursuant to TOP 2050, implementation of the Project Specific Plan would represent a consistent and logical continuation of the existing and planned pattern of development in Ontario, specifically the Ontario Ranch area. Therefore, the Project impact is considered less than significant. Therefore, although Project emissions are conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable, emissions have been included in the emissions forecasts for TOP 2050.
2. The Impact 4.8-2 level of significance on page 4.8-24 is revised as follows:
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?
Level of Significance: Significant and Unavoidable Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated
3. The first paragraph on page 4.8-28 is revised as follows:
The CAP establishes a city points system that assigns values for each GHG emissions mitigation design element or operational program feature incorporated into a given development project. The CAP 1742
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-7
Screening Tables point values correspond to the minimum GHG emissions reduction expected from each feature. Projects with features that yield at least 100 Screening Table points are considered consistent with the reduction quantities anticipated in the City’s CAP. Such projects would be determined to have a less than significant individual and cumulative GHG emissions impact. Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Industrial Development identifies potential design features listed in the screening tables and their associated scores. The Project Applicant may work with the City to determine point values for additional design features with the goal of achieving a minimum of 100 points. Since the Project contains both residential and industrial/commercial developments, both the residential and industrial/commercial screening tables must be filled out. A proportion of the points identical to the proportion of the multiple uses would be used to determine the total number of points for the development. For the Project, approximately 90 percent of the total area is industrial/commercial and approximately 10 percent is residential. Therefore, a 0.9 multiplier would be used for the industrial/commercial screening table points and a 0.1 multiplier would be used for the residential screening table. Table 4.8-9 shows that the proposed Project has the potential to achieve 100 points on the CAP’s screening tables through the implementation of high-scoring design features. Note that Table 4.8-9 lists all of the design options provided on the screening tables and is not meant to indicate that the proposed Project would implement these features. A preliminary set of the screening tables has been completed to show that the Project can feasibly achieve 100 points (refer to Appendix B).
4. Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Ontario Development on pages 4.8-28 through 4.8-33 is revised as follows:
Table 4.8-9: GHG Reduction Measures Screening Table for Ontario Development Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Multi-Family Residential
Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Insulation
2008 Baseline (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-30) 0
Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 15 Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 18 Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam wall insulated walls R-15 or higher) roof/attic R-38 or higher) 20
Windows
2008 Baseline Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 0
Modestly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.4 U-Factor, 0.32 SHGC) 7 Enhanced Window Insulation {0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 8 Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.28 or less U-Factor, 0.22 or less SHGC) 12
Cool Roof
Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 12
Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal 14 1743
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-8
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
emittance)
Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance,
0.75 thermal emittance) 16
Air Infiltration
Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (Q11 or equivalent) 12 Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 10 Thermal Storage of
Building
Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 4 Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 6 Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 24 Replacement of gas
appliance with
efficient electric
appliance (select all
that apply)
Electric space heater 6
Electric water heater 8
Electric stove 5
Electric dryer 1
Additional electric
appliance measures, if
applicable (select all
that apply)
Electric pool heater (if applicable) 1
Electric spa heater (if applicable) 1
Project site does not have any natural gas infrastructure 10 Reduction Measure 2: Green Roofs
Installation of a roof
with a planted layer of
vegetation over a
waterproof surface
for multi-family
residential buildings
Medium Green Roof – Total vegetated area makes up 25% or more of combined multi-family residential unit area (in square feet) 3 Reduction Measure 3: Urban Cooling
On-site tree planting
(select one option)
1 tree per each required on-site vehicle parking space. 6 2 trees per each required on-site vehicle parking space. 12 3 trees per each required on-site vehicle parking space. 18 Reduction Measure 4: Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs) New development is
located in a transitoriented community
(TOC)
Development site is located within ½ mile radius of one or more of the following: a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop, bus transit center, light rail station, the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, and/or High-Quality Transit Corridor defined as a 10 1744
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-9
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
Reduction Measure 5: Increase Transit Ridership
Provision of free
transit passes for onsite residents or
tenants for a period of
5 years after
completion of
construction (select
one option)
One 50% discounted annual transit pass for every two parking spaces, or one per residential unit, whichever is greater. 2
One 100% discounted (free) annual transit pass for every two parking spaces or one per residential unit, whichever is greater. 6 One 100% discounted (free) annual transit pass per parking space or one per residential bedroom, whichever is greater. 12
Reduction Measure 6: Vehicle Electrification
Installation of EV
charging stations for
resident vehicle
parking spaces (select
one option)
Installation of Level 2 EV or higher charging stations at a rate of 5-10% of required vehicle parking spaces. 10
Installation of Level 2 EV or higher charging stations at a rate of 11-29% of required vehicle parking spaces. 20
Installation of Level 2 EV or higher charging stations at a rate of 30% or more of required vehicle parking spaces. 30
Reduction Measure 7: Active Transportation
Installation or
improvement of
bicycle facilities
(select all that apply)
Bicycle parking facilities with 1:1 ratio of bicycle parking to guest vehicle parking space. 3
Construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that 1) connects to a larger existing bikeway network or 2) closes an existing bikeway network gap that is at least 0.5 miles long. 6 Installation or
improvement of
pedestrian facilities
(select one option)
Two or three pedestrian infrastructure improvements to street design on private streets, including, but not limited to curb extensions, raised crosswalks, speed humps/bumps, street tree plantings in parkways or street medians, and elevated pavement markings.
3 Four or more pedestrian infrastructure improvements to street design, including, but not limited to cub extensions, raised crosswalks, speed humps/bumps, street tree plantings in parkways or street medians, and elevated pavement markings.
6 Reduction Measure 8: Parking Policy
Require that some or
all of resident vehicle
parking spaces be
purchased at an
additional cost. This
does not include
guest vehicle parking
spaces (select one
option)
Unbundle, or separate, half (50%) of parking costs of a residential project from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase an additional parking space to do so at an additional cost.
1 Unbundle, or separate, 100% of residential project’s parking costs from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost.
2 1745
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-10
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Reduction Measure 9: Electric construction equipment
Use zero emission or
electric construction
equipment (select one
option)
One-third (33%) of construction equipment used for construction (during building phase, not including grading phase), measured by number of hours in operation, is zero emission equipment.
4 Half (50%) of construction equipment used for construction (during the building phase, not including the grading phase), measured by the number of hours of operation, is zero emission equipment.
8 Two-thirds (66%) or more of construction equipment used for construction (during the building phase, not including the grading phase), measured by number of hours of operation, is zero emission equipment. 12 Reduction Measure 10: Waste diversion
Design and plan multifamily housing
developments to
include on-site areas
for municipal
compost/green waste
and recycling
bins/containers
Site design allocates sufficient space for storage and collection of green waste, organic waste, and recyclables. 33
Reduction Measure 11: Water conservation
Implement indoor
water efficiency
measures (select all
that apply)
Implement water efficient showerheads and faucets. 1
Install on-demand water circulators on all showers/baths. 2 Incorporate outdoor
water efficiency
measures
Design and plan outdoor landscapes planted with drought-tolerant, low maintenance plants with a 1) drip irrigation system or 2) sprinkler irrigation system with a water-based irrigation controller. 4 Additional Recommended Measures
AR-1: Meet CalGreen
voluntary tiers (select
one option)
CalGreen Tier 1 compliance. 5
CalGreen Tier 2 compliance. 10
AR-2: Generate
energy from on-site
solar PV (4 stories and
higher buildings only,
select one option)
Solar PV that generates 30%-49% of residential energy needs on multifamily residential buildings that are 4 stories in height or taller. 5 Solar PV that generates 50% - 79% of residential energy needs on multifamily residential buildings that are 4 stories in height or taller. 10 Solar PV that generates 80% or more of residential energy needs on multifamily residential buildings that are 4 stories in height or taller. 15 AR-3: Energy Storage
If the building is 3 stories in height or less, install battery energy storage systems that meet the same performance standards as energy storage system that would be required by the building code in an comparable building 4 stories in height or taller.
5 AR-4: Recycled Water Use recycled water for at least 80% of outdoor water needs. 4 1746
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-11
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
AR-5: Reflective
Paving
Use high-reflectivity pavement for all hardscaped areas, including parking areas, walking paths, and patios. 4
AR-6: Building
Orientation Orient the building along a north-south alignment. 3 AR-7: Building Shading Shade at least 90% of south-facing glazing by vegetation or overhangs at noon on June 21. 2
AR-8: Building
Daylight Provide daylighting in all rooms. 1
Total Multi-Family Residential Points Possible 218
Indoor Space Efficiencies
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 8
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8) 10
Space Heating/
Cooling Equipment
2008 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (SEER 13/60% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF} 0 Improved Efficiency HVAC (SEER 14/65% AFUE or 8 HSPF) 7 High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 15/72% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF) 8
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9 HSPF) 12 Water Heaters
2008 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) 0
Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor) 14 High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) 16
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy factor) 19 Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction) 4
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 8 Daylighting
All peripheral rooms within the living space have at least one window (required) 1
All rooms within the living space have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) 5
All rooms daylighted 7
Artificial Lighting
2008 Minimum (required) 0
Efficient lights (25% of In-unit fixtures considered high efficacy. High efficacy is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures: SO lumens/watt for15 to 40-watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40watt)
9 High Efficiency lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 12 Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 14 Appliances Energy Star Commercial Refrigerator (new) 4
1747
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-12
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Cloths Washing 4
Building Placement
North/South alignment of building or other building placement such that the orientation of the buildings optimizes natural heating, cooling, and lighting.
5 Energy Star Homes EPA Energy Star for Homes (version 3 or above) 25 Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using 3
Only low water using plants 4
Only California Native landscape that requires no, or only supplemental, irrigation 8
Water Efficient
Irrigation Systems
Low precipitation spray heads <. 75"/hour, or drip irrigation 1 Weather based Irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 5
Recycled Water Recycled connections (purple pipe) to irrigation system on-site 5 Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 3
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm) 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm) 3
Commercial
Dishwashers Water Efficient Dishwasher (6 gallons per cycle or less) 1 Commercial
Laundry Washers Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor < 5.5) 1 Bicycle Master Plan
Bicycle
Infrastructure
Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and other land uses. 2 Provide bicycle path linkages between residential and transit. 5 Industrial
Insulation
2008 Baseline (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-30) 0
Modestly Enhanced Insulation (walls: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 15 Enhanced Insulation (rigid wall insulation: R-13; roof/attic: R-38) 18 Greatly Enhanced Insulation (spray foam wall insulated walls R-15 or higher) roof/attic R-38 or higher) 20
Windows
2008 Baseline Windows (0.57 U-factor, 0.4 solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 0
Modestly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.4 U-Factor, 0.32 SHGC) 7 1748
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-13
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
Enhanced Window Insulation {0.32 U-Factor, 0.25 SHGC) 8 Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation {0.28 or less U-Factor, 0.22 or less SHGC) 12
Cool Roof
Modest Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 12
Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.2 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance) 14
Greatly Enhanced Cool Roof (CRRC Rated 0.35 aged solar reflectance,
0.75 thermal emittance) 16
Air Infiltration
Air barrier applied to exterior walls, calking, and visual inspection such as the HERS Verified Quality Insulation Installation (Q11 or equivalent) 12 Blower Door HERS Verified Envelope Leakage or equivalent 10 Thermal Storage of
Building
Modest Thermal Mass (10% of floor or 10% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 4 Enhanced Thermal Mass (20% of floor or 20% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 6 Enhanced Thermal Mass (80% of floor or 80% of walls: 12" or more thick exposed concrete or masonry. No permanently installed floor covering such as carpet, linoleum, wood or other insulating materials) 24 Indoor Space Efficiencies
Heating/Cooling
Distribution System
Minimum Duct Insulation (R-4.2 required) 0
Modest Duct insulation (R-6) 8
Enhanced Duct Insulation (R-8) 10
Space Heating/
Cooling Equipment
2008 Minimum HVAC Efficiency (SEER 13/60% AFUE or 7.7 HSPF} 0 Improved Efficiency HVAC (SEER 14/65% AFUE or 8 HSPF) 7 High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 15/72% AFUE or 8.5 HSPF) 8
Very High Efficiency HVAC (SEER 16/80% AFUE or 9 HSPF) 12 Water Heaters
2008 Minimum Efficiency (0.57 Energy Factor) 0
Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.675 Energy Factor) 14 High Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) 16
Very High Efficiency Water Heater (0.92 Energy factor) 19 Solar Pre-heat System (0.2 Net Solar Fraction) 4
Enhanced Solar Pre-heat System (0.35 Net Solar Fraction) 8 Daylighting All peripheral rooms within the living space have at least one window (required) 1
1749
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-14
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
All rooms within the living space have daylight (through use of windows, solar tubes, skylights, etc.) 5
All rooms daylighted 7
Artificial Lighting
2008 Minimum (required) 0
Efficient lights (25% of In-unit fixtures considered high efficacy. High efficacy is defined as 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures: SO lumens/watt for15 to 40-watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures >40watt)
9 High Efficiency lights (50% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 12 Very High Efficiency Lights (100% of in-unit fixtures are high efficacy) 14 Appliances
Energy Star Commercial Refrigerator (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Dish Washer (new) 4
Energy Star Commercial Cloths Washing 4
Irrigation and Landscaping
Water Efficient
Landscaping
Eliminate conventional turf from landscaping 0
Only moderate water using 3
Only low water using plants 4
Only California Native landscape that requires no, or only supplemental, irrigation 8
Water Efficient
Irrigation Systems
Low precipitation spray heads <. 75"/hour, or drip irrigation 1 Weather based Irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water use) 5
Recycled Water Recycled connections (purple pipe) to irrigation system on-site 5 Potable Water
Showers Water Efficient Showerheads (2.0 gpm) 3
Toilets Water Efficient Toilets (1.5 gpm) 3
Faucets Water Efficient faucets (1.28 gpm) 3
Commercial
Dishwashers Water Efficient Dishwasher (6 gallons per cycle or less) 1 Commercial
Laundry Washers Water Efficient Washing Machine (Water factor < 5.5) 1 Warehouse/ Non-Residential Development
Reduction Measure 1: Building Electrification
Replacement of gas
appliance with
electric appliance
Electric space heater 5
Electric water heater 8
Electric stove (if applicable) 2
1750
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-15
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
(select all that apply)
Lack of natural gas
infrastructure Project site does not have any natural gas infrastructure 8 Reduction Measure 2: Solar Energy Systems for New Warehouse Development only (solar energy system required for warehouse development)
Installation of
rooftop solar energy
systems at new
warehouse/ logistics
facilities. (select one
option)
Installation of rooftop solar energy system which generates enough electricity to meet 45% of annual warehouse electricity demand. 22 Installation of rooftop solar energy system which generates enough electricity to meet 90% of annual warehouse electricity demand. 44 Installation of rooftop solar energy system which generates enough electricity to meet 100% of annual warehouse electricity demand. 48 Installation of
battery storage at
new warehouse/
logistics facilities
(select one option)
Solar battery storage installation with a capacity of 200-599 kW (DC). 3 Solar battery storage installation with a capacity of 600-799 kW (DC). 6 Solar battery storage installation with a capacity of 800-1200 kW (DC). 11 Reduction Measure 3: Green Roofs
Installation of a roof
with a planted layer
of vegetation over a
waterproof surface
for non-residential
buildings (select one
option)
Medium Green Roof – Total vegetated area makes up 50% of combined non-residential floor area (in square feet). 1
Large Green Roof – Total vegetated area makes up 100% or more of combined non-residential floor area (in square feet). 2 Reduction Measure 4: Urban Cooling
On-site tree planting
(select one option)
1 tree per each required on-site employee/visitor vehicle parking space. 4 2 trees per each required on-site employee/visitor vehicle parking space. 8 3 trees per each required on-site employee/visitor vehicle parking space. 15 Reduction Measure 5: Transit Oriented Communities (TOCs) New development is
located in a transitoriented community
(TOC)
The development site is located within ½ mile radius of one or more of the following: a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop, bus transit center, light rail station, the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods, and/or High-Quality Transit Corridor defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
7 Reduction Measure 6: Increase Transit Ridership
Provision of free
transit passes in a
quantity equivalent
One free annual transit pass for every employee. 6
1751
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-16
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
to the expected
number of
employees at the
non-residential
building. Transit
passes shall be
provided for a period
of 5 years after
completion of
construction.
Reduction Measure 7: Vehicle Electrification
Installation of EV
charging stations for
truck parking spaces
(select one option)
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 5-9% of planned truck parking spaces. 2
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 10-19% of planned truck parking spaces. 4
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 20-29% of planned truck parking spaces. 6
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 30-49% of planned truck parking spaces. 10
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 50% or more of planned truck parking spaces. 15
Reduction Measure 8: Active Transportation
Installation or
improvement of
bicycle facilities
(select all that apply)
Bicycle parking facilities with 1:20 ratio of bicycle parking to employee vehicle parking space. 2
Construct or improve a single bicycle lane facility (only Class I, II, or IV) that 1) connects to a larger existing bikeway network or 2) closes an existing bikeway network gap that is at least 0.5 miles long. 3 Installation or
improvement of
pedestrian facilities
(select one option)
Two or three pedestrian infrastructure improvements to street design on private streets, including, but not limited to curb extensions, raised crosswalks, speed humps/bumps, street tree plantings in parkways or street medians, and elevated pavement markings.
2 Four or more pedestrian infrastructure improvements to street design on private streets, including, but not limited to private property curb extensions, raised crosswalks, speed humps/bumps, elevated pavement markings, and public property street tree plantings in parkways or street medians.
4 Reduction Measure 9: Parking Policy
Require that
employee vehicle
parking spaces be
purchased at an
additional cost. This
Unbundle, or separate, 100% of non-residential project’s parking costs from property costs, requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost.
1 1752
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-17
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
does not include
client/visitor vehicle
parking spaces.
Reduction Measure 10: Electric construction equipment
Use electric
construction
equipment for a
portion of the
construction project
(select one option)
One-third (33%) of construction equipment used for construction (during building phase, not including grading phase), measured by number of hours of operation, is zero emission equipment.
3 Half (50%) of construction equipment used for construction (during the building phase, not including the grading phase), measured by the number of hours of operation, is zero emission equipment.
5 Two-thirds (66%) or more of construction equipment used for construction (during the building phase, not including the grading phase), measured by number of hours of operation, is zero emission equipment. 8 Reduction Measure 11: Waste diversion
Site design for nonresidential
warehouse
development
includes site(s) for
green waste/
organics and
recycling collection
bins
Site design allocates sufficient space for storage and collection of green waste, organic waste, and recyclables. 20
Reduction Measure 12: Water Conservation
Implement indoor
water efficiency
measures (select all
that apply)
Install water-efficient faucets and showerheads. 1
Install on-demand water circulators on commercial sinks or dishwashing equipment. 2
Incorporate outdoor
water efficiency
measures
Design and plan outdoor landscapes planted with drought-tolerant, low maintenance plants with a 1) drip irrigation system or 2) sprinkler irrigation system with a weather-based irrigation controller. 4 Additional Recommended Measures
AR-1: Charging
stations for large
trucks (select one
option)
Installation of conduit for charging stations for zero emission trucks larger than two-axles (class 8 and 9, and semi-trucks) so that facilities are prepared for the transition to electric trucks.
4 Installation of 1-4 charging stations for zero emission trucks larger than two-axles (class 8 and 9, and semi-trucks) 8
Installation of 5-9 charging stations for zero emission trucks larger than two-axles (class 8 and 9, and semi trucks) 12
Installation of 10 or more charging stations for zero emission trucks larger than two-acles (class 8 and 9, and semi-trucks) 24
1753
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-18
Feature Description Assigned
Point Value
AR-2: Meet CalGreen
voluntary tiers
(select one option)
CalGreen Tier 1 compliance 5
CalGreen Tier 2 compliance 20
AR-3: Installation of
EV charging stations
for employee vehicle
parking spaces
(select one option)
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 5-9% of planned employee vehicle parking spaces. 4
Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 10-19% of planned employee vehicle parking spaces with Level 2 EV charging stations.
6 Installation of Level 2 or higher EV charging stations at a rate of 20% or more of planned employee vehicle parking spaces Level 2 EV charging stations.
12 AR-4: Recycled
Water Use recycled water for at least 80% of outdoor water needs. 2 AR-5: Reflective
Paving
Use high-reflectivity pavement for all hardscaped areas, including parking areas, walking paths, and patios. 4
AR-6: Zero Emission
Cargo Equipment
Use of zero emission cargo handling equipment for a minimum of 50% of all operations. 4
AR-7: Alternative
Fueling
Installation of alternative fuel facilities, such as CNG, biofuels, or hydrogen fueling stations. 10
Total Warehouse Points Possible 238
Source: City of Ontario, 2023. Ontario Community Climate Action Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables. City of Ontario 2018.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Screening Threshold Table Directions. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/OntarioFiles/Planning/Applications/Greenhouse%20Gas%20-%20Threshold%20%26%20Screening%20Tables.pdf. (accessed April 2023).
Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
1. The fourth paragraph on page 4.16-10 is revised as follows:
As stated above, no TCRs were identified within the Project area. However, impacts to cultural resources, including TRCs, are considered potentially significant and mitigation measures are required to ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered cultural resources that may be encountered during grading. As discussed in Section 4.5: Cultural Resources, the application of mitigation measures MM CUL-6 MM CUL-9 and MM CUL-7 MM CUL-10 below requiring Cultural Awareness training for all construction and field personnel and ensure the proper treatment of undiscovered resources that may be encountered during grading would reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
2. The fifth paragraph on page 4.16-10 is revised as follows:
Refer to Section 4.5: Cultural Resources for MM CUL-6 MM CUL-9 and MM CUL-7 MM CUL-10. 1754
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-19
Section 6.0: Alternatives
1. The third paragraph on page 6-6 is revised as follows:
Under the No Project/No Build Alternative, no new development would occur, and no construction, demolition, or operational activities would generate GHG emissions. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative the existing, minimal emissions would continue. These emissions would be incorporated and accounted for in the City’s long-range planning efforts and would therefore act as a baseline for the City’s air quality goals. Furthermore, this alternative would not increase GHG emissions by 24,271 MTCO2e per year, unlike the proposed Project and would avoid the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, impacts under the No Project/No Build Alternative would be reduced compared to the Project.
2. The sixth paragraph on page 6-11 is revised as follows:
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would have the same overall impact area as the proposed Project. This alternative would result in up to 466 dwelling units, 1,517 residents, and 1,655 employees.
The No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative would result in similar impacts to the proposed Project.
Therefore, construction and operation related greenhouse gas emissions would be similar and would remain significant and unavoidable. All future development areas would be consistent with TOP 2050 under this alternative and be zoned for urban uses rather than agricultural uses. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be the same compared to the proposed Project.
3. The first paragraph on page 6-17 is revised as follows:
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would develop the Project site for the same type of mixed-use and business park uses, but with less intensity than the proposed Project. Therefore, a reduced volume of construction activities and associated GHG emissions would occur. In addition, the reduced square footage would result in less stationary source emissions from equipment on-site, and less traffic related GHG emissions than the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 24,271 MTCO2e per year, which would be reduced by approximately 25 percent to 18,204 MTCO2e per year under the Reduced-Intensity Alternative. This alternative would result in a similar impact to the Project, and mitigation measures would be incorporated to reduce emissions to less than significant levels. This alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable GHG impacts, since it would exceed the threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year, and mitigation measures would not reduce emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the alternative would have a significant and unavoidable impact on GHG emissions, but would be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
4. The second paragraph on page 6-22 is revised as follows:
The Reduced-Intensity Alternative has been identified as the environmentally-superior alternative because it would result in reduced impacts related to noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems and similar impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and tribal cultural resources. However, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would still result in significant and 1755
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 3 – Errata to the Draft EIR City of Ontario July 2024
3-20
unavoidable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, cultural resources, GHG emissions, and transportation and traffic. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed Project.
1756
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0 – Final EIR Appendices City of Ontario July 2024
4-1
Section 4.0 Final EIR Appendices
4.1 DEIR DISTRIBUTION PACKAGE
The following items are provided in the Affidavit of Distribution for the Draft EIR. • Affidavit of Distribution
• Proof of Publication, The Press Enterprise
• NOA – San Bernardino County Clerk Filing Copy
1757
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report Section 4.0 – Final EIR Appendices City of Ontario July 2024
4-2
This page intentionally left blank.
1758
NOP Euclid MUSP DEIR Display Ad - Page 1 of 2
See Proof on Next Page
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - SB
3200 Guasti Rd. Suite 100
Ontario, California 91761
(909) 987-6397
0011638878
City of Ontario - Planning Dept.
303 East B Street
Ontario, California 91764
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Bernardino
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - SB, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Ontario*, County of San Bernardino, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of County of San Bernardino, State of California, under the date of June 15, 1945, Decree No. Pomo C-606. The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
12/22/2023
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Ontario, California
On this 22nd day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Signature
*Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - SB circulation includes the following cities:
[UNKNOWN LIST]
1759
NOP Euclid MUSP DEIR Display Ad - Page 2 of 2
1760
1761
1762
1763
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project
1764
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 SECTION 1: AUTHORITY
This environmental Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Program) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091(d) and 15097, to ensure implementation of and provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project (Project), as set forth in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project. This report will be kept on file in the offices of the CEQA Lead Agency, the City of Ontario (City).
As noted in the EIR, the Project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, as reflected in Project design plans and in Project Design Features. The Draft EIR also addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and, where appropriate, recommends mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts. The Program detailed in the matrix table below is designed to monitor and ensure implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted for the Project.
The City is the Lead Agency for the Project and assumes ultimate enforcement responsibilities for implementation of all mitigation measures listed in this Program. The City may assign responsibility for implementation or monitoring to appropriate designees such as a construction manager or thirdparty monitor. However, as the Lead Agency, the City remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with this Program. In some cases, the City is required to secure permits or approvals from third-party agencies in order to implement a mitigation measure. In these cases, the City is responsible for verifying that such permits or approvals have been obtained in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the mitigation measure. The City’s existing planning, engineering, operations, and procurement review and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the Program procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program.
SECTION 2: MONITORING SCHEDULE
Prior to construction, while detailed design plans are being prepared by City staff or its agents, City staff will be responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation monitoring applicable to the Project construction, development, and design phases. Once construction has begun and is underway, monitoring of the mitigation measures associated with construction will be included in the responsibilities of City staff, who shall prepare or cause to be prepared periodic monitoring reports as appropriate. Regulatory agencies will have to harmonize CEQA mitigation with regulatory permit conditions and monitoring/reporting as part of the regulatory permitting process and will likely require submittal of formal monitoring reports. Once construction has been completed, the City will monitor the project as specified in the mitigation measures or as otherwise deemed necessary. At minimum, the City will prepare a mitigation monitoring status report prior to commencing construction, prior to commencing operations, within 90 days of commencing operations, and following completion of the first full year of operations. 1765
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 SECTION 3: SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the Project file with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be made available to the public upon request.
SECTION 4: FORMAT OF MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
The mitigation monitoring matrix on the following pages identifies the environmental issue areas for which monitoring is required, the required mitigation measures, the time frame for monitoring, and the responsible implementation and monitoring agencies.
SECTION 5: DEFINITIONS
The following list provides definitions for acronyms used in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Acronyms/Abbreviation Description
ACM ................................................Asbestos-Containing Materials AG ...................................................Agriculture and Forestry AQ...................................................Air Quality AST ..................................................Aboveground Storage Tank BIO .................................................. Biological Resources BUOW ............................................. Burrowing Owl CARB ............................................... California Air Resources Board CDFW .............................................. California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA............................................... California Environmental Quality Act City .................................................. City of Ontario County............................................. County of San Bernardino County Coroner............................... San Bernardino County Coroner CRMP .............................................. Construction Risk Management Plan CUL.................................................. Cultural Resources DTSC................................................Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR................................................... Environmental Impact Report EPA.................................................. Environmental Protection Agency ESA.................................................. Environmental Site Assessment ESL................................................... Environmental Screening Levels GEO.................................................Geology and Soils GHG.................................................Greenhouse Gas HAZ..................................................Hazards and Hazardous Materials HSP..................................................Health and Safety Plan MM..................................................Mitigation Measure NAHC...............................................Native American Heritage Commission NOI..................................................Noise PPMV...............................................Parts Per Million Volume PRC..................................................Public Resources Code PRMP...............................................Paleontological Resource Monitoring Plan SBCFD..............................................San Bernardino County Fire Protection District
SCAQMD..........................................South Coast Air Quality Management District
SMP.................................................Soil Management Plan State................................................State of California TCR..................................................Tribal Cultural Resources TDM.................................................Travel Demand Management TPH..................................................Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRANS..............................................Traffic and Transportation TRU..................................................Transport Refrigeration Units VMT.................................................Vehicle Miles Travelled VOC .................................................Volatile Organic Compound 1766
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
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.
Project Applicant Prior to the approval of
tentative tract map
City Attorney
AIR QUALITY
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 supercompliant low VOC paints.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a
building permit
City of Ontario
Building
Department
MM AQ-2: Only electric-powered off-road equipment (e.g., yard trucks/hostlers, forklifts, indoor material handling equipment, etc.) shall be utilized on-site 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 Project Developer Prior to issuance of a
Business License
City of Ontario
Planning
Department and
Business License
Department
1767
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 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 to 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 dayto-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.
Project Operator Prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1768
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
City of Ontario
Planning
Department
Prior to the issuance of a
building permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 M-04 of the Mobility Element in TOP 2050.
In addition, signage shall be installed to direct trucks to the appropriate designated truck routes.
City of Ontario
Planning
Department
Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM AQ-6: In residential uses, the installation of wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces and stoves 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 fireplaces and stoves used for primary heat, supplemental heat, or ambiance. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future residential property owners/tenants to obey.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1769
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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) 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.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 Qualified Biologist Prior to the issuance of
permits for any
construction activity
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1770
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 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 roost(s).
Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
1771
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
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.
Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
CDFW
1772
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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).
Qualified Biologist Prior to implementation
of Project activities
City of Ontario
Planning Department
CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM CUL-1: If determined by the feasibility study pursuant MM CUL-6 that the historic property is able to be relocated, every effort shall be made to facilitate the relocation. The buildings 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.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of historic properties addressed to 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, or 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue at the same time or separately, a HABS (level 3) documentation, including but not limited to as built drawing, historical narrative, and Historic American Building Survey (HABS) photographs of the subject historic shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review, approval, and subsequent release to the Ovitt Family Community Library, Model Colony History Room. Digital files and 2 printed copies are required (one archival and one nonarchival).
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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 building permit for demolition of the historic resources located at 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, and 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue. Mitigation fee is equal to 30% of the price per square foot construction cost as established in the most current Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1773
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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: Prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of historic properties addressed to 13813 Euclid Avenue, 7275 Schaefer Avenue, or 7244 & 7260 Edison Avenue, a determination shall be made by the Planning Department whether items within or on the historic propertiesshould be salvaged. 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 the issuance of building permit.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
building permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-5: The applicant shall obtain a building permit prior to any demolition, relocation, or construction.
Project Applicant Prior to any demolition,
relocation, or
construction
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-6: Prior to issuance of a demolition building permit, A a feasibility study of the relocation and adaptive reuse shall be completed by a qualified architect and structural engineer who specializes in historic buildings in consultation with contractors who specialize in moving buildings for the Milk Parlor within the area identified as Phase II. MM CUL-1 shall be implemented if determined relocation is feasible.
A Qualified Architect
and Structural
Engineer
Prior to the issuance of a
demolition building
permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-7: 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 shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance, prior to issuance of the Certificate of Final Occupancy for the first building constructed within the project area.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
building permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
MM CUL-8: A short video documentary (12-15 minute) on the operations of a functioning dairy located within the Ontario Ranch area focusing on the dairy history, themes, site, building, and stories gathered from new and archived oral interviews, dairy context and recent dairy surveys shall be produced and submitted to the Planning Department for review and acceptance prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy for the first building constructed within the project area.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
building permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1774
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to the issuance of
any grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
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. 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).
Project Applicant Throughout construction City of Ontario Planning Department
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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.
Project Applicant Prior to the start of
construction
City of Ontario
Building Department
1775
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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).
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 finish-grade 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 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 Project Applicant Prior to grading City of Ontario
Building Department
1776
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
Project Applicant Prior to issuance of a
building permit
Director of the City
Public Works
Department
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 Project Applicant Prior to grading City of Ontario
Building Department
1777
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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. • 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.
GREENHOUSE GAS
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.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
building permit(s)
and/or site plans
City of Ontario
Planning Department
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
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 Project Applicant Prior to Project
implementation
City of Ontario
Building Department
1778
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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; 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.
1779
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 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 Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1780
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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 semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs). During excavation, Rule 1166 requires that soils identified as contaminated shall be sprayed with water or another 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.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1781
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
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.
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
City of Ontario
Building Department
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 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.
Project Applicant Following the drainage
of on-site ponds
City of Ontario
Building Department
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, Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
demolition permit
City of Ontario
Planning Department
1782
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 Mitigation Measures
Responsibility for
Implementation Timing
Responsibility for
Monitoring
Monitor
(Signature Required)
(Date of Compliance)
if encountered, in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403.
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit of the on-site 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.
1783
ORDINANCE NO._______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FILE NO. PSP22-001, A SPECIFIC PLAN (EUCLID MIXED USE SPECIFIC PLAN) TO ESTABLISH THE LAND USE
DISTRICTS, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, GUIDELINES, AND
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,386,776 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS
PARK LAND USES, 290,110 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND RETAIL LAND USES, AND 466 DWELLING UNITS ON THE 84-ACRE PROJECT SITE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 1053- 071-01; 1053-071-02; 1053-071-03; 1053-071-04; 1053-211-01; 1053-211- 02; 1053-211-05; 1053-281-01; 1053-281-02; 1053-281-03; 1053-281-04; 1053-281-07; 1053-281-08; 1053-081-01; 1053-081-02; 1053-081-03; 1053-081-04.
WHEREAS, EUCLID LAND INVESTMENT LLC ("Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, File No. PSP22-001, as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Application applies to 84 acres of land 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 properties to the north of the Project site are within the SP (Specific Plan) zoning district and are developed with agricultural uses. The properties to the south are within the SP zoning district and include vacant land, a dairy farm, recreational vehicle storage and residential uses. The properties to the east are within the SP zoning district and are vacant. The properties to the west are located within the City of Chino and improved with commercial, residential and trailer storage uses; and WHEREAS, the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A," 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. In addition, the Specific Plan will establish the procedures and requirements to approve new development within the project site to ensure The Ontario Plan 2050 (“TOP 2050”) goals and policies are achieved; and
WHEREAS, the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan consists of approximately 84 acres of land, which includes potential development of up to 1,676,886 square feet of business park, office and retails uses, and 466 dwelling units; and 1784
WHEREAS, the land use intensity of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan anticipated in the five planning areas is consistent with TOP 2050. The Specific Plan is proposing a maximum 0.6 floor area ratio (“FAR”) within the Business Park land use designation (Planning Areas 1, 2A and 2B) located along the northern area of the Specific Plan area. Planning Areas 1, 2A and 2B are 53.06 acres in size and can be potentially developed with 1,386,776 square feet of business park development. The Specific Plan is proposing a maximum 1.5 FAR for office, 1.0 FAR for retail, and 35 du/ac within the Mixed Use land use designation along the southern portion of the Specific Plan. Planning Area 3 is 19.03 acres in size and can potentially be developed with 124,146 square feet of office and 165,964 square feet of retail development and maximum 466 dwelling units.
Planning Areas 4 and 5 are designated Open Space-Nonrecreational land use and no development square footage is planned for these areas; and WHEREAS, the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan has been prepared in conformance with the goals and policies of the City of Ontario Policy Plan (General Plan).
The policy (General Plan) analysis in “Chapter 7. Consistency with The Ontario Plan” of the Specific Plan describes the manner in which the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies applicable to the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Application is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and an initial study has been prepared to determine possible environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281), including the adoption of a Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, have been prepared in accord with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines to address the environmental effects of the Specific Plan (Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan); and
WHEREAS, Ontario Development Code Table 2.02-1 (Review Matrix) grants the City Council the responsibility and authority to review and act on the subject Application; and WHEREAS, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan component of The Ontario Plan 2050, as State Housing Element law (as prescribed in Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589.8) requires that development projects must be consistent with the Housing Element, if upon consideration of all its aspects, it is found to further the purposes, principals, goals, and policies of the Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport ("ONT"), which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies and criteria set forth in the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within San Bernardino County, and addresses the noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
1785
WHEREAS, the proposed Project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Chino Airport, within the City of Ontario boundary, and is subject to, and must be consistent with, the policies criteria set forth in Reference I, Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CNO ALUCP), which applies only to jurisdictions within City of Ontario, and addresses the safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity; and
WHEREAS, City of Ontario Development Code Division 2.03 (Public Hearings) prescribes the manner in which public notification shall be provided and hearing procedures to be followed, and all such notifications and procedures have been completed; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR, MMRP, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date, voting to issue Resolution No. PC24-031 & PC24-032, recommending the City Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a hearing to consider the EIR, MMRP, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Project, and concluded said hearing on that date; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDAINED 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 EIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the Project and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2023020281) and the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
(1) The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan EIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan EIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan EIR, MMRP, and Statement of Overriding Considerations reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
1786
SECTION 2: 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 3: 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 Ontario International Airport Land use Compatibility Plan, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT 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; and
(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 1787
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 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 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 4: 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 3 above, the City Council hereby concludes as follows:
(1) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, is consistent with the goals, policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan 2050. The approximately 84-acre Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan is suitable for business park and mixed use development and is consistent with the goals and policies, plans and exhibits of the Vision, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of TOP 2050. “Chapter 7. Consistency with The Ontario Plan” of the Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan describes the manner in which the Specific Plan complies with the Policy Plan goals and policies; and
(2) The proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. The proposed Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan is in conformance with the Land Use Policies and Goals of the Policy Plan and will provide standards and guidelines for the harmonious development within the districts, in a manner consistent with the Policy Plan. The Specific Plan is proposing business park and mixed use (office, retail and residential) type development for the approximately 84-acre site, which is what is mandated by the land use plan of the Policy Plan; therefore, the proposed business park and mixed use land uses will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City because it will provide land uses that are consistent with the existing and future development of the surrounding area; and
(3) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the proposed Specific Plan, or amendment thereto, will not adversely affect the harmonious relationship with adjacent properties and land uses. The proposed Specific Plan will modify the land use from agricultural, dairy farm, recreational vehicle storage, residential and vacant land uses to Business Park and Mixed Use, which aligns with surrounding land uses 1788
planned in TOP 2050 and allows for similar development intensities under the Business Park and Mixed Use designation; and
(4) In the case of an application affecting specific property(ies), the subject site is physically suitable, including, but not limited to, parcel size, shape, access, and availability of utilities, for the request and anticipated development. The proposed Specific Plan will allow for business park and mixed use on the subject site. When in conformance with the Specific Plan, the project site is suitable in size and shape, allows for sufficient access and availability of utilities to accommodate the anticipated development.
SECTION 4: City Council Action. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 through 3, above, the City Council hereby APPROVES the herein described Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan, attached hereto as "Attachment A," and incorporated herein by this reference, and subject to the Conditions of Approval.
SECTION 5: 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 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.
SECTION 7: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The People of the City of Ontario hereby declare that they would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.
SECTION 9: Publication and Posting. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least once, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California within 15 days following the adoption. The City Clerk shall post a certified copy of this ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. 1789
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________ day of _________ 2024. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CITY ATTORNEY
1790
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 Ordinance No. _______ was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Ontario held _____________ and adopted at the regular meeting held ___________, 2024 by the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. _______ duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held ____________ and that Summaries of the Ordinance were published on ___________ and _____________, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper.
__________________________________
SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1791
ATTACHMENT A:
File No. PSP22-001;
Euclid Mixed Use Specific Plan
(Document follows this page)
1792
ONTARIO, CA
EUCLID
MIXED
USESPECIFIC
PLAN
1793
This page intentionally left blank
1794
Page
EUCLID
MIXED
USE
i
SPECIFIC
PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Intent of the Specific Plan 1-5
1.2 Specific Plan Project 1-6
Location and Specific Plan Boundary 1-6
Employment Generation 1-6
Infrastructure Framework 1-6
Community Connectivity and Compatibility 1-6
1.3 Specific Plan Requirements 1-7
1.4 Authority and Scope 1-7
1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance 1-7
1.6 Organization of this Specific Plan 1-8
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1
2.1 Existing Land Uses and Improvements 2-1
2.1.1 On-Site Uses 2-1
2.1.2 Surrounding Uses 2-2
2.2 Existing and Surrounding Development 2-3
2.3 Airport Influence Areas 2-5
Ontario International Airport 2-5
Chino Airport 2-5
2.4 Williamson Act Contracts 2-5
2.5 Ontario Plan 2050 and Zoning Designations 2-10
2.6 Existing Circulation 2-12
2.7 Existing Environmental Conditions 2-14
Topography 2-14
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 2-14
Hydrology 2-15
Biological Resources 2-15
3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3-1
3.1 Land Use Plan 3-1
3.2 Circulation Plan 3-4
3.2.1 Local Circulation 3-5
3.2.2 Traffic Control Devices 3-5
3.2.3 Euclid Avenue (Route 83) 3-8
3.2.4 Edison Avenue 3-9
3.2.5 Schaefer Avenue 3-10
3.2.6 Sultana Avenue 3-11
1795
Page ii
3.2.7 Pedestrian Circulation 3-12
3.2.8 Trails and Bicyle Paths 3-12
3.2.9 Transit 3-13
3.3 Potable Water Plan 3-14
3.4 Recycled Water Plan 3-19
3.5 Sewer Plan 3-22
3.6 Conceptual Grading Plan 3-26
3.7 Dry Utilities Plan 3-29
3.7.1 Communication System 3-29
3.7.2 Natural Gas 3-29
3.7.3 Electricity 3-29
3.8 Storm Drain Plan 3-32
3.8.1 NPDES Compliance 3-33
3.9 Public Services 3-36
3.9.1 Police 3-36
3.9.2 Fire 3-36
3.9.3 Solid Waste Disposal 3-36
3.10 Phasing Plan 3-36
4. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4-1
4.1 General Provisions 4-1
4.1.1 Definition of Terms 4-1
4.1.2 Applicability 4-1
4.1.3 Severability 4-1
4.1.4 Administration 4-1
4.1.5 Methods and Interpretation 4-2
4.2 Allowable Uses 4-3
“P” Permitted Land Uses 4-3
“C” Conditionally Permitted Land Uses 4-3
“A” Administratively Permitted Uses 4-3
“--” Prohibited Land Uses 4-3
Land Uses Not Listed 4-3
4.3 Development Standards 4-10
4.3.1 Business Park/Mixed-Use Development Standards 4-11
4.3.2 Mixed-Use Development Standards 4-13
4.4 Open Space Planning Areas 4-16
4.4.1 Allowable Uses within the SCE Easement Areas 4-16
4.4.2 Development Standards within the SCE Easement Areas 4-16 Cont. 3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1796
Page
EUCLID
MIXED
USE
iii
SPECIFIC
PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. DESIGN GUIDELINES 5-1
5.1 General Design Guidelines 5-1
5.1.1 Architectural Design 5-1
5.1.2 Landscape Design 5-3
5.1.3 Streetscapes 5-3
5.1.4 Plant Palette 5-10
5.2 Business Park Guidelines 5-12
5.2.1 Architectural Design 5-12
5.2.2 Landscape Design 5-16
5.3 Mixed-Use Commercial/Office Guidelines 5-22
5.3.1 Architectural Design 5-23
5.3.2 Landscape Design 5-27
5.4 Mixed-Use Residential Guidelines 5-31
5.4.1 Architectural Design 5-31
5.4.2 Landscape Design 5-37
6. SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6-1
6.1 Applicability 6-1
6.1.1 Definition of Terms 6-1
6.2 Severability 6-1
6.3 Interpretation 6-1
6.4 Consistency with Other Plans and Regulations 6-1
6.4.1 Consistency with The Ontario Plan 6-1
6.4.2 Consistency with Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans 6-2
6.4.3 Consistency with California Building Code 6-2
6.4.4 Consistency with CEQA 6-2
6.5 Specific Plan Revisions 6-2
6.5.1 Minor Modifications 6-2
6.5.2 Specific Plan Amendments 6-3
6.6 Subdivision Maps 6-3
6.7 Development and Land Use Review Procedures 6-3
6.7.1 Development Plan Review 6-3
6.7.2 Conditional Use Permit 6-4
6.7.3 Administrative Use Permit 6-4
6.7.4 Appeals 6-4
6.8 Development Agreement 6-4
6.9 Specific Plan Phasing 6-4
6.9.1 Phasing Objectives 6-4
6.9.2 Findings for Modification of the Phasing Plan 6-5
6.10 Maintenance Plan 6-5
6.10.1 City of Ontario, Community Facilities District & other Special District 6-5
6.10.2 Property Owners Association 6-6
1797
Page iv
7. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN7-1
7.1 Land Use Element 7-1
Policy LU-1.1 Strategic Growth 7-1
Policy LU-1.2 Sustainable Community Strategy 7-1
Policy LU-1.3 Adequate Capacity 7-2
Policy LU-1.4 Multimodal Mobility 7-2
Policy LU-1.5 Jobs-Housing Balance 7-2
Policy LU-1.6 Complete Community 7-2
Policy LU-2.3 Hazardous Uses 7-3
Policy LU-2.5 Regulation of Uses 7-3
Policy LU-2.6 Infrastructure Compatibility 7-3
Policy LU-2.9 Methane Gas Sites 7-4
Policy LU-2.11 Context-Aware Transitions and Connections 7-4 Policy LU-3.1 Development Standards 7-4
Policy LU-4.1 Commitment to Vision 7-5
Policy LU-4.3 Infrastructure Timing 7-5
Policy LU-5.1 Coordination with Airport Authorities 7-5 Policy LU-5.2 Airport Planning Consistency 7-5
Policy LU-5.5 Airport Compatibility Planning for ONT 7-6 Policy LU-5.7 ALUCP Consistency with Land Use Regulations 7-6 Policy LU-5.8 Chino Airport 7-6
7.2 Housing Element 7-6
Policy H-1.2 Neighborhood Conditions 7-6
Policy H-1.3 Community Amenities 7-6
Policy H-1.4 Historical Preservation 7-7
Policy H-2.1 Corridor Housing 7-7
Policy H-2.4 Ontario Ranch 7-7
Policy H-2.5 Housing Design 7-8
Policy H-5.2 Family Housing 7-8
7.3 Parks and Recreation Element 7-8
Policy PR-1.1 Access to Parks 7-8
Policy PR-1.5 Acreage Standard 7-9
Policy PR-1.6 Private Parks 7-9
Policy PR-1.9 Phased Development 7-9
Policy PR-1.12 Trails 7-9
Policy PR-1.14 Multi-family Residential Developments 7-9 Policy PR-1.15 Trail Connectivity 7-9
7.4 Environmental Resources Element 7-10
Policy ER-1.3 Conservation and Sustainable Water Supply 7-10 Policy ER-1.5 Water Resource Management 7-10
Policy ER-1.6 Urban Run-off Quantity 7-10
Policy ER-1.7 Urban Run-off Quality 7-11
Policy ER-1.8 Wastewater Management 7-11
Policy ER-3.1 Conservation Strategy 7-11
Policy ER-3.3 Building and Site Design 7-11
Policy ER-3.6 Generation - Renewable Sources 7-12
Policy ER-4.1 Land Use 7-12
1798
Page
EUCLID
MIXED
USE
v
SPECIFIC
PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Policy ER-4.3 Greenhouse Gases (GHG) Emissions Reductions 7-12 Policy ER-4.4 Indoor Air Quality 7-12
Policy ER-4.5 Transportation 7-13
Policy ER-4.8 Tree Planting 7-13
Policy ER-5.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process 7-13
7.5 Community Economics Element 7-14
Policy CE-1.1 Jobs-Housing Balance 7-14
Policy CE-1.5 Business Attraction 7-14
Policy CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing 7-14
Policy CE-1.7 Retail Goods and Services 7-14
Policy CE-1.12 Circulation 7-15
Policy CE-2.1 Development Projects 7-15
Policy CE-2.2 Development Review 7-15
Policy CE-2.4 Protection of Investment 7-15
Policy CE-2.5 Private Maintenance 7-16
Policy CE-2.6 Public Maintenance 7-16
7.6 Safety Element 7-16
Policy S-1.1 Implementation of Regulations and Standards 7-16 Policy S-1.2 Entitlement and Permitting Process 7-16
Policy S-2.1 Entitlement and Permitting Process 7-17
Policy S-3.3 Fire and Emergency Medical Services 7-17
Policy S-3.8 Fire Prevention through Environmental Design 7-17 Policy S-4.1 Noise Mitigation 7-18
Policy S-5.1 Dust Control Measures 7-18
Policy S-5.2 Grading in High Winds 7-18
Policy S-6.9 Remediation of Methane 7-18
Policy S-7.4 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) 7-19 Policy S-9.1 Solar Energy 7-19
7.7 Mobility Element 7-20
Policy M-1.1 Roadway Design and Maintenance 7-20
Policy M-1.2 Mitigation of Impacts 7-20
Policy M-2.2 Bicycle System 7-20
Policy M-2.3 Pedestrian Walkways 7-21
Policy M-2.4 Network Opportunities 7-21
Policy M-3.2 Alternative Transit Facilities at New Development 7-21 Policy M-4.1 Truck Routes 7-22
Policy M-4.4 Environmental Considerations 7-22
7.8 Community Design Element 7-22
Policy CD-1.2 Place Types 7-22
Policy CD-1.4 Transportation Corridors 7-23
Policy CD-2.1 Quality Building Design and Architecture 7-23 Policy CD-2.2 Neighborhood Design 7-23
Policy CD-2.3 Commercial Areas 7-24
Policy CD-2.4 Urban, Mixed Use, and Transit-oriented Areas 7-24 Policy CD-2.5 Streetscapes 7-24
Cont. 7. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN
1799
Page vi
Policy CD-2.6 Connectivity 7-25
Policy CD-2.7 Sustainability 7-25
Policy CD-2.8 Safe Design 7-25
Policy CD-2.9 Landscape Design 7-26
Policy CD-2.10 Parking Areas 7-26
Policy CD-2.11 Entry Statements 7-26
Policy CD-2.12 Site and Building Signage 7-27
Policy CD-2.16 Transit Stops 7-27
Policy CD-3.1 Unique Identity 7-27
Policy CD-3.2 Comfortable, Human-Scale Public Realm 7-27 Policy CD-3.3 Complete and Connected Network 7-28
Policy CD-3.4 Context-Aware and Appropriate Design 7-28 Policy CD-3.5 Active Frontages 7-28
Policy CD-5.1 Maintenance of Buildings and Property 7-28 Policy CD-5.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure 7-29
7.9 Social Resources Element 7-29
Policy SR-2.4 Access to Schools 7-29
Policy SR-5.3 Public Art 7-29
Cont. 7. CONSISTENCY WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN
F IGURES
Figure 1.1 Regional Location 1-2
Figure 1.2 Ontario Ranch 1-3
Figure 1.3 Specific Plan Boundary 1-9
Figure 2.1 Surrounding Land Uses 2-4
Project Site Overviews 2-6
Figure 2.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning 2-11
Figure 2.3 Regional Circulation 2-13
Figure 3.1 Land Use Plan 3-2
Figure 3.2 City of Ontario Road Classification System 3-6 Figure 3.3 Circulation Plan 3-7
Figure 3.4 Euclid Avenue Street Section 3-8
Figure 3.5 Edison Avenue Street Section 3-9
Figure 3.6 Schaefer Avenue Street Section 3-10
Figure 3.7 Sultana Avenue Street Section 3-11
Figure 3.8 City of Ontario Trail and Bicycle Paths Plan 3-12 Figure 3.9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 3-13
1800
Page
EUCLID
MIXED
USE
vii
SPECIFIC
PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
T ABLES
Figure 3.10 City of Ontario Ultimate Water System 3-16
Figure 3.11 Specific Plan Domestic Water Plan 3-17
Figure 3.12 City of Ontario Ultimate Recycled Water System 3-20 Figure 3.13 Specific Plan Recycled Water Plan 3-21
Figure 3.14 City of Ontario Overall Sewer Plan 3-23
Figure 3.15 City of Ontario Ultimate Sewer System 3-24
Figure 3.16 Specific Plan Sewer Plan 3-25
Figure 3.17 Specific Plan Conceptual Grading Plan 3-27
Figure 3.18 City of Ontario Ultimate Fiber Optical System 3-30 Figure 3.19 Specific Plan Fiber Optical Plan 3-31
Figure 3.20 City of Ontario Ultimate Storm Drain System 3-34 Figure 3.21 Specific Plan Storm Drain Plan 3-35
Figure 3.22 Specific Plan Phasing Plan 3-37
Figure 5.1 Euclid Avenue Streetscape 5-3
Figure 5.2 Edison Avenue Streetscape 5-4
Figure 5.3 Schaefer Avenue Streetscape 5-4
Figure 5.4 Sultana Avenue Streetscape 5-5
Figure 5.5 Landscape Framework 5-6
Figure 5.6 Euclid Gateway Concept 5-8
Figure 5.7 Specific Plan Gateway Concept 5-9
Table 3.1 Development Table 3-3
Table 4.1 Allowable Uses 4-4
Table 4.2 Business Park And Mixed-Use Development Standards 4-11 Table 4.3 Mixed-Use Development Standards 4-13
Table 4.4 Stand Alone Residential Development Standards 4-15 Table 4.5 Allowed Uses Subject to SCE Approval 4-16
Table 5.1 Plant Palette 5-10
Table 6.1 Maintenance Responsibilities 6-6
Cont. FIGURES
1801
This page intentionally left blank
1802
Page
EUCLID
MIXED
USE
1-1
SPECIFIC
PLAN
INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION
Euclid Avenue can be described as the backbone of the City of Ontario (See Figure 1.1). Extending from the San Gabriel foothills to the north, Euclid Avenue was originally designed by George and William Chaffey in 1882 to be a grand boulevard constructed as part of the “Model Irrigation Colony” and was intended to connect to the southern edge of the colony at the Southern Pacific Railroad. Euclid Avenue initially provided street lights, water services and long distance telephone lines and was envisioned to include an electric railway to serve the growing community.
Today, Ontario has grown to become the identifiable center of the inland valley, with commerce and community expanding around the City’s strategic location along regional transportation routes, growing international airport, commerce and cultural amenities. Ontario is situated in the path of expanding urbanization and housing demand in the surrounding region. The project site, the Euclid Mixed-Use Property, is comprised of approximately 84 acres located along the east side of Euclid Avenue in the City of Ontario, California and establishes the west gateway to the Ontario Ranch.
Within Ontario Ranch, the City of Ontario promotes innovative land development principles to continue the legacy of the Model Colony. The City’s general plan, The Ontario Plan, envisions the Ontario Ranch area will include housing, commercial and Business Park areas, parks, recreational uses, trails and bike links.
Specific plans are required to guide development in Ontario Ranch to ensure the City objectives are achieved.
On January 26, 2010, the City of Ontario adopted The Ontario Plan, which serves as its new business plan and includes a long term vision and principle-based policy plan, essentially functioning as the General Plan for the city, including Ontario Ranch. The Ontario Plan 2050 was adopted in August 2022 as an update to the original 2010 document. The Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan is consistent with The Ontario Plan 2050.
The Euclid Mixed-Use Specific Plan (this “Specific Plan”) is a major “next step,” creating a specific plan to implement the vision outlined by the City of Ontario for the western portion of the Ontario Ranch area, formerly New Model Colony (See Figure 1.2). The Ontario Ranch area covers 8,200 acres of the historic San Bernardino Agricultural Preserve, which was predominantly used for dairy or cattle farming. In 1999, the City of Ontario named its portion of the Agricultural Preserve to be the New Model Colony after the original Model Irrigation Colony.
The City’s TOP overall vision for the Ontario Ranch is to create a self-sustaining place of diversity, extending into Ontario’s existing fabric of development. The City’s TOP also envisions each neighborhood and commercial center within the Ontario Ranch as a place uniquely identifiable for its residents, employees, and visitors, united through an area-wide network of greenways, trails, open spaces, amenities, and infrastructure.
The vision for Euclid Mixed-Use is to create a gateway to the City of Ontario and to the Ontario Ranch planned community incorporating a variety of opportunities for small businesses and employment within the Business Park District and a vibrant community with a mixture of uses all connected through a series of trails providing opportunities for people to live, work and play within the Mixed-Use District of the Specific Plan.
1803