Agenda packet — Ontario City Council, June 16, 2026 (part 24 of 28)

Policy CD2-10: Parking Areas.

We require all development, including
single-family residential, to minimize the
visual impact of surface, structured, and
garage parking areas visible from the
public realm in an aesthetically pleasing,
safe and environmentally sensitive
manner. Examples include:

1. Surface parking: Shade trees,
pervious surfaces, urban run-off
capture and infiltration, and
pedestrian paths to guide users
through the parking field.

2. Structured parking: facade
articulation, screening, appropriate
lighting, and landscaping.

3. Garage parking: providing access
to single-family residential garages
through alley access, recessing
garages from the frontage to
emphasize front doors or active
living spaces.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan does not include any residential uses. Surface
parking lots, truck courts, and loading areas will be
designed in accordance with the City’s Development
Code and the Specific Plan’s Design Guidelines
(Chapter 6), which require the incorporation of
landscaping, screening, and clearly defined
pedestrian pathways and drive aisles. Additionally,
each building’s surface parking area will be designed
to treat urban runoff through the respective site’s
storm drain design.

Policy CD2-11: Entry Statements.

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

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park includes
guidelines for building entry treatments, primary and
secondary corner treatments, and tenant monument
treatments to identify the development and distinguish
individual planning areas, in conformance with the
intent of Policy CD2-11. The entry treatments, corner
treatments, and tenant monuments which are
illustrated in Chapter 6, Design Guidelines,
incorporate landscaping and enhanced signage to
provide attractive and distinctive visual statements.

Policy CD2-12: Site and Building Signage. Consistent. The Design Guidelines for the Eucalyptus Business Park (refer to Chapter 6 of this Specific Plan) 5386

EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN
A-19
Ontario Plan Policy Specific Plan Consistency
Community Design Benefit
We encourage the use of sign programs
that utilize complementary materials,
colors, and themes. Project signage
should be designed to effectively
communicate and direct users to various
aspects of the development and
complement the character of the
structures.
include signage guidelines to ensure that future
development will construct clear, concise, easy-toread signs that reflect and complement the Specific Plan’s design theme, provide for safe and efficient
circulation of vehicle traffic, and facilitate pedestrian travel. Signs will be of high-quality and the use of
distracting sign elements, such as flashing lights or
moving parts, is prohibited. Additionally, a sign
program will be provided along with the Specific Plan
to further provide design standard for signs within the Specific Plan area.

Goal CD3: Vibrant urban environments that are organized around intense buildings, pedestrian and transit areas, public plazas, and linkages between and within developments that are conveniently located, visually appealing and safe during all hours.

Policy CD3.2: Comfortable, Human-Scale
Public Realm.

We require that public spaces, including
streets, parks, and plazas on both public
and private property be designed to
maximize safety, comfort and aesthetics
and connect to the citywide pedestrian,
vehicular, and bicycle networks.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan promotes a comfortable, human-scale public
realm through the coordinated design of its
streetscapes, sidewalks, and multi-purpose trails, as
described in Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, and
Chapter 6, Design Guidelines. Sidewalks and trails are
integrated throughout the plan area to enhance
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, while landscaped
parkways and consistent setbacks create a visually
appealing and walkable environment. These
improvements are designed to provide safe,
accessible, and aesthetically cohesive connections to
the citywide transportation network. Additionally, the
Open Space – Parkland planning areas will provide
both passive and active open space use for visitors,
employees, and surrounding residents of the Specific
Plan area.

Policy CD3.3: Complete and Connected
Network
We require that pedestrian, vehicular, and
bicycle circulation on both public and
private property be coordinated to provide
connections internally and externally to
adjacent neighborhoods and properties
(existing and planned) through a system of
local roads and trails that promote walking
and biking to nearby destinations
(including existing and planned parks,
commercial areas, and transit stops) and
are designed to maximize safety, comfort,
and aesthetics.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan provides a coordinated and interconnected
circulation network for vehicles, bicycles, and
pedestrians, as illustrated in Chapter 4, Infrastructure Plan, and Chapter 6, Design Guidelines. Public
roadways and private drive aisles will include
sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and multi-purpose trails to ensure internal mobility and connectivity to
surrounding areas. Improvements along major
corridors such as Eucalyptus Avenue, Grove Avenue,
Campus Avenue, and Walker Avenue support access
to regional transit and commercial destinations. All
future development will be required to comply with
City standards for sight visibility, safety, and
5387

EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN
A-20
Ontario Plan Policy Specific Plan Consistency
Community Design Benefit
landscape placement to ensure a comfortable and
secure travel experience for all users.

Policy CD 3.4: Context-Aware and
Appropriate Design
We require appropriate building and site
design that complements existing
development, respects the intent and
identity of the Place Type, and provides
appropriate transitions and connections
between adjacent uses to ensure
compatibility of scale, maintain an
appropriate level of privacy for each use,
and minimize potential conflicts.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan establishes building and site design standards
that ensure compatibility with surrounding
development and land uses, as detailed in Chapters
5, Development Regulations and 6, Design
Guidelines. The plan incorporates landscaped
setbacks, internal circulation buffers, and screening
treatments along perimeter roadways to create
appropriate transitions between the Business Park
and adjacent uses. Building height, massing, and
orientation are designed to respect the scale of
surrounding development and minimize potential land
use conflicts, supporting a context-sensitive and
visually cohesive environment.

Policy CD 3.5: Active Frontages.

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

Consistent. While the Eucalyptus Business Park
Specific Plan is focused on employment, business
park, and open space uses rather than retail or
residential development, it incorporates design
elements that support active and engaging frontages
along key pedestrian corridors. As described in
Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, primary building
entrances are oriented toward public streets or
internal circulation routes, with pedestrian
connections provided from sidewalks and trails.

Landscaping, lighting, and pathway design contribute
to a safe and comfortable pedestrian experience,
reinforcing the plan’s intent to create a cohesive and
visually appealing business park environment.

Policy CD 3.6: Managed Infrastructure.

We collaborate with developers and
property owners to facilitate development
that realizes the envisioned character and
functionality of the Place Type through the
use of green and shared infrastructure
within each Place Type.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan supports coordinated infrastructure planning to
achieve the intended character and functionality of a
modern business park. As outlined in Chapter 4,
Infrastructure Plan, the project includes shared
infrastructure improvements such as integrated
roadway systems, stormwater facilities, and utility
corridors designed to serve multiple parcels efficiently.

The Specific Plan also promotes sustainable practices
through the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and
multi-purpose trails within public rights-of-way,
contributing to a cohesive, functional, and
environmentally responsible development pattern.

Goal CD-5: A sustained level of maintenance and improvement of properties, buildings and infrastructure that protects the property values and encourages additional public and private investments.
5388

EUCALYPTUS BUSINESS PARK SPECIFIC PLAN
A-21
Ontario Plan Policy Specific Plan Consistency
Community Design Benefit
Policy CD5-1: Maintenance of Buildings
and Property.

We require all public and privately-owned
buildings and property (including trails and
easements) to be properly and
consistently maintained.

Consistent. The Eucalyptus Business Park Specific
Plan defines the responsible parties for maintaining
both public and private improvements, including
roadways, utilities, landscaping, and pedestrian
infrastructure, as outlined in Chapter 7,
Implementation Plan. A maintenance responsibility
matrix is included to ensure long-term upkeep of all
improvements, including trails and easements, in
accordance with City standards. This framework
ensures that all development within the Specific Plan
area will be properly and consistently maintained.

Policy CD5-2: Maintenance of
Infrastructure.

We require the continual maintenance of
infrastructure.

Page 1 of 2 ends

303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Fax: 909.395.2420

LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Date Prepared: 5/15/2026
File No: PSP24-003
Related Files: N/A
Project Description: A public hearing to consider the Eucalyptus Business Park Specific Plan (File No. PSP24-003) to establish the land use districts, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure improvements, etc., for the potential development of 2,939,000 square feet of business park development, 10,000 square feet of commercial development and approximately 37-acres of open space/recreation on approximately 189 acres of land for property generally located along the northeast corner of Campus Avenue and Eucalyptus Avenue, within the SP (Specific Plan) and AG (Agricultural Overlay) zoning districts. The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA25-002), for which a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2025110102) was prepared. This application introduces no new significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is located within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The project site is also located within the Airport Influence area of Chino Airport and was evaluated and found to be consistent with the policies and criteria of the Chino Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; (APNs:1053-531-01, 1053-531-02, 1053-531-03, 1053-531-04, 1053-541-01, 1053-541-02, 1053-551-01, 1053-371-01, 1053-371-02, 1053-581-03, 1053-581-04, 0216-321-01, 0216-321-02, 0216-321-06, 0216- 321-07, 0216-322-01, 0216-322-02, 0216-322-10) submitted by Ontario Ranch Venture II, LLC. (c/o Sares Regis Group).

Prepared By: Luis E. Batres, Senior Planner
Phone: 909.395.2431 (direct)
Email: [email protected]
The Planning Department, Land Development Section, conditions of approval applicable to the above-described Project, are listed below. The Project shall comply with each condition of approval listed below:

1.0 Standard Conditions of Approval. The project shall comply with the Standard Conditions for New Development, adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2017-027 on April 18, 2017. A copy of the Standard Conditions for New Development may be obtained from the Planning Department or City Clerk/Records Management Department.

2.0 Special Conditions of Approval. In addition to the Standard Conditions for New Development identified in condition no. 1.0, above, the project shall comply with the following special conditions of approval:
5390
Planning Department – Land Development Division
Conditions of Approval
File No.: PSP24-003

Page 2 of 2 ends

2.1 Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amendment. The following shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 45 days following City Council approval of the Specific Plan/Specific Plan Amendment:
(a) Two copies of the final approved Specific Plan document, bounded. (b) One complete, unbound copy of the final approved Specific Plan document.
(c) One USB drive, or download link, containing a complete Microsoft Word, or editable, copy of the final approved Specific Plan document, including original figures, images and all required revisions.

2.2 Additional Fees.
(a) Within 5 days following final application approval, the Notice of Determination (“NOD”) filing fee shall be provided to the Planning Department. The fee shall be paid by check, made payable to the "Clerk of the Board of Supervisors", which shall be forwarded to the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, along with all applicable environmental forms/notices, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Failure to provide said fee within the time specified will result in the extension of the statute of limitations for the filing of a CEQA lawsuit from 30 days to 180 days.

2.3 Mics.
(a) Approval of this Specific Plan is subject to the City Council approving File No. PGPA25-002, The Ontario Plan (TOP) 2050 Policy Plan Amendment. 5391
Department: Planning
Prepared By: Jeanie Irene T Aguilo
Department:

Prepared By: Jeanie Irene T Aguilo
Staff Member Presenting: Rudy Zeledon,
Executive Director Community Development
Approved By:

Submitted To: Council/OHA
Approved: _______________________________
Continued To: ___________________________
Denied: __________________________________
Item No: 22
SUBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE NO. PSPA25-005) TO ESTABLISH A MIXED-USE OVERLAY DISTRICT (PLANNING AREA 3A) ON 25.38 ACRES OF LAND

CITY OF ONTARIO
Agenda Report
June 16, 2026
SECTION:

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

A. A Resolution approving an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020).

B. A Resolution approving a Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA25-005) for the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, appended to the attached Resolution as “Attachment A”, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached Resolution as “Attachment B”.

THE FOLLOWING COUNCIL GOALS ARE BEING ACHIEVED:

Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy Operate in a Businesslike Manner
Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods FISCAL IMPACT: There is not a direct fiscal impact associated with this action. There is no development proposed at this time and all future development and public infrastructure improvements will be constructed by a developer at its sole cost.

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS: In April 2015, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment (File No. PGPA13-005) and a Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA14-003) to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan, originally adopted in 1981, was amended to facilitate the development of approximately 3 million square feet of industrial land uses, up to 600 hotel rooms, 1.1 million square feet of commercial land uses, and up to 800 residential units on roughly 257.7 acres of land. The Specific Plan generally covers several properties located north of the Interstate 10 Freeway, south of 4 th Street, between Vineyard Avenue
and Archibald Avenue.
5392
Following the 2015 Specific Plan Amendment, the City Council approved a subsequent Amendment (File No. PSPA19-002) in November 2019 to establish a new mixed-use overlay within Planning Area

2. The overlay, identified as Planning Area 2A, was intended to facilitate a mixed-use development consisting of up to 925 luxury multi-family dwelling units and 5,000 square feet of retail space. The development project, known as The Vineyards, completed construction in January of 2025.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment was initiated by the City in July 2025. Similar to the 2019 Amendment, the proposed Amendment will establish a new Mixed-Use Overlay district in Planning Area 3 (identified as Planning Area 3A), on 25.38 acres of land. The new overlay will facilitate a mixed-use development that can include up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. The Specific Plan will be updated to include the following:

New development standards for Planning Area 3A to facilitate future development.

An updated land use map to reflect the overlay boundary for Planning Area 3A.

An updated land use matrix to reflect the allowed uses within Planning Area 3A.

Various text and exhibit updates to reflect the proposed changes for Planning Area 3A.

The proposed Amendment is in keeping with the Specific Plan’s objectives to create an urban environment where businesses can locate and thrive, where multi-family housing opportunities are within walking distance of restaurants, goods and services, and to become a regional draw that takes advantage of nearby transportation corridors. Additionally, the proposed amendment will ensure greater consistency between the Specific Plan and The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan in that TOP envisions this area with regional-serving retail and/or office, and stand-alone residential projects that can create a mixed-use environment in both horizontal and vertical form.

There is no development plan associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. All future development within Planning Area 3/3A will require a separate review process in compliance with the Ontario Development Code and the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: On November 25, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. During the public comment period, concerns were expressed about potential traffic and the number of new residential units that could result from the proposed amendment. Staff responded that the potential traffic impacts and proposed residential buildout were analyzed as part of the Addendum for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The analysis considered street and intersection operations, as well as the offset in the amount of the current commercial buildout in comparison to the proposed residential buildout.

The analysis concluded that the proposed amendment will not result in any new significant impacts beyond the Specific Plan’s EIR findings, and all necessary mitigations will remain applicable to future development proposals within the Specific Plan. After considering the public comments and Staff response, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, recommending City Council approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020) adopted by City Council on April 7, 2015. The Addendum analyzed the proposed amendments and potential build out within Planning Area 3A and concluded that the Specific Plan Amendment introduces no new significant environmental 5393
impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference.
5394
Case Planner: Jeanie Irene Aguilo Hearing Body Date Decision Action Planning Director
Approval:

DAB
PC 11/25/2025 Recommend
Submittal Date: 07/09/2025 CC 12/16/2025 Final
FILE NO: PSPA25-005
SUBJECT: A public hearing to consider an Amendment to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan to establish a Mixed-Use Overlay district (Planning Area 3A) on 25.38 acres of land within the Planning Area 3 (Urban Commercial) land use district, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard. (APNs: 0110- 321-74, 0110-321-75, 0110-321-76, 0110-321-29, and 0110-321-77) City Initiated. City Council action is required.

PROPERTY OWNER: Ikea Property Inc.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider and adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the use of an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020) and adopt a Resolution recommending approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA25-005), for the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, appended to the attached Resolutions as Attachment A, pursuant to the facts and reasons contained in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval appended to the attached Resolutions as Attachment B.

BACKGROUND: In April 2015, the City Council
approved a General Plan Amendment (File
No. PGPA13-005) and Specific Plan
Amendment (File No. PSPA14-003). These
applications modified the Meredith
International Centre Specific Plan, originally
adopted in 1981, to facilitate the
development of approximately 3 million
square feet of industrial land uses, up to 600
hotel rooms, 1.1 million square feet of
commercial land uses, and up to 800
residential units on approximately 257.7 acres
of land located on the north side of the
Interstate 10 Freeway between Vineyard and
Archibald Avenues.
303 East B Street, Ontario, California 91764 Phone: 909.395.2036 / Email: [email protected]

PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT
November 25, 2025
Figure 1: Project Location
Approval
5395
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 2 of 13 ends

The Specific Plan is intended to accommodate industrial uses and horizontal and vertical mixture of commercial, office, and residential uses. Existing developments within the Specific Plan area include national retail distribution centers, luxury vehicle dealerships, and luxury apartments.

In November 2019, the City Council approved a subsequent Specific Plan Amendment (File No. PSPA19-002) to establish a new Mixed-Use Overlay district (Planning Area 2A).

The 2019 Amendment facilitated a Development Plan allowing up to 925 multi-family dwelling units and 5,000 square feet of retail space (File No. PDEV19-025) within Planning Area 2A. The project was designed and constructed with a mixture of luxurious mid-rise buildings along with commercial spaces integrated within the ground floor.

On July 9, 2025, the City of Ontario initiated a new amendment to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan to establish a new Mixed-Use Overlay district within Planning Area 3 (proposed project). The new overlay will establish Planning Area 3A on

25.38 acres of land and will include associated development standards, modifications to the land use map and land use table, updated exhibits, and text changes to reflect the proposed Overlay.

PROJECT SETTING: The Project site is comprised of 25.38 acres of land within Planning Area 3 located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard, within the Urban Commercial land use district of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan (see Figure 1: Project Location). The Project site consists of five lots that are relatively flat, with a gentle slope to the southwest. The properties to the north of the Project site are within Planning Area 4 (Urban Residential) of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan and are improved with residential developments. The properties to the east are within the High Intensity Office (OH) zoning district and are developed with a gasoline station and a hotel that is currently under construction. Additionally, the Project site is bounded by Interstate 10 to the south, and a flood control channel and Planning Area 2 (Urban Commercial) of the Specific Plan to the west. The existing surrounding land uses, zoning, and Policy Plan (general plan) and specific plan land use designations are summarized in Table 1: Surrounding Zoning & Land Uses.

PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Specific Plan Amendment will establish a Mixed-Use Overlay district (Planning Area 3A) within the Planning Area 3 (Urban Commercial) land use district. The proposed overlay will allow a mixed-use development that could include up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. The intent of the Specific Plan Amendment is to establish criteria and parameters for future development projects that are distinguished, high quality, and provide opportunities for high-end dining, retail, and resort-style residential living. The proposed amendment will also support the Specific Plan’s objective to create an urban environment where businesses can locate and thrive, where multi-family housing opportunities are within walking distance to restaurants, goods and services, and to become a regional draw that takes advantage of nearby transportation corridors. 5396
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 3 of 13 ends

Additionally, the proposed amendment will also ensure greater consistency between the Specific Plan and The Ontario Plan (TOP) Policy Plan. The TOP currently has a land use designation of mixed use (MU-Meredith), allowing up to 125 dwelling units per acre with intense office and retail uses to support. Furthermore, the TOP envisions this area with regional-serving retail and/or office, and stand-alone residential projects that can create a mixed-use environment in both horizontal and vertical form.

The proposed amendment will revise several sections of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan including Section 2 – Development Plan and Section 5 – Development Standards. A copy of the changes is reflected in Attachment A – Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Redlines, attached.

There is no development plan associated with the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

All future development within Planning Area 3/3A will require a separate review process in compliance with the Ontario Development Code and the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The subject application was advertised as a public hearing in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario (the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper). In addition, notices were mailed to all owners of real property located within a minimum of 600 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing, as shown on the records of the County Assessor.

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

AGENCY/DEPARTMENT REVIEWS: Each City agency/department has been provided the opportunity to review and comment on the subject application and recommend conditions of approval to be imposed upon the application. At the time of the Resolution preparation, recommended conditions of approval were provided and are appended to the attached Resolutions.

AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (ALUCP) COMPLIANCE: The California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.) requires that an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan be prepared for all public use airports in the State; and requires that local land use plans and individual development proposals must be consistent with the policies set forth in the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On April 19, 2011, the City Council of the City of Ontario approved and adopted the ONT ALUCP, establishing the Airport Influence Area for Ontario International Airport, which encompasses lands within parts of San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, and limits future land uses and development within the Airport Influence Area, as they relate to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future 5397
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 4 of 13 ends

airport activity. As the recommending body for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the facts and information contained in the Application and supporting documentation against the ONT ALUCP compatibility factors, including [1] Safety Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-2) and Safety Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-2), [2] Noise Criteria (ONT ALUCP Table 2-3) and Noise Impact Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-3), [3] Airspace protection Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-4), and [4] Overflight Notification Zones (ONT ALUCP Map 2-5). As a result, the Planning Commission finds and determines that the Project, when implemented in conjunction with the conditions of approval, will be consistent with the policies and criteria set forth within the ONT ALUCP.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE ONTARIO PLAN: The proposed Project is consistent with the principles, goals and policies contained within the Vision, Governance, Policy Plan (General Plan), and City Council Priorities components of The Ontario Plan (TOP). More specifically, the goals and policies of TOP that are furthered by the proposed Project are as follows:
(1) City Council Goals
• Invest in the Growth and Evolution of the City's Economy • Operate in a Businesslike Manner
• Focus Resources in Ontario's Commercial and Residential Neighborhoods (2) Vision
Distinctive Development that integrates our varied and diverse focal points, districts, centers, corridors, and neighborhoods to provide a feeling of coherence without sacrificing uniqueness.

Commercial and Residential Development
• Development quality that is broadly recognized as distinctive and not exclusively tied to the general suburban character typical of much of Southern California.
(3) Governance
Decision Making
Goal G1: Sustained decision-making that consistently moves Ontario towards its Vision by using The Ontario Plan as a framework for assessing choices. • G1-1 Consistency with Policies. We require that staff recommendations to the City Council be consistent with adopted City Council Priorities (Goals and Objectives) and The Policy Pan.
5398
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 5 of 13 ends

• G1-2 Long-term Benefit. We require decisions to demonstrate and document how they add value to the community and support the Ontario Vision.
(4) Policy Plan (General Plan)
Land Use Element
Goal LU-1 Balance: 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.
• LU-1.1 Strategic Growth. We concentrate growth in strategic locations that help create place and identity, maximize available and planned infrastructure, foster the development of transit, and support the expansion of the active and multimodal transportation networks throughout the City. • LU-1.6 Complete Community. We incorporate a variety of land uses and building types in our land use planning efforts that result in a complete community where residents at all stages of life, employers, workers, and visitors have a wide spectrum of choices of where they can live, work, shop and recreate within Ontario.

Goal LU-2 Compatibility: Compatibility between a wide range of uses and a resultant urban patterns and forms.
• LU-2.6: Infrastructure Compatibility. We require infrastructure to be aesthetically pleasing and in context with the community character.

Goal LU-3 Flexibility: Staff, regulations and processes that support and allow flexible response to conditions and circumstances in order to achieve the Vision. • LU-3.1 Development Standards. We maintain clear development standards which allow flexibility to achieve our Vision and provide objective standards that ensure predictability and deliver the intended physical outcomes. • LU-3.3 Land Use Flexibility. We consider uses not typically permitted within a land use category if doing so improves livability, reduces vehicular trips, creates community gathering places and activity nodes, and helps create identity.

Housing Element
5399
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 6 of 13 ends

Goal H-2 Housing Supply & Diversity: Diversity of types of quality housing that are affordable to a range of household income levels, accommodate changing demographics, and support and reinforce the economic sustainability of Ontario. • H-2.1 Corridor Housing. We revitalize transportation corridors by encouraging the production of higher density residential and mixed-uses that are architecturally, functionally, and aesthetically suited to corridors. • H-2.5 Housing Design. We require architectural excellence through adherence to City design guidelines, thoughtful site planning, environmentally sustainable practices, and other best practices.

Community Economics Element:

Goal CE-1 Complete Community: A complete community that provides for all incomes and stages of life.
• CE-1.5 Business Attraction. We proactively attract new and expanding businesses to Ontario in order to increase the City’s share of growing sectors of the regional and global economy.
• CE-1.6 Diversity of Housing. We collaborate with residents, housing providers, and the development community to provide housing opportunities for every stage of life; we plan for a variety of housing types and price points to encourage the development of housing supportive of our efforts to attract business in growing sectors of the community while being respectful of existing viable uses.

Goal CE-2 Placemaking: A City of distinctive neighborhoods, districts, corridors, and centers where people choose to be.
• CE-2.1 Development Projects. We require new development and redevelopment to create unique, high-quality places that add value to the community.
• CE-2.2 Development Review. We require those proposing new development and redevelopment to demonstrate how their projects will create appropriately unique, functional, and sustainable places that will compete well with their competition within the region.
• CE-2.4 Protection of Investment. We require that new development and redevelopment protect existing investment by providing architecture and urban design of equal or greater quality.
5400
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 7 of 13 ends

• CE-2.5 Private Maintenance. We require adequate maintenance, upkeep, and investment in private property because proper maintenance on private property protects property values.

Community Design Element
Goal CD-1 Image & Identity: A dynamic, progressive city containing distinct and complete places that foster a positive sense of identity and belonging among residents, visitors, and businesses.
• CD-1.2 Place Types. We establish Place Types in urban, mixed use, and transit-oriented areas to foster the City's identity as a premier community and require new development within each Place Type to incorporate prescribed urban patterns, forms, and placemaking priorities.

HOUSING ELEMENT COMPLIANCE: The Project is consistent with the Housing Element of the Policy Plan (general plan) component of The Ontario Plan, as the Project site is not one of the properties in the Housing Element Sites contained in Tables B-1 and B-2 (Housing Element Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element Technical Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020) adopted by City Council on April 7, 2015. The Addendum concluded that the Specific Plan Amendment introduces no new significant environmental impacts. All previously adopted mitigation measures are a condition of project approval and are incorporated herein by this reference.
5401
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 8 of 13 ends

TECHNICAL APPENDIX:

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
Existing
Land Use
Policy Plan
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Specific Plan
Land Use
Site Vacant Mixed Use – Meredith SP (Specific Plan)
Planning Area 3 –
Urban Commercial
(Meredith International
Centre Specific Plan)
North Residential Mixed Use – Meredith SP (Specific Plan) Planning Area 4 –
Urban Residential
(Meredith International
Centre Specific Plan)
South Interstate 10 Freeway Interstate 10 Freeway Interstate 10 Freeway N/A East
Retail – Gasoline
Station and Hotel
(under construction)
OC (Office
Commercial)
OH (High Intensity
Office) N/A
West
Deer Creek Channel
Retail – Car Dealership
Deer Creek Channel
Mixed Use – Meredith
Deer Creek Channel
Specific Plan
N/A
Planning Area 2 –
Urban Commercial
(Meredith International
Centre Specific Plan)
5402
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 9 of 13 ends

Exhibit A: PROJECT LOCATION MAP
5403
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 10 of 13 ends

Exhibit B: EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN
5404
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 11 of 13 ends

Exhibit C: PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN
5405
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 12 of 13 ends

Resolution for Addendum
to the Meredith International Center Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearing House No. 2014051020)
(Document to follow this page)
5406
Planning Commission Agenda Report
File No.: PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 13 of 13 ends

Resolution for File No. PSPA25-005
(Document to follow this page)
5407
RESOLUTION NO. PC25-056

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

ONTARIO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN

ADDENDUM TO THE MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #
2014051020), FOR WHICH AN INITIAL STUDY WAS PREPARED,

PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AS AMENDED, FOR FILE NO.

PSPA25-005—APNS: 0110-321-74, 0110-321-75, 0110-321-76, 0110- 321-29, AND 0110-321-77
WHEREAS, CITY OF ONTARIO (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") has filed an Application for the approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, File No. PSPA25-005, to establish a Mixed-Use Overlay district (Planning Area 3A) on 25.38 acres of land within the Planning Area 3 (Urban Commercial) land use district, located at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard, in the City of Ontario, California (hereinafter referred to as "Application" or "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Environmental Impact Report prepared for The Ontario Plan and associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and issued Resolution No. 2010-003; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario adopted the Policy Plan (General Plan) as part of the component framework for The Ontario Plan on January 27, 2010, and issued Resolution No. 2010-004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ontario certified the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update on August 16, 2022; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts of the proposed project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2014051020), certified by City Council on April 7, 2015, in conjunction with File Nos. PGPA13-005 and PSPA14-003. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the City of Ontario has prepared and approved for attachment to the certified Environmental Impact Report, an Addendum to the Certified EIR (hereinafter referred to as "EIR Addendum") in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State and local guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively referred to as "CEQA"); and
5408
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan EIR, for File No. PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Determination and Findings. As the recommending authority for the Project, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the administrative record for the Project. Based upon the facts and information contained in the administrative record, including all written and oral evidence presented to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
5409
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan EIR, for File No. PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

(1) The environmental impacts of this project were reviewed in conjunction with an Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2014051020), certified by City Council on April 7, 2015, in conjunction with File Nos. PGPA13-005 and PSPA14-003. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (2) The EIR Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Local CEQA Guidelines; and
(3) The City's "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" provide for the use of a single environmental assessment in situations where the impacts of subsequent projects are adequately analyzed. This Application introduces no new significant environmental impacts; and (4) All previously adopted mitigation measures shall be a condition of project approval, as they are applicable to the Project, and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
(5) The EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and
(6) There is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.

SECTION 2: Additional Environmental Review Not Required. Based on the Addendum, all related information presented to the Planning Commission, and the specific findings set forth in Section 1, above, the Planning Commission finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Environmental Impact Report is not required for the Project, as the Project:
(1) Does not constitute substantial changes to the Certified EIR that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(2) Does not constitute substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Certified EIR was prepared, that will require major revisions to the Certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and 5410
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan EIR, for File No. PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

(3) Does not contain new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Certified EIR was certified/adopted, that shows any of the following:
(a) The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Certified EIR; or
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Certified EIR; or
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City declined to adopt.

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

SECTION 4: Indemnification. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the City of Ontario or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Ontario or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul this approval. The City of Ontario shall promptly notify the Applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding, and the City of Ontario shall cooperate fully in the defense.

SECTION 5: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Ontario City Hall, 303 East "B" Street, Ontario, California 91764. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Ontario.

SECTION 6: Certification to Adoption. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5411
5412
5413
Planning Commission Resolution
Addendum to the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan EIR, for File No. PSPA25-005
November 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT A:

Addendum to Meredith Centre Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report
(SCH #2014051020)
(Addendum to follow this page)
5414

ADDENDUM TO THE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

FOR THE MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan
Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project
(State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020)
Lead Agency:

CITY OF ONTARIO
Planning Department
303 East B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: David F. Eoff IV, Principal Planner
909.395.2425
Prepared By:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact: Frances Yau, AICP
949.472.3505
December 8, 2025
JN 204825
5415
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. 5416
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location ......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Previous Environmental Documents.......................................................... 4

2.0 Description of Project Modifications ................................................................ 7

2.1 Addendum’s Purpose and Need................................................................ 7

2.2 Environmental Setting................................................................................ 8

2.3 Project Description................................................................................... 10

2.4 Addendum Scope of Environmental Review............................................ 12

3.0 Environmental Assessment............................................................................. 15

3.1 Impacts Having No Potential to Result in New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts ...................................................................... 15

3.2 Impacts Potentially Resulting in New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts................................................................................... 29

4.0 Determination/Addendum Conclusion ........................................................... 97

5.0 References ........................................................................................................ 99 5417
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 ii

EXHIBITS
1 Regional Vicinity................................................................................................... 2 2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................................... 3 3 Current Land Use Plan ......................................................................................... 5 4 Proposed Land Use Plan.................................................................................... 11 TABLES
1 Current Specific Plan Buildout Potential............................................................... 4 2 Proposed Planning Area 3 Buildout Potential..................................................... 10 3 Summary of Peak Daily Operational Emissions ................................................. 34 4 Energy Consumption.......................................................................................... 52 5 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................. 59 6 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 Inventory Sectors ................... 62 7 Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS........................................................ 63 8 Noise Measurements.......................................................................................... 74 9 Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project.................................................... 78

APPENDICES
A Air Quality/GHG Emissions/Energy Data
B Biological Reports
C Noise Data
D Focused Traffic Study
E Water Supply Assessment
5418
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2015, the City of Ontario (City), as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2014051020) for the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment (Specific Plan). These documents are collectively referred to in this document as the Specific Plan EIR. The Specific Plan outlines a development plan, circulation plan, utility infrastructure plan, development standards, design guidelines, and an implementation plan to guide development within the area for a five to ten year planning period.

The Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project (project) proposes to modify the Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 of the Specific Plan area, allowing the development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. This Addendum has been prepared to determine whether the proposed project would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts compared to the impacts of the Specific Plan as disclosed in the Specific Plan EIR.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Ontario is in the southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and is surrounded by the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga to the north; the City of Fontana and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the east; the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley to the south; and the cities of Chino and Montclair and unincorporated San Bernardino County to the west; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity.

As shown on Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity, the approximately 25.3-acre project site is located in the northern portion of the City. The site is bounded by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to the east, Interstate 10 (I-10) to the south, and Deer Creek Channel, a concrete-lined flood control channel, to the west. The Ontario International Airport (ONT) is located approximately 0.4-mile to the south. 5419

P A C I F I C O C E A N
USMC
Camp Pendleton
101
395
405
405
605
105
210
210
710
110
215
215
5 5
5 15
15 15
15 10
10 10
73 55
57 91 91
90 60
71 83
66 91
60 38
18 18
22 39
1 2
14 18
18 138
138 173
247
74 74
1 1
133
261
241
330
241

SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY

RIVERSIDE
COUNTY

SAN DIEGO
COUNTY

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
ORANGE
COUNTY
Victorville
Adelanto
Hesperia
Apple Valley
Lake
Arrowhead
Running
Springs
Riverside
Fontana
Ontario Pomona
Rancho
Cucamonga
Chino
Rialto
Corona
Norco
Lake
Elsinore
Hemet
Beaumont
Redlands
Temecula
Fallbrook
Oceanside
Murrieta
Palmdale
Lancaster
Pasadena
West
Covina
Whittier
Burbank
Glendora
Los
Angeles
Torrance
Long
Beach
Newport
Beach
Huntington
Beach
San
Clemente
Dana
Point
Laguna
Beach San Juan
Capistrano
Santa
Ana
Garden
Grove
Fullerton
Yorba
Linda
Irvine
Moreno
Valley
Sun
City
Costa
Mesa
San
Fernando
Perris
San
Bernardino
Project
Site
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – PLANNING AREA 3 PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 1
Regional Vicinity NOT TO SCALE
02/2025 • JN 205836 5420
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
Source: Google Earth Pro, February 2025

NOT TO SCALE
02/2025 • JN 205836

TURNER AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

E GUASTI RD

N ARCHIBALD AVE

ONTARIO AIRPORT

E AIRPORT DR
JAY ST
QVC WY

N VINEYARD AVE

INLAND EMPIRE BLVDINLAND EMPIRE BLVD

CONVENTION CENTER WAYCONVENTION CENTER WAY

E HOLT BLVDE HOLT BLVD

PROJECT SITE
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – PLANNING AREA 3 PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5421
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 4

1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report
As discussed above, in 2015, the City prepared the programmatic Specific Plan EIR as a major update to the original Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, which was approved in 1981. The Meredith SPA includes a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses within five planning areas across 257.7 acres; refer to Exhibit 3, Current Land Use Plan. Table 1, Current Specific Plan Buildout Potential, illustrates the approved land uses and buildout potential of the Specific Plan as analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR.

Planning Area 3 is the proposed project site and is designated Urban Commercial. The Specific Plan EIR assumed buildout of Planning Area 3 would allow up to 400 hotel rooms and 250,000 square feet of commercial uses (for a total buildout of 480,000 square feet).

Table 1
Current Specific Plan Buildout Potential
Planning Area Land Use Acreage Square
Footage
Residential
Units Hotel Rooms
1 Industrial 146.6 3,007,000 -- --
1A Industrial 2.0 -- --
2 Urban
Commercial 43.7 650,000 -- 2001
Mixed Use
Overlay2 5,000 925
33 Urban
Commercial 25.3 480,000 -- 4001
4 Urban
Residential 21.4 -- 800 --
5 Urban
Commercial 2.7 13,000 -- --
Roadway Modifications 16.0 -- -- --
Total 257.7 4,155,000 1,725 600
Note:

1. The number of hotel rooms is included in the square footage totals of Planning Areas 2 and 3.

2. The Mixed Use Overlay in Planning Area 2 was established in 2019 and analyzed in the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum, prepared by the City of Ontario and dated November 15, 2019.

3. Planning Area 3 is the proposed project site.

Source: City of Ontario, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report, January 2015.
5422
Exhibit 3
Current Land Use Plan
Source: MIG, August 2025

NOT TO SCALE
09/2025 • JN 205836
PA 5

URBAN COMMERCIAL

2.7 AC

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD INLAND EMPIRE BLVD
EAST 4TH ST
C

NORTH ARCHIBALD AVE
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
DEER
CREEK

CHANNEL
DEER
CREEK

CHANNEL

NORTH VINEYARD AVE

EAST JAY ST

INDUSTRIAL

URBAN COMMERCIAL

MIXED-USE OVERLAY

URBAN RESIDENTIAL
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – PLANNING AREA 3 PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
5423
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 6
The Specific Plan EIR analyzed project impacts for the following environmental topics:
• Land Use and Planning; • Hydrology and Water Quality; • Traffic and Circulation; • Biological Resources;
• Air Quality; • Geology and Soils;
• Global Climate Change and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Cultural Resources;
• Noise; • Aesthetics; and
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Population and Housing. • Public Services and Utilities;
Overall, the Specific Plan EIR identified the following three environmental resource areas with significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Air Quality (project-level and cumulative construction and operational emissions); • Noise (construction and operational noise); and
• Transportation and Circulation (cumulative intersection/freeway traffic impacts).

Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum
In 2019, the City prepared the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum (2019 Addendum), which proposed changes to Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the 2019 Addendum analyzed impacts of a Specific Plan Amendment and Development Plan establishing a Mixed-Use Overlay for Planning Area 2 to accommodate development of up to 925 multi-family residential units and 5,000 square feet of retail space in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation (i.e., 200-room hotel encompassing 650,000 square feet); refer to Table 1.

The 2019 Addendum concluded that the project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any of the impacts identified in the Specific Plan EIR nor would it require implementation of any new or modified mitigation measures. Specifically, the 2019 Addendum found that the proposed modifications to Planning Area 2 would result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Specific Plan EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 2019 Addendum are not new or more severe than those identified in the Specific Plan EIR.

As stated, the 2019 Addendum analyzed impacts associated only with modifications to Planning Area 2. Given that the proposed project analyzed under this Addendum is related to modifications to Planning Area 3, the analyses herein only references 2019 Addendum findings where applicable (e.g., Population and Housing). 5424
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

2.1 ADDENDUM’S PURPOSE AND NEED
When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review documentation shall be required unless one or more of the following events occurs:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

When none of the above events has occurred, yet minor technical changes or additions to the previously adopted negative declaration are necessary, an addendum may be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164[b]).
5425
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 8
As discussed below, none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of subsequent environmental review have occurred. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications.

Circulation of an addendum for public review is not necessary (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c)); however, the addendum must be considered in conjunction with the adopted Final EIR by the decision-making body (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (d)). The proposed project is an Addendum to the Specific Plan EIR (i.e., the certified Final EIR).

CEQA requires a comparative evaluation of a proposed project and alternatives to the project, including the “No Project” alternative. The Specific Plan EIR addressed a reasonable range of alternatives for the Specific Plan. There is no new information indicating that an alternative that was previously rejected as infeasible is in fact feasible, or that a considerably different alternative than those previously studied would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Located in a highly developed and urbanized environment, the proposed project site is a vacant, disturbed site. Sparse ruderal vegetation and ornamental landscaping are present on-site. Ornamental trees line the eastern and southern perimeters adjacent to the I-10 westbound on-ramp. There are no internal roadways within the project site, however Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue adjacent to the project site are improved with sidewalk, curb, and gutter, as well as crosswalks, streetlights, and signalized intersections. There is a dirt path that runs along the eastern, southern, and western borders of the project site, and a north-south drainage channel that traverses the eastern portion of the site. The project site is surrounded by development on all four sides, including I-10 to the south and Deer Creek Channel to the west.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
According to Exhibit LU-01, Land Use Plan, of The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050), the project site has a Mixed Use - Meredith land use designation, and Inland Empire Boulevard adjacent to the site is designated as a Corridor.1 TOP 2050 defines Mixed Use - Meredith as a mixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and standalone high density residential projects, with a density of 14 to 125 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.0 for office and retail uses. 1 City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050, Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan, January 27, 2010. 5426
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 9

ZONING DESIGNATION
According to the City’s Official Zoning Map, the project site is zoned Meredith International Centre Specific Plan (2265-SP).2
As shown on Exhibit 3, the project site is designated Urban Commercial and encompasses Planning Area 3 of the Specific Plan area. According to the Specific Plan, the Urban Commercial designation of Planning Area 3 allows for a range of commercial uses that benefit from proximity to transportation corridors. Located adjacent to the Specific Plan’s Urban Residential area (within Planning Area 4), and proximate to the planned alignment of the Gold Line light rail transit (LRT) corridor, Planning Area 3 is envisioned to offer smaller, pedestrian‐oriented retail establishments. The maximum buildout for Planning Area 3 under the Specific Plan is approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 400 overnight lodging (hotel) rooms for a total buildout of approximately 480,000 square feet; the Urban Commercial designation permits or conditionally permits office and shopping center uses but does not permit residential uses.

SURROUNDING LAND USES
Surrounding land uses include mixed-use, industrial, commercial, and residential uses:
• North: Inland Empire Boulevard is immediately north of the project site. Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the Specific Plan are located further north. Planning Area 4 is developed with multi-family residences, and Planning Area 5 is developed with commercial/retail uses, including fast food restaurants and a gas station/convenience store. Planning Area 4 is designated Urban Residential and Planning Area 5 is designated Urban Commercial.
• East: Immediately east of the project site is Archibald Avenue. Further east is a gas station, hotel (currently under construction), and vacant land; these properties are not within the Specific Plan area and are designated Office Commercial and zoned High Intensity Office (OH).
• South: Immediately south of the project site is I-10. Further south are warehouses and distribution centers; these properties are not within the Specific Plan area and are designated Mixed-Use and zoned Specific Plan (SP) with a Multimodal Transit Center (MTC) Overlay.
• West: Deer Creek Channel is immediately west of the project site. Car dealerships and associated service centers are located further west. This area is within Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan and is designated Urban Commercial. 2 City of Ontario, Official Zoning Map, January 1, 2016. 5427
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 10

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to modify the existing Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. Table 2, Proposed Planning Area 3 Buildout Potential, details the proposed buildout potential and Exhibit 4, Proposed Land Use Plan, illustrates the proposed land use plan for Planning Area 3.

Table 2
Proposed Planning Area 3 Buildout Potential
Planning
Area
Current Specific Plan Proposed Project
Acreage Land Use Buildout Acreage Land Use Buildout
3 25.3 Urban
Commercial
480,000 SF
(including up to
400 hotel rooms)

25.3 Mixed Use
Overlay
1,400 units;
50,000 SF
commercial/
retail uses
Notes: SF = square feet
In accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines this Addendum evaluates the proposed changes to Planning Area 3 to determine if:
1) Substantial changes are proposed which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified.

The project qualifies for an EIR Addendum under CEQA if it does not result in any of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report. 5428
Exhibit 4
Proposed Land Use Plan
Source: MIG, August 2025

NOT TO SCALE
09/2025 • JN 205836
MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – PLANNING AREA 3 PROJECT

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PA 5

URBAN COMMERCIAL

2.7 AC
EAST 4TH ST
C

NORTH ARCHIBALD AVE
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
C
U
C
A
M
O
N
G
A
C
R
E
E
K
C
H
A
N
N
E
L
DEER
CREEK

CHANNEL
DEER
CREEK

CHANNEL

NORTH VINEYARD AVE

EAST JAY ST

INLAND EMPIRE BLVD INLAND EMPIRE BLVD

INDUSTRIAL

URBAN COMMERCIAL

MIXED-USE OVERLAY

URBAN RESIDENTIAL
5429
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 12
Additionally, as part of the project, the City entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) with Ikea Property Inc. to purchase the project site – 2350-2630 East Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, CA 91764 (Assessor Parcel Numbers 0110-321-29, 0110- 321-74, 0110-321-75, 0110-321-76 and 0110-321-77). The Agreement provides that the City may, during a specified due diligence period, choose, pursuant to compliance with CEQA, to assign its right, title, and interest in the Agreement to an entity that is an affiliate of Brickstone Development and controlled by John Kusmiersky (Buyer Assignee). The Buyer Assignee is expected to develop the project site with up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units. As such, the proposed project under review in this Addendum includes both the proposed Specific Plan Amendment and the proposed approval of the City’s assignment of the Agreement to the Buyer Assignee.

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The project is anticipated to require the following City discretionary permits and approvals:
• CEQA Clearance; and
• Specific Plan Amendment.

2.4 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan was determined to have less than significant impacts or no impact with regard to the following environmental issue areas:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources;
• Mineral Resources;
• Recreation;
• Land Use and Planning;
• Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
• Public Services and Utilities;
• Hydrology and Water Quality;
• Aesthetics; and
• Population and Housing.

The Specific Plan EIR established that, with mitigation, buildout of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas:
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials;
• Biological Resources;
• Geology and Soils; and
• Cultural Resources.

The Specific Plan EIR determined that buildout of the Specific Plan would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
5430
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 13
• Air Quality;
• Noise; and
• Traffic and Circulation.

This Addendum addresses changes resulting from implementation of the proposed project to each of the environmental resource areas noted above. 5431
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 14
This page intentionally left blank.
5432
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 15

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts as compared to the Specific Plan that has been subject to the Specific Plan EIR. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or similar to the conclusions discussed in the Specific Plan EIR.

3.1 IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY

MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

3.1.1 Aesthetics
Specific Plan EIR Findings
According to the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would not adversely affect scenic vistas or other scenic resources in the City, degrade existing visual character or quality of the Specific Plan area, or create a new source of substantial light or glare.

Development in accordance with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with existing regulations, including the Specific Plan design guidelines, all applicable provisions and restrictions of the Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), and all applicable requirements of the City’s Development Code (Ontario Municipal Code [Municipal Code] Title 9). As such, the Specific Plan EIR determined that aesthetic impacts associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would be less than significant. Further, as detailed in the Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would result in no impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway as the portion of I-10 that forms the southern boundary of the Specific Plan site is not designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.

Proposed Project Findings
Scenic Vistas
There are no designated scenic vistas within the City. Notwithstanding, notable visual resources in the City include, but are not limited to, views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains located generally to the east and north of the City, respectively; and open space/rural expanses located southerly of Riverside Drive. Additionally, Euclid Avenue Corridor and Mission Boulevard Corridor are noted as an important visual corridor within Ontario. The project site is relatively flat. The San Gabriel Mountain range is visible to the north, but partially obstructed due to the distance and existing development to the north. The project site is approximately 2.8 miles east of the Euclid Avenue Corridor and

1.5 miles northeast of the Mission Boulevard Corridor. The project would not interfere with General Plan Policy CD1-5 that protects public views of the San Gabriel Mountains.

Similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, future development in accordance with the 5433
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 16
proposed Mixed-Use Overlay would be required to comply with Municipal Code regulations (e.g., City’s Development Code Chapter 1, Zoning and Land Use Requirements, that requires retention of significant natural features and open space preservation of views, contour grading, natural landscaping, and architectural design that blends with the natural terrain of the City). Additionally, due to the distance and intervening topography, future development on the project site would not have a substantial adverse effect on local and regional scenic vistas or corridors in the Specific Plan area. No impact would occur.

Scenic Resources within State Scenic Highways
No eligible or official State scenic highways exist within or adjacent to the Specific Plan area, including the project site.3 Thus, similar to the Specific Plan, development in accordance with the project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Consistency with Zoning Regulations Governing Scenic Quality Ontario is in a highly developed, urban/suburban area. Thus, this discussion analyzes whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning regulations governing scenic quality. The Specific Plan includes Development Standards (Section 5) and Design Guidelines (Section 6) that ensure all future projects within the Specific Plan area are developed in an organized manner in compliance with existing regulations. Specifically, Mixed-Use Overlay development standards in Section 5 of the Specific Plan provide specific requirements related to maximum density and FAR, setbacks, minimum building separation, maximum building heights, and minimum open space and landscaping requirements that standardize the visual character and scenic quality of the Specific Plan area. Future development within Planning Area 3 would also conform to City and ALUCP height limitations. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of development permits, future commercial/retail and/or residential development within Planning Area 3 would be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with the provisions of the Specific Plan, Municipal Code, and General Plan policies and ensure that anticipated development does not conflict with zoning regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Light and Glare
Existing light and glare sources associated with residential, industrial, and commercial uses are present in the project area. The nearest sensitive light and glare receptors are existing multi-family residences to the north. Future lighting and glare sources associated with the proposed residential and commercial/retail uses would be similar to existing sources in the project area as well as to sources associated with already permitted uses within Planning Area 3 (i.e., hotel and urban commercial uses). Similar to buildout of the 3 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed March 5, 2025.
5434
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 17
Specific Plan, future commercial/retail and residential development within Planning Area 3 would be guided by the zoning and development standards within the Specific Plan, as well as within Section D.01.005(E), Site Lighting, and Section E.01.004(K), Site Design, of the Municipal Code. Upon adherence to these standards, the project would not result in substantial light and glare impacts to the residential uses to the north. Overall, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.

As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

3.1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR determined that Specific Plan buildout would result in no impact related to agriculture and forestry resources.

Proposed Project Findings
According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site is designated as Other Land, which may include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres.4 Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. 5 As such, no agriculture or forestry resources occur on-site. The project site is designated Urban Commercial and zoned Meredith International Centre Specific Plan (2265-SP) and does not include any land mapped or zoned as farmland, forest land, or timberland. There are no existing agriculture or timber operations on the project site, and the site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

3.1.3 Geology and Soils
Specific Plan EIR Findings
As detailed in the Initial Study and the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area (which includes the project site) is not subject to significant ground rupture of a known earthquake fault, soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslide hazards, nor does the Specific Plan site feature soils incapable of adequately supporting 4 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed March 5, 2025. 5 Ibid.
5435
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 18
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available. However, the near-surface native soils across the entire Specific Plan area vary in density and composition, and some of these soils may be collapsible and subject to excessive post-construction settlement. As detailed in the Specific Plan EIR, impacts in this regard would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to implement Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1 and comply with recommendations and performance standards identified in the Geotechnical Study prepared for the Specific Plan. The Geotechnical Study recommends remedial grading to remove the upper portion of alluvial soils; following excavation, the subgrade soils should be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability for development. Additionally, the on-site conditions and recommendations of each future development would be verified with a site- and designspecific Final Geotechnical Study prepared for future project-specific developments. As such, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that the anticipated design of structures in accordance with a project-specific Geotechnical Study and compliance with the California Building Code (Title 24, Part 2 of the California Code of Regulations) and current seismic engineering practices is sufficient to reduce geological hazards to less than significant levels. Field investigations conducted in preparation for the Specific Plan EIR did not identify any evidence of paleontological resources in the Specific Plan area. However, it was concluded that there is potential for fossil-bearing soils to be present, depending on future excavation depths and site preparation activities. Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.11.8 was included to require monitoring of grading and excavation activities in older alluvial deposits, including any excavation that exceeds eight feet in depth.

Proposed Project Findings
Seismic Ground Shaking, Seismic-Related Ground Failure, and Unstable Soils As the proposed project site is located within the Specific Plan area, future development within Planning Area 3 under the proposed project similarly would not be subject to significant ground rupture of a known earthquake fault, soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslide hazards. Specifically, according to the California Geologic Survey, the closest fault line is the Red Hill-Etiwanda Avenue fault, located approximately 2.8 miles north and northwest of the project site.6 Nonetheless, Southern California has numerous active seismic faults subjecting residents to potential earthquake and seismic-related hazards. Therefore, the project site is anticipated to experience moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion from nearby faults as well as ground motions from other active seismic areas of the Southern California region.

Furthermore, future development in accordance with the proposed Mixed-Use Overlay would also be subject to the same risks as detailed in the Specific Plan EIR associated with excessive post-construction settlement. However, upon implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1, these risks would be reduced to less than significant levels. Specifically, a project-specific geotechnical study would be required for future development on-site to evaluate site-specific geotechnical hazards and recommend 6 California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed March 5, 2025. 5436
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 19
design and construction measures to implement to reduce potential impacts associated with seismic hazards and unstable soils. Further, similar to development under the Specific Plan, design of future commercial/retail and/or residential development within Planning Area 3 would also be required to comply with the California Building Code and current seismic engineering practices. Thus, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels upon implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.10.1.

Septic Tanks/Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Similar to the Specific Plan, future development within Planning Area 3 would be required to connect to the City’s existing wastewater network and thus, would not utilize any septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur in this regard.

Paleontological Resources
Similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, if future grading and excavation activities within Planning Area 3 are to exceed eight feet in depth, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure

4.11.8 (paleontological monitoring of grading and excavation activities in older alluvial deposits, including excavations that exceed eight feet in depth) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

3.1.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Specific Plan EIR Findings
As detailed in the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would not create a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or foreseeable upset and accident conditions; be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The Specific Plan EIR notes that buildout of the Specific Plan may result in potentially significant impacts in regard to emitting or handling hazardous materials within one-quarter of a mile of an existing or proposed school (Italo M. Bernt School, located along the south side of 4th Street and within the Specific Plan area). However, the Specific Plan EIR determined that with implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

4.6.1 and 4.6.2, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels. 5437
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 20
Proposed Project Findings
Routine Use or Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Construction of future commercial/retail and/or residential development within Planning Area 3 could involve the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials, such as paints and solvents, gasoline, diesel fuels, and other hazardous materials routinely utilized with construction equipment. However, activities would be short-term, and the materials used would not be in such quantities, or stored in such a manner, as to pose a significant safety hazard. All construction activities would be subject to applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials, specifically those established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and California Highway Patrol, as well as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act.

Similar to the Specific Plan, operation of future commercial/retail and/or residential uses in Planning Area 3 that could involve the use of hazardous materials would be regulated by the California Fire Code, as well as other federal, State, and local regulations related to the protection of the public’s health and safety. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Emission or Handling of Hazardous Materials Near Schools The nearest school to the project site previously identified in the Specific Plan EIR (Italo M. Bernt School) has since been demolished. Currently, there are no schools within onequarter mile of the project site. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

Hazardous Materials Sites Listing
As the project site is located within the Specific Plan area, the proposed project would similarly not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur.

Airport Safety Hazards or Excessive Noise Impacts
As discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area is approximately 0.5-mile north of ONT and is located within the identified Airport Influence Area. As such, the project is subject to the ONT ALUCP, which sets limits on future land uses and development near the airport in response to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight impacts of current and future airport activity.

As shown in Specific Plan EIR Figure 4.6-2, ONT Airport Safety Zones, the project is located outside of all identified safety zones for ONT, as designated within the ONT ALUCP. As such, future development within Planning Area 3 would not result in airportrelated safety hazards for future occupants and impacts would be less than significant. 5438
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 21
Impair or Interfere with Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan Similar to the Specific Plan, future development in accordance with the proposed MixedUse Overlay on Planning Area 3 would not alter vehicle circulation routes in the project area in a manner that would interfere with adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. In accordance with City policies, coordination with the Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department during site plan review of future development plans for Planning Area 3 would ensure that potential interference with emergency response and evacuation efforts are avoided. Impacts would be less than significant.

Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site is not located in or near a State or Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone.7 As such, future development within Planning Area 3 would not expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. No impact would occur.

3.1.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Specific Plan EIR Findings
As detailed in the Initial Study and the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts pertaining to groundwater supplies and recharge; flood hazard and flood flows; inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; water quality; drainage pattern alteration and/or increased runoff resulting in flooding, erosion or siltation; runoff exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems; and increased polluted runoff sources.

Proposed Project Findings
Violate or Substantially Degrade Water Quality Standards and/or Waste Discharge Requirements
Similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, future development within Planning Area 3 would be required to comply with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) multiple separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit and the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program. Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements, including implementation of low impact design (LID) strategies and construction and post7 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 , accessed March 26, 2025.
5439
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 22
construction BMPs, the project would not violate or substantially degrade water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.

Groundwater Supplies and Recharge
Similar to the Specific Plan, buildout of the proposed project would not contribute to groundwater depletion or groundwater recharge. Water would be supplied by the Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). As discussed below in Section 3.2.10, Utilities and Service Systems, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the proposed project; refer to Appendix E, Water Supply Assessment. Based on the WSA, the project is projected to result in a water demand of approximately 260 acre-feet per year (AFY); refer to WSA Table 2-5, Proposed Project Water Demand. In comparison, the estimated total water demand of Planning Area 3 as presented in the City of Ontario Final 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), dated June 2021, is approximately 143 AFY. Thus, the project would result in an increase of approximately 117 AFY compared to what was assumed for Planning Area 3 in the 2020 UWMP. Nevertheless, the WSA concluded that current OMUC water production capacities are greater than needed to meet the average day demands under Citywide buildout conditions, including groundwater supplies. OMUC also has forecasted that excess water supplies will be available to meet Citywide demand during normal, single-dry, and multiple dry water years over the next 20 years. Thus, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with OMUC’s groundwater recharge areas. Impacts would be less than significant.

Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns
Similar to buildout under the Specific Plan, future commercial/retail and residential development within Planning Area 3 would increase impervious areas compared to the existing vacant land and thus increase runoff and flows into the City’s storm drainage system. However, similar to development elsewhere in the Specific Plan area, in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual, future commercial/retail and residential development within Planning Area 3 would be required to prepare project-specific hydrology and hydraulic studies to evaluate pre- and post-development stormwater flows to ensure that the capacities of existing and planned storm drain systems are not exceeded. The project-specific hydrology studies would be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the development plan review process at a later date. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Flood Hazard, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
As detailed in Section 1.1, Project Location, Deer Creek Channel, a concrete-lined flood control channel, bounds the project site to the west. According to Specific Plan EIR Figure

4.8-1, Flood Hazard Areas, the project site is located within a 500-year floodplain and lies within the dam inundation area for the San Antonio Dam. Nonetheless, the TOP 2050 5440
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 23
SEIR concluded that the probability of catastrophic failure is very low.8 Furthermore, the City of Ontario Fire Department maintains a list of emergency procedures to be followed in the event of a dam failure. Because the likelihood of catastrophic failure of the San Antonio Dam is very low and the City is prepared in the event of such failure, impacts are considered less than significant in this regard.

Additionally, given that the site is located over 35 miles inland of coastal waters, no impacts would occur related to tsunami hazards.

Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Groundwater Management Plan The City’s groundwater supplies are obtained from the Chino Groundwater Basin, which is adjudicated and managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. The Chino Basin is exempt from legislative requirements under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because it is an adjudicated basin and is not required to prepare a groundwater sustainability plan. Adjudicated basins have determined the safe yield for the basin and have assigned individual pumping allocations to limit groundwater production to the safe yield.

As such, future development in accordance with the proposed project and adherence to existing local and State water quality regulations would ensure that surface and groundwater quality are not adversely impacted. As stated, future development within Planning Area 3 would be required to comply with the RWQCB MS4 permit and the San Bernardino County Stormwater Program. Therefore, the project would not obstruct or conflict with the RWQCB’s Basin Plan or any groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.1.6 Mineral Resources
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Specific Plan would result in no impact related to mineral resources.

Proposed Project Findings
According to the Department of Conservation, the project site is designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2), which is an area where geologic data indicates that significant 8 City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022.
5441
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 24
portland cement concrete-grade (PCC-Grade) aggregate resources are present.9,10 However, it is recognized that some areas within the MRZ-2 have already been urbanized, and therefore the mineral resources within them have a limited opportunity for conservation, development, or utilization.11 According to TOP 2050, significant mineral resources within the City are limited to construction aggregate; those areas with potential mineral resources have been developed with urban uses and are not suitable for mineral resource extraction. Further, the site is not being utilized for mineral extraction. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

3.1.7 Population and Housing
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The project site was vacant and undeveloped at the time the Specific Plan EIR was prepared; no existing residences would be displaced by the proposed project.

The 2019 Addendum, prepared to analyze impacts associated with modifications to Planning Area 2, concluded that the proposed change to Planning Area 2 would reduce the estimated buildout of Planning Area 2 from 650,000 square feet to 322,200 square feet of non-residential floor area and would add 925 multi-family residential units. In total, buildout of the Specific Plan would accommodate 1,725 residential units (including 800 units approved for Planning Area 4 and 925 units for Planning Area 2). Although the proposed change would increase residential units and associated population, according to the Specific Plan EIR, the total 1,725 residential units would be well below the 2,958 residential units assumed in the General Plan buildout for the full Specific Plan area.

Therefore, the increase in residential units would be consistent with Citywide policy and growth projections and potential impacts from modifications to Planning Area 2 analyzed in the 2019 Addendum would be less than significant. Overall, the 2019 Addendum concluded the Planning Area 2 modifications would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR.

Proposed Project Findings
Together, the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum anticipated a buildout of 1,725 dwelling units in the Specific Plan area, with 800 units specifically planned for Planning Area 4 and 925 units for Planning Area 2; refer to Table 1. The proposed project would 9 Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey, California Mineral Resources Data Portal, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/, accessed March 25, 2025. 10 Department of Conservation, Update of Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, 2007.
11 Department of Conservation, Special Report 202: Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, 2007.
5442
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 25
accommodate up to 1,400 dwelling units, which would increase the Specific Plan residential buildout projection. Based on the City’s current average household size of

3.2912, the additional 1,400 dwelling units brought on by the project could generate approximately 4,606 additional residents. However, the City has a current population of 181,224 residents and housing stock of 56,836 units, and is projected to grow by 224,662 people and 71,326 units by 2050.13,14 The project’s anticipated population would represent approximately 10.6 percent of the City’s anticipated growth under TOP 2050.

As such, the project would not result in substantial unplanned growth. Additionally, the proposed 1,400 dwelling units would contribute to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 20,854 units for the 2021-2029 planning period, which would be considered a project benefit.

Further, the project site is currently vacant. Thus, similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, the project would not displace any existing people or housing. No impact would occur.

3.1.8 Public Services
Specific Plan EIR Findings
As discussed above, the project could increase the total housing projected for Specific Plan buildout by approximately 1,400 dwelling units, which could generate up to 4,606 additional residents. However, the growth induced by buildout of the proposed project would be within TOP 2050 Citywide forecasts and would not represent unplanned growth.
15 Proposed Project Findings
Future commercial/retail and residential uses may increase demand for public services, including police protection, fire protection, school, and library services, compared to what was previously analyzed for Planning Area 3 in the Specific Plan EIR. However, buildout of Planning Area 3 under the proposed project, similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, would create a gradual increase in demand for these services and existing regulations, site plan review by Ontario Fire and Police Departments, and development impact fees would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
12 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2024, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2024. 13 Ibid. 14 City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022. 15 City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022.
5443
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 26
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services would be provided by the Ontario Fire Department. As discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, prior to issuance of building permits, all development plans for individual projects within the Specific Plan area, including Planning Area 3 for the proposed project, would be reviewed by the City and the Ontario Fire Department to ensure compliance with Ontario Fire Department conditions of approval related to emergency access and fire flow requirements, along with any fire prevention, protection, and/or suppression requirements as specified under existing City ordinances and applicable California Building Code and California Fire Code provisions. Compliance with the Ontario Fire Department conditions of approval and State and local fire standards would reduce potential demands for, and impacts upon, Ontario Fire Department services and emergency medical services. Development impact fees required for future development, as well as tax revenues generated by future development, would provide supplemental funding available to expand or enhance current Ontario Fire Department services available to the project and vicinity. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services would be provided by the Ontario Police Department. Similar to Specific Plan buildout, future development in accordance with the project in Planning Area 3 would be reviewed by the City, including the Ontario Police Department to ensure the incorporation of appropriate safety and security elements throughout the site (e.g., appropriate building and parking lot security and alarm systems, adequate outdoor lighting, and provision of defensible spaces). Additionally, development impact fees and sales tax revenues generated by future development would provide supplemental funding to expand or enhance current Ontario Police Department police protection services available to the project and vicinity. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

Schools
Public school services would be provided by Cucamonga School District (CSD) for grades K-8 and Chaffey Joint Union High Schools (CJUHS) for grades 9-12. Although the project could result in an increased demand for CSD and CJUHS school services, prior to issuance of building permits, future developments would be required to pay requisite fees to CSD and CJUHS, similar to development associated with buildout of the Specific Plan.

According to Section 65996 of the California Government Code, payment of statutory fees is considered full mitigation for new development projects. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Parks
Refer to Section 3.1.9, Recreation, below.
5444
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 27
Other Public Facilities
Other public facilities, such as libraries, may be impacted by buildout of the project. The City has two library facilities within its library system: the Ovitt Family Community Library at 215 East C Street, and the Lewis Family Branch at 3850 East Riverside Drive. While future residents may increase demand for library services beyond what was analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, the Ontario library system is a member of the Inland Library System, which includes 19 independent libraries and other resources in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Inyo Counties. The Inland Library system allows library members to utilize interlibrary loans for hardcopy and online resources. Thus, City’s library resources are not limited to those within the two City libraries. Further, future development in accordance with the project would be required to pay development impact fees that provide additional funding for future library services and space, as needed. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.1.9 Recreation
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would result in no impact related to recreation.

Proposed Project Findings
Buildout of an additional 1,400 residential units under the proposed project may increase demand for new recreational facilities, and/or deteriorate existing recreational facilities, beyond what was anticipated for the project site under the Specific Plan. However, as with all new residential development within the City, future residential development onsite would be required to participate in the City’s established Park Development Impact Fee Program, which was established pursuant to the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477). According to TOP 2050 EIR, the City currently requires three acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. As part of the City’s standard development review process, the total area of the project’s parkland dedication would be determined upon submittal of development plans and an in-lieu fee would be assessed and paid by future project applicant(s), as needed, prior to issuance of occupancy permits.

Additionally, common and private open space/recreational amenities are required as part of multi-family development proposals. As such, recreational demands associated with project buildout would be met through parkland dedication, in-lieu fees, or a combination of the two. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.
5445
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 28

3.1.10 Wildfire
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Specific Plan EIR did not evaluate Wildfire as it was not included in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines at the time the Specific Plan EIR was certified. However, as discussed in the ‘Hazards and Hazardous Materials’ section of the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Proposed Project Findings
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire, the project site is not located in or near a State or Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone.16 As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.10.1 Design and development of the project shall comply with recommendations and performance standards identified within the Final Geotechnical Study.

Where the Project Geotechnical Study is silent, requirements of the California Building Code as adopted and implemented by the City shall prevail.

4.11.8 Any excavation exceeding eight feet below the current grade shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. If older alluvial deposits are encountered at shallower depths, monitoring shall be initialed once these deposits are encountered. A qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S. or a Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques. A paleontological monitor may be retained to perform the on-site monitoring in place of the qualified paleontologist. The paleontological monitoring program should follow the local protocols of the Western Center (Hemet) and/or the San Bernardino County Museum and a paleontological monitoring plan should be developed prior to the ground altering activities. The extent and duration of the monitoring can be determined once the grading plan is understood and approved. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any Project-related activities that may be adversely impacting potentially significant resources. If paleontological resources are uncovered or otherwise identified, they shall be recovered, analyzed in accordance with 16 California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b29d89597ab693d008 , accessed March 26, 2025.
5446
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 29
standard guidelines, and curated with the appropriate facility (e.g., the Western Center at the Diamond Valley Reservoir, Hemet).

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2 IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE

SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

3.2.1 Air Quality
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Specific Plan area is located in South Coast Air Basin (Basin) within the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) jurisdiction. According to the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan would not result in or cause National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) violations. It was determined that the Specific Plan’s proposed land use designation did not materially affect potential development intensities when compared to those assumed in TOP 2050 EIR, and the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (applicable AQMP at the time). Further, it was determined that the Specific Plan’s proposed change in land use designations for the subject site would not generate operational source criteria pollutant emissions not already reflected in the applicable AQMP’s regional emissions inventory.

Based on this, the Specific Plan was considered to be consistent with the AQMP and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

However, as discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, construction and operational emissions would be significant and unavoidable after implementation of mitigation measures (Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.5). As shown in the Specific Plan EIR, maximum daily construction source emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO) exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. It was also determined that under 2017 conditions, maximum daily operational-source emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and coarse particulate matter (PM10) would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds.

Further, the Specific Plan EIR determined that under buildout conditions originally envisioned for year 2020, maximum daily operational source emission of VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds. Each of these impacts was determined to be significant and unavoidable despite implementation of mitigation.

Moreover, the Basin is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.

Therefore, it was determined that construction VOC and NOX emissions regional threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the project region is non-attainment.

Additionally, it was determined that operational source VOC, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions’ regional threshold exceedances would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (ozone and PM10/PM2.5) for which the project region is 5447
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 30
non-attainment. These were considered cumulatively significant air quality impacts as detailed in the Specific Plan EIR.

Finally, the Specific Plan EIR determined that maximum daily construction source emissions would not exceed applicable Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for PM10 with application of mitigation, which would reduce these impacts to levels that would not exceed applicable SCAQMD LSTs (i.e., Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.4 would reduce maximum-daily construction-source emissions at the nearest sensitive receptor [the Bernt School site]). Regarding operational source LSTs, the Specific Plan EIR determined that maximum daily operational source emissions concentrations would not exceed applicable LSTs and would not require mitigation.

Overall LST impacts were determined to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Additionally, the Specific Plan EIR determined that the Specific Plan would result in less than significant project source and freeway source impacts with incorporation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.6, which reduces freeway source carcinogenic health risks at the Specific Plan area to below the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million.

According to the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

Proposed Project Analysis
Project Consistency with AQMP
In December 2022, SCAQMD released the Final 2022 AQMP (2022 AQMP). The 2022 AQMP continues to evaluate current integrated strategies and control measures to meet the CAAQS, as well as explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Some of these approaches include utilizing incentive programs, recognizing existing co-benefit programs from other sectors, and developing a strategy with fair-share reductions at the federal, State, and local levels. Similar to the 2016 AQMP, the 2022 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), a planning document that supports the integration of land use and transportation to help the region meet the Federal Clean Air Act requirements.
• Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
• Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project buildout phase.
5448
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 31
The violations that Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. The CAAQS and NAAQS comprise, and are reflected in the SCAQMD LSTs. It is noted here that the CAAQS and NAAQS are not equivalent to SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds.

As detailed above, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that the Specific Plan was determined to be consistent with the applicable AQMP (i.e., the 2012 AQMP) at the time. As demonstrated below, the proposed project would not result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations as the proposed project would not exceed applicable LST thresholds. Further, the proposed modifications to Planning Area 3 do not include a change in land use designation for the Specific Plan area that may generate substantial operational source criteria pollutant emissions not already reflected in the 2012 AQMP regional emissions inventory. Further, the proposed mixed-use overlay would allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units; when compared to development analyzed in the adopted Specific Plan (a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses totaling 4,155,000 square feet, 1,725 dwelling units, and 600 hotel rooms within five planning areas across 257.7 acres), the associated Specific Plan EIR, and the 2012 AQMP that included the Specific Plan buildout, the proposed project (50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units) would result in minor changes to the scale and intensity of the Specific Plan. The current AQMP (2022 AQMP) has been developed after adoption of the Specific Plan, and the associated development density of the Specific Plan should have been incorporated. As the proposed project does not significantly alter land uses, increase scale, or significantly increase development intensities of the Specific Plan, impacts resulting from the proposed project are anticipated to be similar to what was originally envisioned in the Specific Plan.

Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent on land use assignments but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As discussed above, the 2022 AQMP was developed after adoption of the Specific Plan, and the associated development densities of the Specific Plan should have been incorporated. Further, the Specific Plan designates the proposed project site as Mixed Use – Meredith. The Mixed Use – Meredith designation is described as a mixture of mid-rise buildings, regional-serving retail and office centers, and standalone high density residential projects, with a density of 14 to 125 du/ac and a FAR of 3.0 for office and retail uses. The Specific Plan designates the site (Planning Area 3) as Urban Commercial and forecasts a maximum buildout of 480,000 square feet, including 400 hotel rooms; uses conditionally permitted also include office and shopping centers. The project proposes a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 within the Specific Plan area that would allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units. By accommodating residential and commercial/retail uses in Planning Area 3, the project would be consistent with TOP 2050 Land Use Element goals and policies to provide a variety of housing and job options in proximity to one another and in proximity to transit. These goals and policies coincide with the vision of SCAG’s current RTP/SCS (i.e., Connect SoCal), which focuses on 5449
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 32
transportation alternatives that meet air quality standards and GHG emission reduction targets. While the proposed project would modify the Specific Plan’s buildout vision for Planning Area 3, the housing, jobs, and population generated by the project would be within TOP 2050 growth forecasts for the City. Additionally, the proposed dwelling units would contribute to the City’s RHNA allocation, which would be considered a project benefit and would be consistent with TOP 2050 Housing Element.

In conclusion, the project’s proposed uses are consistent with the site’s land use designation and development density and intensity as originally envisioned for the Specific Plan, which has been incorporated in the 2022 AQMP. As such, the proposed project is considered to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP and impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Emissions and Regional Thresholds
Proposed project-related air quality emissions from criteria pollutants (VOCs, NOX, sulfur oxides [SOx], CO, PM10, and PM2.5) were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.30. Outputs from the model run are provided in Appendix A, Air Quality/GHG Emissions/Energy Data.

Typical construction activities associated with a land use development project emissions are expected from various construction phrases including, and not limited to, demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no construction is currently planned, thus no project-specific construction details are currently available for CalEEMod modeling, and exact construction emissions generated by future development are unknown. Construction emissions depend on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, the start and duration of construction phases, types and quantity of construction equipment to be used, soil import and export volumes, hauling trips distance, etc., all of which cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, because implementation of the project does not propose any specific development and construction details are unknown, construction-related emissions that may occur at any one time in any scale are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, construction emissions are not quantified.

Nevertheless, all future development within the project site (Planning Area 3) capable of generating substantial construction-related emissions would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate project-specific impacts on a project-by-project basis, as the extent of impacts become known through the design process. Further, future development on-site would be required to implement any required mitigation measures from the TOP 2050 EIR and the Specific Plan EIR on a project-byproject basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Specifically, future projects within the Specific Plan, if applicable, would be required to incorporate Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 to reduce maximum daily project construction5450 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 33
source emissions to the extent possible.

Operational activities associated with the proposed project would result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Operational emissions are expected from the following primary sources:
• Area Source Emissions: Area sources include architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment.
• Energy Source Emissions: Energy source emissions include combustion emissions associated with generation of natural gas and electricity. However, because electrical generating facilities for the proposed project area are located either outside the region (State) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the Basin, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity are excluded from the evaluation of significance. • Mobile Source Emissions: Proposed project-related air quality emissions derive primarily from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project, including residential, commercial, and employee trips to and from the site associated with the proposed uses. Moreover, vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of brake and tire wear particulates. Trip characteristics available from the project-specific transportation impact analysis; refer to Appendix D, Focused Traffic Study. It should be noted that trips originally envisioned for Planning Area 3 were not deducted from the project-generated trips to provide a conservative analysis.

The Specific Plan EIR assumed buildout of Planning Area 3 would allow for 480,000 square feet of commercial use (including 400 hotel rooms) under the Urban Commercial land use designation. The project proposes to modify the existing Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. Estimated operational emissions are summarized in Table 3, Summary of Peak Daily Operational Emissions. Project-related operational emissions from the CalEEMod modeling run have been added to the Specific Plan operational emissions. It should be noted that this is a conservative analysis as the proposed project modifications would replace the originally approved development permitted for Planning Area 3. In addition, the proposed project would continue to incorporate mitigation measures in accordance with the Specific Plan EIR, which include Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 that would reduce maximum daily project operational emissions to the extent possible.

As shown in Table 3, with the proposed project modifications to Planning Area 3, the Specific Plan would continue to exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for emissions of various criteria pollutants (VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5), similar to impacts analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. As such, operational impacts would continue to be considered significant and unavoidable. 5451
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 34
As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Table 3
Summary of Peak Daily Operational Emissions
Emissions Source Pollutant (pounds/day)1
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Summer Operational Emissions
Mobile 39.00 36.00 349.00 0.89 80.00 21.00
Area 82.00 26.00 433.00 1.20 51.00 49.00
Energy 0.35 6.00 2.60 0.04 0.48 0.48
Project Summer Total
(Year 2026) 121.00 68.00 784.00 2.20 131.00 70.00
Specific Plan (Planning
Areas 1,2,3, & 4) Total
(Year 2020)2
299.76 706.11 1,481.11 4.98 286.11 87.49
Overall Total 420.76 774.11 2265.11 7.18 417.11 157.49
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold
Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Winter Operational Emissions
Mobile 37.00 39.00 292.00 0.83 80.00 21.00
Area 74.00 25.00 352.00 1.20 51.00 49.00
Energy 0.35 6.00 2.60 0.04 0.48 0.48
Project Winter Total
(Year 2026) 111.00 70.00 646.00 2.10 131.00 70.00
Specific Plan (Planning
Areas 1,2,3, & 4) Total
(Year 2020)2
296.42 733.89 1,462.01 4.76 286.15 87.51
Overall Total 407.42 803.89 2108.01 6.86 417.15 157.51
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Is Threshold
Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Notes: VOC = volatile organic chemical; NOx = nitrous oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter

1. Totals might be slightly off due to rounding.

2. Daily peak operation emissions as shown in the Specific Plan EIR Appendix D: Air Quality Impact Analyses, Table 3-13: Summary of Year 2020 Peak Operational Emissions (With Mitigation).

Source: Appendix A, Air Quality/GHG Emissions/Energy Data. 5452
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 35
Localized Significance to Sensitive Receptors
Project-Source Pollutants
This analysis makes use of methodologies included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology). The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or State ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as LSTs.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining a project’s localized air quality impacts. Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants (TAC) identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401.

The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the project site has been used to determine localized operational air quality impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24-hour averaging time); the nearest sensitive receptors are existing multi-family residences in Planning Area 4, approximately 95 feet north of Planning Area 3.

As detailed above, due to the programmatic nature of the proposed project, no construction is currently planned, thus no project-specific construction details are currently available for CalEEMod modeling, and exact construction emissions generated by future development are unknown. All future development within the project site (Planning Area 3) capable of generating substantial construction-related emissions would be required to undergo separate environmental review under CEQA to evaluate projectspecific impacts on a project-by-project basis, as the extent of impacts become known through the design process. Further, these future new development projects would be required to implement any required mitigation measures from the TOP EIR and the Specific Plan EIR on a project-by-project basis, as applicable, pursuant to CEQA provisions. Specifically, future projects within the Specific Plan, if applicable, would be required to incorporate Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 to reduce maximum daily project construction emissions to the extent possible.

The proposed mixed-use overlay would allow commercial and residential development and would not be a source of on-site/localized emissions or have the potential to emit TACs identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401; TAC emissions primarily come from mobile source. As detailed in the project-specific transportation impact analysis (Appendix D), the net trip generation potential would be approximately 10,670 trips, 1,042 more trips than what was originally envisioned and analyzed for Planning Area 3 in the Specific Plan 5453
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 36
EIR (9,628 trips). The net trips are not anticipated to exacerbate pre-existing hazards and increase the localized emissions over the thresholds (emissions associated with the originally proposed Planning Area 3 already exceeded thresholds). Operational LST impacts would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Off-Site Freeway Source Pollutants
In 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) promulgated an advisory recommendation to avoid setting sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. CARB indicates that due to traffic-generated pollutants, there is an estimated increased cancer risk incidence of 300 to 1,700 per million within this domain. At some point however, the increased cancer risk incidence due to the effects of freeway/roadway corridor pollutants become indistinguishable from the ambient air quality condition. In this regard, the effects of freeway/roadway-source pollutants that may impact the proposed project site are already acknowledged and accounted for within the ambient air quality discussions presented within the Specific Plan EIR. More specifically, the MATES-III Study data for the Specific Plan comprehensively reflects increased TAC-source cancer risks affecting the City and project site, inclusive of increased cancer risks due to freeway/roadway pollutant sources. It is, however, recognized that the effects of freeway traffic pollutants on the project site would likely be more acute and discernible in those areas nearer freeway/roadway corridors, including the proposed project site (Planning Area 3) which is immediately adjacent to I-10 and would include residential land uses.

It was determined that with incorporation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.6, freeway source carcinogenic health risks at the Specific Plan Area would total 7.14 in one million and would not exceed the SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million.

Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.6 was established to reduce cancer risks to future residence of the Specific Plan. However, in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (CBIA) case, the California Supreme Court determined that CEQA does not generally require an impacts analysis of the existing environmental conditions on future residents of a proposed project and generally only requires an analysis of the proposed project’s impact on the environment. However, the CBIA case also stated that when a proposed project brings development and people into an area already subject to specific hazards and the new development/people exacerbate the existing hazards, then CEQA requires an analysis of the hazards and the proposed project’s effect in terms of increasing the risks related to those hazards. In regard to air quality hazards, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are defined as substances that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. As such, if a project would not exacerbate pre-existing hazards (e.g., TAC health risks), then an analysis of those hazards and the project’s effect on increasing those hazards is not required.
5454
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 37
The proposed mixed-use overlay would allow commercial and residential development and would not be a source of TACs. Existing uses on-site only include vacant land and does not contain any operational land uses that emit toxic air contaminants. Therefore, the proposed project does not exacerbate pre-existing hazards and impact would be less than significant in this regard.

It should be noted that the proposed project would continue to incorporate mitigation measures in accordance with the Specific Plan EIR. Specifically, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.6 requires residential units within the Specific Plan area (including Planning Area 3) to include installation and maintenance of air filtration systems.

Further, proposed project-related traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” As the proposed project’s emissions would comply with federal, State, and local air quality standards, they are not sufficiently high enough to use a regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a Basin-wide level and would not provide a reliable indicator of health effects if modeled. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of proposed project and localized impacts would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Odors
The proposed project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project’s long-term operational uses (residential and commercial/retail uses).

Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction.

Construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with current solid waste regulations. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors and other emissions (such as those leading to odors) associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.3.1 The following requirements shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications in order to ensure implementation of SCAQMD Rule 403 and limit fugitive dust emissions:
5455
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 38
• All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 miles per hour;
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project site are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day; • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less; and • Only “Zero-Volatile Organic Compounds” paints (no more than 150 gram/liter of VOC) and/or High Pressure Low Volume (HPLV) applications consistent with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113 shall be used.

4.3.2 Grading plans shall reference the requirement that a sign shall be posted on-site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.

4.3.3 During grading activity, all rubber tired dozers and scrapers (≥ 150 horsepower) shall be CARB Tier 3 Certified or better. Additionally, during grading activity, total horsepower hours per day for all equipment shall not exceed 149,840; and the maximum (actively graded) disturbance area shall not exceed 26 acres per day.

4.3.4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit energy demand calculations to the City (Planning and Building Departments) demonstrating that the increment of the Project for which building permits are being requested would achieve a minimum 5% increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent California Building Code Title 24 performance standards. Representative energy efficiency/energy conservation measures to be incorporated in the Project would include, but would not be limited to, those listed below (it being understood that the items listed below are not all required and merely present examples; the list is not all-inclusive and other features that would comparably reduce energy consumption and promote energy conservation would also be acceptable):
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized;
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system;
5456
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 39
• Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; Installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; • Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use of interior and exterior energy efficient lighting that exceeds then incumbent California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards;
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed;
• Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings; • Design of buildings with “cool roofs” using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors;
• Design of buildings to accommodate photo-voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo-voltaic solar electricity systems; and
• Installation of ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting products.

4.3.5 The developer of the industrial phase of the Project (Planning Area 1) will install on the roofs of the warehouse buildings a photo-voltaic electrical generation system (PV system) capable of generating 1,600,000 kilowatt hours per year. The developer may install the required PV system in phases on a pro rata square foot basis as each building is completed; or if the PV system is to be installed on a single building, all of the PV system necessary to supply the PV estimated electrical generation shall be installed within two years (24 months) of the first building that does not include a PV system receives a certificate of occupancy.

4.3.6 Residential units within the Project site shall include the installation and maintenance of air filtration systems with efficiencies equal to or exceeding a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 as defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 52.2.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.
5457
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 40

3.2.2 Biological Resources
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR determined that buildout of the Specific Plan would not result in adverse effects on riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, or federally protected wetlands, or conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or adopted habitat or natural community conservations plans. Additionally, the Initial Study determined that impacts related to an interference with a migratory corridor or nursery site would be less than significant given that the Specific Plan area was disturbed and improved with development and roadways.

The Specific Plan EIR determined that no special-status plant species were anticipated to occur within the Specific Plan area. However, the California horned lark was observed during the Specific Plan EIR biological site survey, and the Specific Plan area was determined to contain suitable habitat for burrowing owl. Both the California horned lark and burrowing owl are special-status wildlife species, and as such the Specific Plan EIR included mitigation measures to reduce impacts related to these species. Specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 requires that vegetation removal occur outside of the nesting bird season (August 1 to February 1) in order to ensure that active nests of migratory birds are avoided. Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 requires pre-construction burrowing owl surveys in order to avoid active burrows during the breeding season, with additional measures to follow, such as the use of buffers, if active burrows are present. Mitigation Measure 4.9.3 includes closure of inactive burrowing owl burrows outside of the breeding season (September 1 through January 31), and Mitigation Measure 4.9.4 requires implementation of a mitigation plan for any burrowing owl displaced due to project construction, which could include habitat replacement conservation or purchase of conservation bank credits. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9.1 through

4.9.4, the Specific Plan EIR determined that buildout of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts on special-status wildlife species.

The Specific Plan EIR further concluded that a drainage channel on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area could be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As such, Mitigation Measures 4.9.5 through 4.9.7 were included to ensure that jurisdictional delineation of drainage features on-site are conducted prior to issuance of grading permits, followed by applicable agency consultation and acquisition of applicable permits with the USACE, CDFW, and/or RWQCB. Following implementation of required mitigation, it was determined that impacts to potential jurisdictional resources within the Specific Plan area would be less than significant.
5458
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 41
Proposed Project Analysis
The following analysis is based primarily on the following technical studies (refer to Appendix B, Biological Reports):
• Biological Resources Assessment for Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Biological Resources Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated September 15, 2025; and
• Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (ARDR), prepared by Michael Baker International, dated September 2025.

The Biological Resources Assessment included a literature review of the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, USFWS IPaC database, Calflora database, and corresponding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Additionally, a general biological resources survey and habitat assessment of the project site was conducted on August 5, 2025.

The ARDR included a literature review of USGS topographic maps, USGS hydrography data, aerial photography, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil survey, USDA Hydric Soils List of California, USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map, and Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted on August 5, 2025 per methods outlined in the USACE’s Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (2008).

Special-Status Species
Based on the results of the Biological Resources Assessment, two special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur within the project site: monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus, federal proposed threatened) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, State candidate endangered [SCE] and species of special concern [SSC]).

Monarch has the potential to fly through the project site; however, the site provides limited nectar resources for foraging due to the dominance of weedy, non-native species.

Additionally, no milkweed (Asclepias) species were observed and no suitable overwintering habitat was present on-site during the field visit. Therefore, monarch is not expected to breed on-site. The nearest known monarch record was from 2023 within the Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park, approximately 0.3-mile to the northeast of the project site. Overall, if monarch fly through the site, they would be expected in very low numbers due to the disturbed nature of the site and dominance by non-native weedy vegetation.

Development of the site in accordance with the Specific Plan and the proposed project 5459
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 42
would similarly not remove habitat that would affect the long-term status of monarch populations; therefore, potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed MixedUse Overlay are considered less than significant, similar to Specific Plan buildout impacts.

Similarly, no burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows were detected on-site during the field survey. However, burrowing owl are known to occur in the area; the nearest known records north of I-10 are from 2016, approximately 1.25 miles east of the project site, and the nearest known records south of I-10 are from 2017, approximately

0.3-mile south of the project site. The most recent records are from 2023, south and east of ONT. Therefore, there is potential for burrowing owl to colonize the site. As such, similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures

4.9.2 and 4.9.3, which would require pre-constriction burrowing owl surveys, and, if necessary, burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan preparation, would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
The project site supports ornamental landscaping and disturbed, weedy vegetation. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities present within the project site boundaries. Therefore, similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, future development within Planning Area 3 in accordance with the project would have no impact on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
The project site is within a highly urbanized area surrounded by residential and commercial development in all directions; it is not within or adjacent to any natural open space areas or other natural features that would be used by wildlife as a corridor or habitat linkage. The project site is adjacent to and east of the confluence of Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek, two concrete channelized waterways with vertical concrete walls, concrete bottoms, and no vegetation. According to the Biological Resources Assessment, due to the developed nature of the concrete channels and lack of vegetation, these channels provide low value wildlife movement habitat.

Nevertheless, similar to conditions described in the Specific Plan EIR, the vegetation within and adjacent to the project site provides suitable nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species that are adapted to urban areas. Impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant. As such, similar to buildout of the Specific Plan and in order to maintain compliance with the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), project implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation 5460
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 43
Measure 4.9.1 (pre-construction nesting bird surveys or avoidance of vegetation removal during breeding season) would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

State and Federal Jurisdictional Aquatic Features
The ARDR included a jurisdictional delineation of the drainage channel in the eastern portion of the project site (Aquatic Feature 1; AF-1). During the site reconnaissance, some surface water was present within the northern portion of AF-1. Evidence of an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) and surface hydrology was observed. Vegetation coverage was consistent throughout the channel, with flax-leaved horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora) dominant throughout the channel. A few individuals of tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis) and spiny rush (Juncus acutus) were present at the northern end of AF-1. Due to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, one soil pit was investigated within the vicinity of AF-1 to document the presence or absence of wetland conditions. Based on the results, the ARDR concluded that no wetlands were present within AF-1.

Although evidence of an OHWM was noted within the boundaries of the project site, AF1 is an ephemeral drainage feature, does not exhibit relatively permanent flow, and does not have a surface hydrological connection to a traditional navigable waterway. Therefore, AF-1 is not considered waters of the U.S. However, this feature would fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act and is considered waters of the State. Further, the mapped feature exhibits a clear bed and bank and is considered CDFW jurisdictional streambed.

Buildout of the proposed project would impact 0.03-acre of non-wetland RWQCB waters of the State and 0.15-acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed, which would require permits from these regulatory agencies. These findings are consistent with the Specific Plan EIR analysis, which identified that this drainage feature (AF-1) could be subject to regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.9.5 through 4.9.7 would reduce impacts in this regard. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Conflict with Local Policies Protecting Biological Resources The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City has adopted tree preservation and protection measures, including requirements for protected root zones, fencing, and arborist oversight during construction. However, the project site does not support any trees; therefore, future development on-site would not impact trees subject to this ordinance. No impact would 5461
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 44
occur. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Conflict with Applicable Habitat Conservation Plans
The Specific Plan area, including the project site, is not covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.9.1 Avoidance of Nesting Migratory Birds: If possible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled from August 1 to February 1, which is outside the general avian nesting season. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation is to be cleared during the nesting season, all suitable habitat will be thoroughly surveyed within 72 hours prior to clearing for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist (Project Biologist). The Project Biologist shall be approved by the City and retained by the Applicant. The survey results shall be submitted by the Project Applicant to the City Planning Department. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum 300-foot buffer, with the final buffer distance to be determined by the Project Biologist. The buffer area shall be avoided until, as determined by the Project Biologist, the nesting cycle is complete or it is concluded that the nest has failed. In addition, the Project Biologist shall be present on the site to monitor the vegetation removal to ensure that any nests, which were not detected during the initial survey, are not disturbed.

4.9.2 Burrowing Owl Avoidance: Breeding season avoidance measures for the burrowing owl including, but not limited to, those that follow shall be implemented. A pre-construction survey for resident burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified Project Biologist within 30 days prior to construction activities. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site will be resurveyed for owls. Pre-construction survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW) March 7, 2012 (CDFW Burrowing Owl Mitigation Staff Report). Results of the pre-construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the City. If the pre-construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the Project site, then no further mitigation shall be required. If burrowing owls are found to 5462
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 45
be utilizing the Project site during the pre-construction survey, measures shall be developed by the Project Biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid impacting occupied burrows during the nesting period. These measures shall be based on the most current CDFW protocols and would minimally include establishment of buffer setbacks from occupied burrows and owl monitoring during Project construction activities.

4.9.3 Burrowing Owl Passive Exclusion: During the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31), if burrows occupied by migratory or nonmigratory resident burrowing owls are detected during a pre-construction survey, then burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to passively exclude owls from those burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure shall only be conducted by the Project Biologist in consultation and coordination with CDFW employing incumbent CDFW guidelines.

4.9.5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits and prior to any physical disturbance of any possible jurisdictional areas, the Applicant shall obtain a Regional Board 401 Certification, or a written waiver of the requirement for such an agreement or permit, from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Written verification of such a permit or waiver shall be provided to the City of Ontario Planning Department.

4.9.6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits and prior to any physical disturbance of any possible jurisdictional areas, the Applicant shall obtain a stream bed alteration agreement or permit, or a written waiver of the requirement for such an agreement or permit, from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Information to be provided as part of the Streambed Alteration Agreement (if required) shall include but not be limited to the following:
• Delineation of lakes, streams, and associated habitat that will be temporarily and/or permanently impacted by the proposed project (include an estimate of impact to each habitat type);
• Discussion of avoidance measures to reduce project impacts; and • Discussion of potential mitigation measures required to reduce the project impacts to a level of insignificance.

Written verification of such a streambed alteration agreement/permit, or waiver, shall be provided to the City of Ontario Planning Department.

4.9.7 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits and prior to any physical disturbance of any possible jurisdictional areas, the Applicant shall obtain a 404 permit, or a written waiver of the requirement for such an agreement or permit, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Written verification of such a permit or waiver shall be provided to the City of Ontario Planning Department.
5463
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 46
Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.3 Cultural Resources
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts regarding disturbances to human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

According to the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan area is historically associated with the Italian Vineyard Company holdings and the activities associated with the community of Guasti. Field investigations conducted in preparation of the Specific Plan EIR identified a single irrigation valve on the south side of Inland Empire Boulevard, west of the Cucamonga Creek Channel (Planning Area 2), and a fragment of rock and concrete along Fourth Street, east of Vineyard Avenue (Planning Area 3); both are considered scant evidence of early vineyard activities. The Specific Plan EIR determined that the Specific Plan area does not contain any significant historical or archaeological resources, and that the potential for identifying prehistoric or historic archaeological resources is low.

Nonetheless, the Specific Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.7 in the event that previously undiscovered resources are identified during project implementation. Mitigation Measure 4.11.1 would require construction signage to be posted that provides instructions for the discovery of a previously unanticipated cultural resource. Mitigation Measure 4.11.2 would require project applicants to consult with potentially affected Native American tribes 30 days prior to grading activities and to enter a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement with applicable tribes.

Mitigation Measure 4.11.3 would require construction signage to be posted that provides instructions if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure 4.11.4 outlines procedures for the curation and recordation of any cultural resources discovered during grading activities and which are not addressed by the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. Mitigation Measure 4.11.5 would require the avoidance and preservation of sacred sites. Mitigation Measure 4.11.6 states that in the event that a developer and tribe cannot agree on the significance of or mitigation for a resource discovered during grading, the City of Ontario Planning Director shall make this determination, appealable to the City of Ontario. Last, Mitigation Measure

4.11.7 would require site monitoring by a qualified archeologist during construction activities.

Proposed Project Analysis
Historical Resources
The proposed project site is located entirely within the Specific Plan area, and as such the site is similarly historically associated with the Italian Vineyard Company holdings and the activities associated with the community of Guasti. However, there are no existing structures on-site that could qualify as a historic resource under CEQA, and no impact 5464
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 47
would occur to historic resources. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Archaeological Resources
As analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, while the project site has low potential for containing any significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, buildout of the project site would require some level of ground-disturbing activities that could uncover previously undiscovered archaeological resources. In the event of inadvertent discovery, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.7 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Human Remains
Similar to buildout under the Specific Plan and as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, should human remains be found during future development of Planning Area 3 in accordance with the project, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains were found to be prehistoric, the coroner would coordinate with the California Native American Heritage Commission as required by State law. Based on compliance with these existing regulations, future development in accordance with the project’s potential to disturb human remains would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.11.1 Prior to development approval on the Project site and issuance of any grading, building, or other permit authorizing ground-disturbing activity, the Project Applicant(s) shall include the following wording on all construction contract documentation:
“If during grading or construction activities, cultural resources are discovered on the Project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist and any affected Tribes (Tribes). Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archeologist. The report shall include a list of the resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of the 5465
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 48
resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for identified resources. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified archaeologist and the Tribe determines the resources to be historic or unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement required under Mitigation Measure 4.9.2.”

4.11.2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project Applicant(s) shall contact potentially affected Tribes to notify the Tribes of grading, excavation, and the monitoring program and to coordinate with the City of Ontario and the Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, outlining provisions and requirements for addressing the treatment of cultural resources; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site; and establishing on-site monitoring provisions and/or requirements for professional Tribal monitors during all ground-disturbing activities. A copy of this signed agreement shall be provided to the Planning Director and Building Official prior to the issuance of the first grading permit.

4.11.3 Prior to development approval on the Project site and issuance of any grading, building, or other permit authorizing ground-disturbing activity, the Project Applicant(s) shall include the following wording on all construction contract documentation:
“If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin.

Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Bernardino County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable time frame. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the “most likely descendant” within 24 hours of receiving notification from the coroner. The most likely descendant shall then have 48 hours to make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.”

4.11.4 All cultural materials, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods, and human remains, which will be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement required by Mitigation Measure 4.9.2, 5466
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 49
that are collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archeological studies or excavations on the Project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the affected Tribe’s/Tribes’ curation facility(ies), which meets the standards set forth in 36 CRF Part 79 for federal repositories.

4.11.5 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the Project site, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible as determined by a qualified professional in consultation with the affected Tribe(s). To the extent that a sacred site cannot be feasibly preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required pursuant to and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4.

4.11.6 Prior to development approval on the Project site and issuance of any grading, building, or other permit authorizing ground-disturbing activity, the Project Applicant(s) shall include the following wording on all construction contract documentation:
“If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery. The developer, the Project archeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the City of Ontario Planning Director. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City of Ontario. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified archaeologist determines the resources to be historic or unique as defined by relevant state and local law, avoidance and mitigation would be required pursuant to and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4.”

4.11.7 To address the possibility that cultural resources may be encountered during grading or construction, a qualified professional archeologist shall monitor all construction activities that could potentially impact archaeological deposits (e.g., grading, excavation, and/or trenching).

However, monitoring may be discontinued as soon the qualified professional is satisfied that construction will not disturb cultural and/or paleontological resources.
5467
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 50
Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.4 Energy
Specific Plan EIR Findings
Although Energy was not one of the topical areas in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G when the Specific Plan EIR was certified in 2015, energy use was evaluated extensively in the Specific Plan EIR Section 5.6, Energy Conservation. The Specific Plan EIR determined that regulatory compliance (e.g., Building Energy Efficiency Standards [commonly known as Title 24], City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan [CCAP]) and implementation of all feasible Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures (Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 requiring dozers and scrapers [≥ 50 horsepower] used during grading activities to be CARB Tier 3 Certified or better which improves fuel efficiency and reduce energy waste, and Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.4 requiring a five percent increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent Title 24 performance standards) would ensure that construction and operations for future development in accordance with the Specific Plan EIR would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy, and potential project impacts in these regards would be less than significant.

Further, the energy demands of buildout of the Specific Plan can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Specific Plan would, therefore, not cause or result in the need for additional energy production or transmission facilities and would not create or result in a potentially significant impact affecting energy resources or energy delivery systems.

Proposed Project Analysis
Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Energy Consumption Construction
The analysis of impacts related to energy use considers construction and operations of a project. Fossil fuels would be used for construction vehicles and other energy-consuming equipment during construction of the project. Construction of future commercial/retail and/or residential development in accordance with the proposed mixed-use overlay would result in on-road (automotive) fuel consumption associated with construction vehicle trips and off-road fuel consumption associated with construction equipment usage.

Construction fuel consumption depends on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, start and duration of construction phases, types and numbers of construction equipment to be used, soil import and export volumes, hauling trips distance, etc., all of which cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. Because implementation of the project does not propose any specific development and no project-level construction details can be provided, construction-related fuel consumption that may occur at any time in any scale are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, construction-related fuel consumption was not quantified. 5468
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 51
However, this project proposes similar land use types (i.e., commercial/retail and residential) as the already permitted urban commercial uses in Planning Area 3 as analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR and within the same project site (i.e., no increase in site acreage), and therefore similar construction techniques, equipment, and anticipated construction fuel consumption would be expected. Further, all future commercial/retail and/or residential development in accordance with the proposed mixed-use overlay would be subject to project-specific and site-specific discretionary approvals (including separate CEQA review) on a case-by-case basis to ensure that development occurs in a logical manner consistent with the Specific Plan and any energy impacts during construction would be analyzed and mitigated, if applicable. Typically, fuel consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant demand for energy resources. In addition, some incidental energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements. Construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB engine emissions standards. These emissions standards require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessary fuel consumption. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive, and that there is a significant cost-savings potential in green building practices and materials.

Further, project-related incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials.

Construction fuel use is temporary and would cease upon completion of construction activities. There are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State. Additionally, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the EPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements, such as the current CALGreen, future commercial/retail and/or residential development in accordance with the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris.

As detailed above, the Specific Plan EIR determined that energy-related impacts of Specific Plan buildout would be less than significant. Similarly, for the project, construction fuel consumption would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development projects. As such, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or 5469
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 52
substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Operations
This analysis focuses on three sources of energy that are relevant to the project:
electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with project operations. The analysis of operational energy usage is based on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1.1.30. modeling results for the project; refer to Appendix A. The project’s estimated electricity and natural gas consumption is based primarily on CalEEMod’s default settings for San Bernardino County and consumption factors provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), the electricity and natural gas providers for the City and the project site, respectively. The amount of operational fuel consumption was estimated using the project’s annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as modeled in CalEEMod, and CARB Emissions Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) website platform, which provides typical fuel efficiency for the County. The year of 2027 was used as the buildout (operational) year of the project assuming development on Planning Area 3 could initiate as early as the next year from when this Addendum was prepared and conservatively accounting for a construction duration of approximately one year. The project’s estimated operational energy consumption is summarized in Table 4, Energy Consumption.

As shown in Table 4, the project’s annual electricity and natural gas usage would result in approximately 0.0435 percent over the County’s typical annual electricity usage and approximately 0.0432 percent over the County’s typical annual natural usage, respectively. Furthermore, the project’s increase in operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County’s consumption by approximately 0.2076 percent. Overall, the project would result in a nominal energy consumption increase over the County’s current energy consumption.

Table 4
Energy Consumption
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
San Bernadino County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide
Electricity Consumption3
(MWh) 7,046 MWh 16,206,401 MWh 0.0435%
Natural Gas
Consumption4 (therms) 236,140 therms 547,159,228 therms 0.0432% Operational Automotive
(on-road) Fuel
Consumption5
2,283,080 gallons 1,099,671,804 gallons 0.2076%
5470
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 53
Energy Type Project Annual
Energy Consumption1
San Bernadino County
Annual Energy
Consumption2
Percentage
Increase Countywide
Notes:

1. Project electricity and natural gas consumptions as modeled in California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer model provided in Appendix A. Fuel consumption calculated based on CalEEMod results.

2. The project’s increase in electricity and natural gas consumptions are compared to the total consumption in San Bernardino County in 2024 (the latest year where data is available). The project’s increase in operational automotive fuel consumption is compared with the projected Countywide on-road fuel consumption in 2027 (project estimated operation year).

3. Electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-0, accessed September 22, 2025.

4. Natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1, accessed September 22, 2025.

5. Countywide on-road fuel consumption is derived from CARB EMFAC2021.

Source: Refer to Appendix A.

Transportation Energy Demands
Pursuant to the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards and for revising existing standards. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards is not determined for each individual vehicle model. Rather, compliance is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. The key drivers of transportation-related fuel consumption are job locations/commuting distance and many personal choices on when and where to drive for various purposes. Those factors are outside of the scope of the design of the proposed project.

However, the project would include various design features that would promote the reduction of overall VMT generated from the proposed development, which reduces petroleum fuel consumption. In compliance with CALGreen, future residential and nonresidential development would be required to install bike parking spaces and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, as applicable. According to the project-specific transportation impact analysis, operation of the project would result in approximately 10,670 average daily trip and 40,722,805 annual VMT; refer to Appendix D. As indicated in Table 4, the project’s operational automotive transportation is estimated to consume approximately 2,283,080 gallons of fuel per year. This increase would account for 0.2076 percent of the County’s forecast annual consumption of fuel for the buildout year of 2027.

As such, the project would account for a nominal percentage of the forecasted annual operational automotive fuel consumption for the County and, thus, would have a nominal effect on the local and regional energy supplies.

The project is also located within close proximity to existing destinations in surrounding areas that residents and guests may potentially visit, such as restaurants and commercial retail uses north of the site The nearest bus stop (Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue intersection) is approximately 350 feet east of the project site. As such, the 5471
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 54
project’s proximity to existing public transit and destinations would reduce overall VMT and would reduce petroleum fuel consumption.

Overall, the project does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. Therefore, fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary compared to other similar developments in the region.

Building Energy Demand
The California Energy Commission (CEC) developed 2024 to 2040 forecasts for energy consumption and peak demand in support of the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2023 IEPR) for each of the major electricity and natural gas planning areas and the State based on economic and demographic growth projections. CEC forecasted baseline electricity consumption grows at a rate of about 1.7 percent annually through 2040.17 The natural gas consumption grows at a rate of about 0.2 percent annually through 2035.18 As shown in Table 4, the project’s operational energy consumption at full buildout would result in an annual electricity and natural gas consumption of 7,046 MWh and 236,140 therms, respectively. Table 4 also shows the increase of operational energy consumption would result in an approximately 0.0435 percent increase in electricity consumption and approximately 0.0432 percent increase in natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage. As such, energy consumption would be significantly below the CEC’s forecasts and the current Countywide usage. Overall, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies. The project would also consume energy during the same time periods as other surrounding commercial/retail and/or residential developments. As a result, the project would not result in unique or more intensive peak or base period energy demand.

Future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the latest version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update; therefore, complying with the latest Title 24 standards would make the project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards. It should also be acknowledged that any building permit applications applied on or after January 1, 2026, would be required to comply with the upcoming 2025 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2025 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards expands on the existing 2022 Title 24 standards (i.e., promote the 17 California Energy Commission, 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, page 130, July 14, 2024. 18 Based on the 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the gas forecast is updated every two years, in odd years. As such, the natural gas consumption shown here is based on the California Energy Commission, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, page 140, May 10, 2023. 5472
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 55
use of heat pumps in new residential development, electrical readiness, updated ventilation standards, etc.). Additionally, future projects within Planning Area 3 would be required to install high efficiency lighting and energy-efficient appliances and provide onsite renewable energy generation through installation of solar solar-ready roof(s). Future development would also be required to utilize all electric landscape equipment and incorporate water conservation measures such as installing low-flow fixtures, waterefficiency irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape that would reduce energy consumption associated with transporting water. Further, future development would be required to be consistent with the goals and policies as outlined in TOP 2050 in regard to energy in an effort to reduce the energy-related impacts of building construction and occupation on the current and future environment during project implementation.

Furthermore, SCE is subject to California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent of total procurement by 2030 and 100 percent of total procurement by 2045.

Renewable energy is generally defined as energy that comes from resources which are naturally replenished within a human timescale such as sunlight, wind, tides, waves, and geothermal heat. The increase in reliance of such energy resources further ensures that new development projects will not result in the waste of the finite energy resources.

Overall, the project would ensure energy consumption to be kept to a minimum through these components.

Based on the analysis above, the project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during project operation or preempt future energy development or future energy conservation. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Consistency with State or Local Energy Plan
As discussed above, the State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. In general, California has RPS requirements of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020 (SB X1-2), 40 percent by 2024 (SB 350), 50 percent by 2026 (SB 100), 60 percent by 2030 (SB 100), and 100 percent by 2045 (SB 100). SB 100 also establishes RPS requirements for publicly owned utilities that consist of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. The Statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State of California objective of transitioning to renewable energy.

The commercial/retail and residential land uses proposed under the project would comply with current and future iterations of CALGreen standards. Furthermore, future projects within Planning Area 3 would be subject to Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 5473
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 56
(requiring dozers and scrapers with more than 50 horsepower used during grading activities to be CARB Tier 3 Certified or better), and Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure

4.3.4 (requiring a five percent increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent Title 24 performance standards), which would support the Statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources and employ best practices regarding energy-saving standards. Future projects would also comply with the requirements of the City’s CCAP and implement an array of project design features that will conserve or reduce energy use, (i.e. improved insulation, water use reduction, use of recycled water, solar energy, etc.). Additionally, as detailed above, the project would be consistent with the CEC’s 2023 IEPR energy consumption forecasts and would not require additional energy capacity or supplies.

Therefore, implementation of project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS program, or any other State or local energy plans. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.3.4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit energy demand calculations to the City (Planning and Building Departments) demonstrating that the increment of the Project for which building permits are being requested would achieve a minimum 5% increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent California Building Code Title 24 performance standards. Representative energy efficiency/energy conservation measures to be incorporated in the Project would include, but would not be limited to, those listed below (it being understood that the items listed below are not all required and merely present examples; the list is not all-inclusive and other features that would comparably reduce energy consumption and promote energy conservation would also be acceptable):
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized;
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system;
5474
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 57
• Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; Installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; • Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use of interior and exterior energy efficient lighting that exceeds then incumbent California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards;
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed;
• Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings; • Design of buildings with “cool roofs” using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors;
• Design of buildings to accommodate photo-voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo-voltaic solar electricity systems; and
• Installation of ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting products.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Specific Plan EIR determined that GHG impacts would be less than significant upon compliance with State policies and requirements and application of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.3.4. Therefore, the Specific Plan was consistent with, or otherwise not in conflict with, recommended measures and actions in the CARB 2014 Scoping Plan.

The 2014 Scoping Plan established strategies and measures that would achieve GHG reductions goals set forth in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). More specifically, the 2014 Scoping Plan called for an approximately 28.5 percent reduction in GHG emissions when compared to Business-as-Usual (BAU) conditions. Similarly, TOP 2050 EIR indicates that AB 32 compliance would be achieved through an approximately

30.0 percent reduction in GHG emission when compared to a BAU Scenario. It was also determined that the Specific Plan was consistent with applicable TOP 2050 goals and policies and would comply with and implement applicable TOP 2050 EIR mitigation measures. The Specific Plan EIR analysis showed that GHG emissions would be reduced 5475
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 58
by approximately 32.81 percent when compared to a 2020 BAU Scenario. It was also shown that the Specific Plan would generate an estimated 73,645.72 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions when compared to existing conditions. In context, the City of Ontario 2008 GHG emissions as estimated under the City of Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) totaled 2.5 million MTCO2e. Project GHG emissions would represent approximately three percent of the City’s estimated 2008 GHG emissions total. As discussed in the CCAP, an individual project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. The project participates in this potential impact by its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs, which when taken together may have a significant impact on global climate change . . . Because the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reduction, is in concert with AB 32 and international efforts to address global climate change and includes specific local requirements that will substantially lessen the cumulative problem, compliance with the CCAP fulfills the description of mitigation found in CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) and §15183.5. (CCAP, pages 2-5). As such, it was determined that the Specific Plan would be consistent with the CCAP, would be in concert with AB 32 and international efforts to address global climate change, and would reflect specific local requirements that would substantially lessen cumulative GHG emissions impacts. The Specific Plan would therefore also fulfill the description of mitigation found in CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) and §15183.5. It was determined the Specific Plan’s incremental contribution to GHG emissions impacts would therefore not be cumulatively considerable.

Proposed Project Analysis
GHG Emissions
Future construction-related activities associated with development within the project could result in emissions of GHGs. The Specific Plan EIR assumed buildout of Planning Area 3 would allow for 480,000 square feet of commercial use (including 400 hotel rooms) under the Urban Commercial land use designation. The project proposes to modify the existing Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay over Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. Construction GHG emissions depend on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, start and duration of construction phases, types and quantity of construction equipment to be used, soil import and export volumes, hauling trips distance, etc., all of which cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, because implementation of the project does not propose any specific development and construction details are unknown, construction-related GHG emissions that may occur at any one time in any scale are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. It should be noted that construction GHG emissions are typically nominal as they are attenuated based on development lifetime (typically assumed to be 30 years). Additionally, this project proposes similar land use types (i.e., commercial/retail and residential) as the already permitted urban commercial uses in Planning Area 3 as analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR and within the same project site (i.e., no increase in site acreage), and therefore similar construction techniques, 5476
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 59
equipment, and anticipated construction GHG emissions would be expected. As such, construction of future developments within the project site would be subject to projectspecific and site-specific discretionary approvals (including separate CEQA review) on a case-by-case basis, as the extent of impacts become known through the design process to ensure that development occurs in a logical manner consistent with Specific Plan.

Operation of future commercial/retail and/or residential development on-site could result in direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct GHG emissions would include emissions from area sources, mobile sources, and refrigerants, while indirect emissions would include emissions from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1 was used to calculate project related GHG emissions. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix A. Table 5, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated GHG emissions of the project.

It should be noted that the proposed project would continue to incorporate mitigation measures in accordance to the Specific Plan EIR, including Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.3.4 that would reduce operational source GHG emissions to the extent possible by requiring a five percent increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent Title 24 performance standards, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with building energy consumption; this measure has not been incorporated into the CalEEMod modeling as a conservative measure.

Table 5
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year
Direct Emissions
Mobile Source 14,338.00 0.69 0.71 20.00 14,586.00
Area Source 403.00 0.44 <0.01 0.00 414.00
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 1.80
Total Direct Emissions1 14,741.00 1.13 0.71 21.80 15,001.80 Indirect Emissions
Energy 2,953.00 0.22 0.02 0.00 2,963.00
Water 125.00 2.00 0.05 0.00 191.00
Waste 63.00 6.30 0.00 0.00 221.00
Total Indirect Emissions1 3,141.00 8.52 0.07 0.00 3,375.00 Project Total Emissions (All Sources) 18,376.80 MTCO2e per year Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent

1. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Refer to Appendix A for assumptions used in this analysis.

Direct Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Mobile Source. As detailed in the project-specific transportation impact analysis (Appendix D), the project’s trip generation potential would be approximately 10,670 daily 5477
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 60
trips, which equates to approximately 14,586.00 MTCO2e per year of mobile source GHG emissions; refer to Table 5.

Area Source. Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data. Project-related area sources may include exhaust emissions from typical landscape maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers. Future development within Planning Area 3 would also use all electric landscape equipment; as a conservative analysis, these features were not quantified in the modeling. As noted in Table 5, the project would result in 414.00 MTCO2e per year of area source GHG emissions.

Refrigerants. Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are hydrofluorocarbons or blends thereof, which can have high global warming potential (GWP) values. All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. As the project would allow for commercial/retail and residential uses, the project would only directly result in approximately 1.80 MTCO2e per year from refrigerants; refer to Table 5.

Indirect Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Energy. Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and project-specific land use data. Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project site via Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas). Future development within Planning Area 3 would be required to comply with the latest version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which provide minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting. Implementation of Title 24 standards significantly reduces energy usage. Title 24 standards are updated every three years and become more stringent between each update; therefore, complying with the latest Title 24 standards would make the project more energy efficient than existing buildings built under the earlier versions of the Title 24 standards. However, it should be acknowledged that any building permit applications applied on or after January 1, 2026, would be required to comply with the upcoming 2025 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2025 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards expands on the existing 2022 Title 24 standards (i.e., promote the use of heat pumps in new residential development, electrical readiness, updated ventilation standards, etc.). Additionally, future projects within Planning Area 3 would be required to install high efficiency lighting and energy-efficient appliances, and provide onsite renewable energy generation through installation of solar solar-ready roof(s). As a conservative analysis, these features were not quantified in the modeling. The project would indirectly result in 2,963.00 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions due to energy consumption; refer to Table 5.
5478
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 61
Water. The project’s operations would result in a demand of approximately 442 million gallons of water per year, refer to Appendix A. Future development within the Specific Plan area would incorporate water conservation measures such as installing low-flow fixtures, water-efficiency irrigation, and drought tolerant landscape that would effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with water usage. As a conservative analysis, these features were not quantified in the modeling. Emissions from indirect GHG emissions due to water supply would result in 191.00 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 5.

Waste. Solid waste associated with operations of the project would result in 221.00 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 5.

Conclusion
As shown in Table 5, project implementation would generate approximately 18,376.80 MTCO2e of GHG emissions annually. It should be noted that there are currently no published Statewide thresholds of significance for measuring the impact of GHG emissions generated by a proposed project. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7(b) indicates “each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” Jurisdictions within the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) boundary can refer to the SCAQMD’s air quality thresholds in the absence of locally adopted thresholds and GHG mitigation plans. The City’s CCAP addresses cumulative GHG emissions by establishing Citywide emission reduction targets that reduce the cumulative GHG impacts to less than significant, provides a set of recommended GHG reduction measures that collectively achieve the emission targets, and provides an implementation plan to implement the reduction measures. As such, significance of a project’s GHG emissions is determined based on its consistency with the applicable GHG plans, policies, or regulations, and quantification of project-related GHG emissions is for informational purposes only.

Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans, Policies, or Regulations The project’s GHG plan consistency analysis is based on its alignment with the 2022 Scoping Plan, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), and the City’s CCAP. Statewide, the 2022 Scoping Plan provides measures to achieve Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) targets. Regionally, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes measures to achieve VMT reductions required under SB 375. Locally, the CCAP contains measures to enhance the City’s ability to further reduce GHG emissions.

Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each AB 32 inventory sector. Provided in Table 6, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 GHG Inventory Sectors, is an evaluation of applicable reduction 5479
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 62
actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Table 6
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan: AB 32 Inventory Sectors Actions and
Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per
capita to 25% below
2019 levels by 2030,
and 30% below 2019
levels by 2045
Consistent. Future development within the project site would include various design features that would promote the reduction of overall VMT. In compliance with CALGreen, future residential and non-residential development would be required to install bike parking spaces and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, as applicable. The project is also located within close proximity to existing destinations in surrounding areas that residents and guests may potentially visit, such as restaurants and commercial retail uses north of the site. The nearest bus stop (Inland Empire Boulevard and Archibald Avenue intersection) is approximately 350 feet east of the project site. As such, the project’s proximity to existing public transit and destinations would reduce overall VMT.

Construction Equipment
Achieve 25% of energy
demand electrified by
2030 and 75%
electrified by 2045.

Consistent. The City of Ontario has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring the use of electrified construction equipment. However, if adopted in the future, developments within the project would be required to comply with the applicable policies requiring the use of electrified construction equipment.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances
beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029
(commercial),
contributing to 6
million heat pumps
installed statewide by
2030
Consistent. The City of Ontario has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring all electric appliances. However, if adopted in the future, developments within the project would be required to comply with the applicable policies requiring the use of electrified construction equipment.

Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic
waste from landfills by
2025
Consistent. SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of Statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. The project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB 1383.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The 2024-2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2024- 2050 RTP/SCS; Connect SoCal 2024) was adopted by SCAG on April 4, 2024. However, CARB concluded that the technical methodology SCAG used to quantify the GHG 5480
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 63
emission reductions for the Connect SoCal 2024 does not operate accurately.19 SCAG resubmitted the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Submittal Package for CARB’s review in June 2024. At the time of preparation of this memorandum, CARB has not made its determination on the validity of Connect SoCal 2024. Review by CARB is limited to acceptance or rejection of SCAG’s determination that its SCS would, if implemented, achieve the region’s GHG emissions reduction target. If CARB rejects SCAG’s determination of meeting the GHG emission target, SCAG would need to revise the SCS or adopt an alternative planning strategy demonstrating the ability to achieve the target.

As such, until CARB makes the decision, Connect SoCal 2024 is not a fully adopted document and is potentially subject to further updates, especially from the GHG reduction perspective of the methods and assumptions of the calculation of Auto Operating Costs (AOC)20, induced travel, electric vehicle incentives, job center parking and parking deregulation, off-model strategy assumptions, and emissions factors.

As CARB has not made the decision at the time of preparation of this document, the following consistency analysis only relies upon the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, refer to Table 7, Consistency with 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes performance goals that were adopted to help focus future investments on the bestperforming projects and different strategies to preserve, maintain, and optimize the performance of the existing transportation system. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is forecasted to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with the most recent CARB targets adopted in March 2018. Five key SCS strategies are included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to help the region meet its regional VMT and GHG reduction goals. Table 7 evaluates the project’s consistency with the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS strategies. As detailed, the project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 7
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns
that facilitate multimodal
access to work, educational
and other destinations.

Center
Focused
Placemaking,
Priority
Growth Areas
Consistent. The project site is in a highly developed
and urbanized environment, bounded by Inland
Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to
the east, and I-10 to the south. The project is not
located within a TPA or HQTA; however, the project
19 California Air Resources Board, RE: CARB Review of Southern California Association of Governments’ 2024 SCS Senate Bill 375 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Technical Methodology, March 29, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/SCAG%20memo%20final.pdf, accessed February 13, 2025. 20 AOC is used as key variable across several major model components of the travel demand model, such as vehicle ownership, destination choice, and mode choice. This parameter represents the expenses associated with the usage of vehicles, expressed in cents per mile or dollar per mile. AOC plays a pivotal role as a fundamental parameter within the travel demand model.
5481
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 64
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
(PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality
Transit Areas
(HQTAs),
Transit
Priority Areas
(TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs),
Livable
Corridors,
Spheres of
Influence
(SOIs), Green
Region, Urban
Greening.
is located approximately 2.2 miles from the nearest
transit center (East Ontario Metrolink Station). ONT
is located approximately 0.4-mile to the south. The
nearest bus stop (Inland Empire Boulevard and
Archibald Avenue intersection) is approximately 350
feet east of the project site. As such, users of future commercial/retail and residential uses associated
with the project would be offered a variety of
multimodal access.
• Focus on a regional
jobs/housing balance to
reduce commute times and
distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and
along center-focused main
streets.

Consistent. The project proposes an overlay to
allow for commercial/retail uses and residential
development, resulting in a mixed-use environment.

This configuration would enable future employees to
live within the project area, thereby enhancing the
regional jobs-housing balance, shortening commute
times and distances, and increasing access to
employment opportunities near transit corridors and
central main streets.
• Plan for growth near transit
investments and support
implementation of first/last
mile strategies.

Consistent. As noted above, the project site is in a
highly developed and urbanized environment. As
such, the proposed development would allow for
growth near transit investments and support
implementation of first/last mile strategies.
• Promote the redevelopment
of underperforming retail
developments and other
outmoded nonresidential
uses.

Not Applicable. The project site is currently vacant
and no underperforming retail or outmoded
nonresidential uses are located on-site.

Nonetheless, the project would promote housing and
commercial development on the currently vacant
(underutilized) site to accommodate new growth,
increase amenities, and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods.
• Prioritize infill and
redevelopment of
underutilized land to
accommodate new growth,
increase amenities and
connectivity in existing
neighborhoods.
• Encourage design and
transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and
number of solo car trips (this
could include mixed uses or
locating and orienting close to
existing destinations).

Consistent. The project site is in a highly developed
and urbanized environment with multimodal
transportation access options. As the proposed
overlay would accommodate a mixed-use
development, the proposed project would reduce the
reliance on and number of solo car trips.
• Identify ways to “right size”
parking requirements and
promote alternative parking
strategies (e.g. shared
parking or smart parking).

Consistent. As no specific development is proposed
at this time, it would be too speculative to determine
ways to “right size” parking requirements or promote
specific alternative parking strategies. Nonetheless,
future developments within the project site would be
5482
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 65
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
subject to project-specific and site-specific
discretionary approvals (including separate CEQA
review) on a case-by-case basis to ensure that
development occurs in a logical manner consistent
with the Specific Plan.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate
affordable housing and
prevent displacement.

PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable
Corridors,
Green Region,
Urban
Greening.

Not Applicable. The project is currently vacant. As
such, no rehabilitation or displacement of affordable
housing would occur.
• Identify funding opportunities
for new workforce and
affordable housing
development.

Not Applicable. This strategy only pertains to
governmental agencies and would not be applicable
to development projects.
• Create incentives and reduce
regulatory barriers for building
context sensitive accessory
dwelling units to increase
housing supply.

Not Applicable. This strategy only pertains to
governmental agencies and would not be applicable
to development projects.
• Provide support to local
jurisdictions to streamline and
lessen barriers to housing
development that supports
reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions
Not Applicable. This strategy only pertains to
governmental agencies and would not be applicable
to development projects. Nonetheless, the project
would allow for commercial/retail and residential
development to occur, thereby reducing commute
times and distances and expanding job opportunities
near transit and along center-focused main streets
that would supports reduction of GHG emissions.

Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission
technologies such as
neighborhood electric
vehicles, shared rides hailing,
car sharing, bike sharing and
scooters by providing
supportive and safe
infrastructure such as
dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space.

HQTA, TPAs,
NMA, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. Future development within the project
would comply with sustainable practices included in
the latest Title 24 Standards and CALGreen Code,
which would require developments to provide bicycle
parking and electric vehicle parking to promote low
emissions technologies.
• Improve access to services
through technology—such as
telework and telemedicine as
well as other incentives such
as a “mobility wallet,” an appbased system for storing transit and other multi-modal
payments.

Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support on technology which may reduce VMT or
allow for easier access to transportation options.

This reduction strategy does not apply to
development project.
• Identify ways to incorporate
“micro-power grids” in
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support on promoting “micro-power grids”.
5483
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 66
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
communities, for example
solar energy, hydrogen fuel
cell power storage and power
generation
Nonetheless, future projects within Planning Area 3
would be required to install high efficiency lighting
and energy-efficient appliances, and provide on-site
renewable energy generation through installation of
solar solar-ready roof(s).

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities
to support local sustainable
development implementation
projects that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
Center
Focused
Placemaking,
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, TPA,
NMAs, Livable
Corridors,
SOIs, Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. While this strategy is focused on local
governments, agencies, and organizations’ actions
to support the implementation of sustainability
policies, the project would participate in
opportunities provided by these agencies that would
support sustainability. For example, the proposed
project would have the option to participate in
programs and rebates provided by SCE that
promote sustainability.
• Support statewide legislation
that reduces barriers to new
construction and that
incentivizes development
near transit corridors and
stations
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support of Statewide legislation.
• Support local jurisdictions in
the establishment of
Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFDs),
Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities
(CRIAs), or other tax
increment or value capture
tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and
development projects,
including parks and open
space
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support of Statewide legislation.
• Work with local jurisdictions/
communities to identify
opportunities and assess
barriers to implement
sustainability strategies
Consistent. Future development projects within
Planning Area 3 would work alongside the City of
Ontario and SCE in implementing required
sustainability programs and/or optional rebate
programs.
• Enhance partnerships with
other planning organizations
to promote resources and
best practices in the SCAG
region
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support of local planning organizations.
• Continue to support long
range planning efforts by local
jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support of local planning organizations.
5484
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 67
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local
climate adaptation and
hazard mitigation plans, as
well as project
implementation that improves
community resiliency to
climate change and natural
hazards
Green Region,
Urban
Greening,
Greenbelts
and
Community
Separators.

Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
support of local planning organizations.
• Support local policies for
renewable energy production,
reduction of urban heat
islands and carbon
sequestration
Consistent. Future developments within Planning
Area 3 would be required to provide on-site
renewable energy generation through installation of
solar solar-ready roof(s), comply with the CALGreen
Code and Title 24 standards, and implement design
features that support renewable energy production
and reduction of urban heat islands.
• Integrate local food
production into the regional
landscape
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on the
incorporation of food production (community
gardens).
• Promote more resource
efficient development focused
on conservation, recycling
and reclamation
Consistent. Future development in accordance with
the mixed-use overlay would be required to
incorporate a variety of project design features
focused on sustainability and conservation such as
low flow water fixtures, water-efficiency irrigation,
install drought tolerant landscape, and high
efficiency lighting. Future development would also
comply with local and regional regulations for
recycling and composting such as SB 1383.
• Preserve, enhance and
restore regional wildlife
connectivity
Consistent. Refer to Section 3.2.2, Biological
Resources.
• Reduce consumption of
resource areas, including
agricultural land
Not Applicable. The project is located within an
urbanized and built environment. Project
development would not remove any agricultural
land.
• Identify ways to improve
access to public park space
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s
cooperation with local agencies in supporting
accessibility to public parks. Nonetheless, it should
be noted that future development within Planning
Area 3 would be required to develop common and
private open space in accordance with City’s
standards.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020. 5485
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 68
Consistency with the City of Ontario 2022 Community Climate Action Plan The purpose of the CCAP is to provide guidance on how to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance during the CEQA review of development projects within the City.

Because the CCAP addresses GHG emissions reductions and is consistent with the requirements of AB 32, SB 32, and international efforts to reduce GHG emissions, compliance with the CCAP fulfills the description of mitigation found in the State CEQA Guidelines. The CCAP includes performance standards that will reduce GHG emissions from new development by 54,069 MTCO2e per year in 2030 and 302,803 MTCO2e in 2050 as compared to emissions levels in 2019, prior to the adoption of the CCAP. CEQA requires the assessment of environmental impacts for proposed projects, including the impacts of GHG emissions. The development review procedures for evaluating GHG impacts and determining significance under CEQA are streamlined by utilizing the CCAP performance standard review checklist (Ontario Community Climate Action Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables, dated March 2023) to mitigate project GHG emissions and by demonstrating compliance with the CCAP. The levels of GHG emissions reductions in the Screening Tables are consistent with the City’s adopted targets in the CCAP.

The project proposes to modify the existing Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in place of the uses and buildout currently permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. Because implementation of the project does not propose any specific development, whether the project design-level strategies (specific to development land uses) as listed on the CCAP that could be achieved is too speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Future development within the Specific Plan would be required to analyze GHG emissions and determine significance on a case-bycase basis in accordance with CEQA to ensure that development is consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans, including the CCAP. As such, the project would be consistent with CCAP.

Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the City’s CCAP. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.3.4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall submit energy demand calculations to the City (Planning and Building 5486
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 69
Departments) demonstrating that the increment of the Project for which building permits are being requested would achieve a minimum 5% increase in energy efficiencies beyond incumbent California Building Code Title 24 performance standards. Representative energy efficiency/energy conservation measures to be incorporated in the Project would include, but would not be limited to, those listed below (it being understood that the items listed below are not all required and merely present examples; the list is not all-inclusive and other features that would comparably reduce energy consumption and promote energy conservation would also be acceptable):
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized;
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system;
• Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; Installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; • Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use of interior and exterior energy efficient lighting that exceeds then incumbent California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards;
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed;
• Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings; • Design of buildings with “cool roofs” using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors;
• Design of buildings to accommodate photo-voltaic solar electricity systems or the installation of photo-voltaic solar electricity systems; and
• Installation of ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, office equipment, and/or lighting products.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.
5487
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 70

3.2.6 Land Use and Planning
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Specific Plan EIR concluded that the land use pattern under the Specific Plan buildout, combined with the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan, would preclude division or disruption of land uses, both within and outside of the Specific Plan area. Impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.

Following approval of requested amendments to the Land Use Element of TOP 2050, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would be consistent with TOP 2050.

The Specific Plan EIR also determined that the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals and policies within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Overall, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning.

Proposed Project Analysis
Physically Divide an Established Community
Located in a highly developed and urbanized environment, the project site is vacant and disturbed with no internal roadways. It is bound by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to the east, I-10 to the south, and Deer Creek Channel to the west. The project proposes a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 within the Specific Plan area that would allow for up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units. Given that Planning Area 3 is bounded by roadways and a concrete channel on all sides, project implementation would not physically divide an established community. Instead, it would contribute towards the existing urban fabric of the project area by accommodating development of residential and commercial uses near other existing similar uses compared to existing site conditions (i.e., vacant and undeveloped). Impacts would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plans
Currently, the project site has a TOP 2050 land use designation of Mixed Use – Meredith, which permits a density range of 14 to 125 du/ac and a maximum FAR of 3.0 for office and retail uses. The Specific Plan designates the site (Planning Area 3) as Urban Commercial and forecasts a maximum buildout of 480,000 square feet, including 400 hotel rooms; uses conditionally permitted also include office and shopping centers.

By accommodating residential and commercial/retail uses in Planning Area 3, the project would be consistent with TOP 2050 Land Use Element goals and policies to provide a variety of housing and job options in proximity to one another and in proximity to transit. 5488
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 71
These goals and policies coincide with the vision of SCAG’s current RTP/SCS (i.e., Connect SoCal), which focuses on transportation alternatives that meet air quality standards and GHG emission reduction targets. While the proposed project would modify the Specific Plan’s buildout vision for Planning Area 3, the housing, jobs, and population generated by the project would be within TOP 2050 growth forecasts for the City, and as such would result in a less than significant impact. Additionally, the proposed dwelling units would contribute to the City’s RHNA allocation, which would be considered a project benefit and would be consistent with TOP 2050 Housing Element. Further, the potential physical impacts resulting from implementing the proposed land uses have been addressed through the analyses presented throughout this document.

The proposed Mixed-Use Overlay would be consistent with surrounding development, particularly adjacent uses in Planning Area 4 to the north and Planning Area 2 to the west.

Similar to other development projects within the Specific Plan area, future development within the project site would be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines established by TOP 2050, the Specific Plan, and the City’s Municipal Code, and all development projects would be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of any building permits. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: None.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.7 Noise
Specific Plan EIR Findings
According to the Specific Plan EIR, construction activities associated with the various phases of Specific Plan construction are expected to generate hourly noise levels exceeding the acceptable construction noise level threshold of 65 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive receptor locations during peak activity near the property line. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur and Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 through 4.5.5 would be required. Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 requires construction activities to occur during the City’s permitted hours. Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 requires temporary noise barriers that provide a minimum noise level attenuation of 10.0 dBA when construction occurs near existing noise-sensitive structures. Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.3 requires construction equipment equipped with mufflers and directed away from the noise sensitive receptors. Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.4 requires equipment staging areas to be located at the greatest distance to noise sensitive receptors to the south of the Specific Plan site. Last, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.5 requires haul truck deliveries to occur during the City’s permitted construction hours and haul routes to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to delivery truck-related noise. With the implementation of Specific Plan EIR 5489
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 72
Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 through 4.5.5, construction noise levels would be reduced but still exceed the 65 dBA Leq construction noise level threshold due to the close proximity to noise-sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Operations of the Specific Plan would create a substantial permanent increase in trafficrelated noise levels and expose people to noise levels in excess of the exterior noise level standards at the adjacent land uses along nearby roadways. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur. In addition, because the Specific Plan vehicular-source noise would be additive to already unacceptable and cumulatively significant ambient noise conditions, vehicular-source noise impacts would also be cumulatively considerable. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce the Specific Plan’s cumulative traffic noise impact on off-site adjacent land uses, and impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. The Specific Plan EIR also analyzed exterior and interior traffic noise impact on future on-site residential uses and concluded that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.6 through 4.5.8, which require noise barriers for first floor residential patio areas adjacent to Inland Empire Boulevard, mechanical ventilation for all residential uses, and upgraded windows for second floor residential facades facing Inland Empire Boulevard.

Buildout associated with Specific Plan would result in new types of stationary noise sources, including drive-through speakerphones, parking lot activities, and distribution warehouse facilities. According to the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan operation would not cause or result in an exceedance of the maximum acceptable ambient noise levels of 65 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime. Operations associated with buildout of the Specific Plan would also not result in an increase of 1.5 dBA or greater in instances where noise levels without the Specific Plan already exceed the maximum acceptable ambient condition. As such, a less than significant impact would occur.

However, to further reduce potential operational noise levels, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.9 through 4.5.13 are proposed, which require construction of noise barriers, installation of mufflers on trucks, tractors, and forklifts, and best practices for on-site trucks movement.

According to the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would not cause structural damage or human annoyance due to vibration, except for one sensitive receptor location during construction of Planning Area 1. As such, impacts would be potentially significant and Mitigation Measure 4.5.14 is required, which requires the operation of heavy equipment to occur during permitted construction hours and avoid the nearest sensitive receptor location whenever feasible. However, despite implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5.14, construction vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Regarding operational vibration impacts, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that operational activities would not generate excessive vibration levels and impacts would be less than significant.
5490
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 73
According to the Specific Plan EIR, impacts associated with the Specific Plan’s potential to expose people residing or working in the Specific Plan area to excessive airport noise levels is considered less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis
Existing Conditions
Sensitive Receptors
Human response to noise varies widely depending on the type of noise, time of day, and sensitivity of the receptor. Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of noise than the general population. Land uses considered sensitive by the State of California include schools, playgrounds, athletic facilities, hospitals, rest homes, rehabilitation centers, long-term care and mental care facilities. Generally, a sensitive receptor is identified as a location where human populations (especially children, senior citizens, and sick people) are present. Land uses less sensitive to noise are business, commercial, and professional developments. Noise receptors categorized as being least sensitive to noise include industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, and transit terminals. These types of land uses often generate high noise levels. Moderately sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, and outpatient clinics.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing multi-family residential uses located approximately 95 feet to the north of Planning Area 3.

Stationary Sources
The project site is surrounded by residential, commercial, and warehousing uses.

Stationary noise sources in the project vicinity include mechanical equipment and stationary noise sources from the industrial uses within the project vicinity. The noise associated with these stationary sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

Mobile Sources
Most of the existing noise in the project area is generated from vehicular sources along I10, Inland Empire Boulevard, and Archibald Avenue.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker International conducted four short-term noise measurements in the project vicinity on April 2, 2025.

The 10-minute measurements were taken between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Refer to Appendix C, Noise Data, for measurement locations. Short-term (Leq) measurements at these locations are considered representative of the noise levels in the project area 5491
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 74
throughout the day. The noise measurements were taken during “off-peak” (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this provides a more conservative baseline.

During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes are often low; as such, free-flowing traffic conditions before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels due to higher vehicle speeds.21 The most recent ambient noise levels measured are identified in Table 8, Noise Measurements. Furthermore, relevant hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) ambient noise levels collected on March 17, 2014 in areas adjacent to Planning Area 3 as presented in the Specific Plan EIR are also listed in Table 8 for informational purposes. However, as the 2025 measurements would more accurately represent existing conditions, 2025 ambient noise data are used throughout this analysis.

Table 8
Noise Measurements
Site
No. Location Leq(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Start Time
Noise Measurements Collected on April 2, 20251
NM-1 West of the multi-family residential building at
2505 East Date Palm Paseo 67.8 57.4 84.6 11:59 a.m.

NM-2
Near the multi-family residential building
approximately 100 feet east of the East Date
Palm Paseo and Inland Empire Boulevard
intersection

66.8 59.7 79.5 12:17 p.m.

NM-3 In front of the multi-family residential building
at 701 Via Dolcetto 69.0 52.7 87.4 12:42 p.m.

Site
No. Location
Hourly Noise Level
Daytime
(Leq dBA)
Hourly Noise Level
Nighttime
(Leq dBA)
Noise Measurements Collected on March 17, 20142
L-7
Located on the south side of Inland Empire
Boulevard across from the proposed Urban
Residential land use of the project site. (Across
the street from NM-2)

65.2 64.5
L-9
Located just north of the I-10 freeway
westbound on-ramp at Vineyard Avenue.
(Same location as NM-1)

64.8 62.2
Notes:

1. Refer to Appendix C, Noise Data, for the results of the field measurements and measurement locations.

2. Data from Urban Crossroads, Inc., Meredith International Centre Noise Impact Analysis, October 17, 2014; refer to Table 5-1, Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurements, and Exhibit 5-A, Noise Measurement Locations, for field measurements and a map of noise measurement locations.

Meteorological conditions were sunny, cool temperatures (61 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]), and wind speeds of approximately 6 miles per hour. Measured noise levels during the daytime measurements ranged from 66.8 to 69.0 dBA Leq. The sources of peak noise include traffic along the roadways. Noise monitoring equipment used for the ambient 21 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
5492
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 75
noise survey consisted of a Brüel & Kjær Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250 equipped with a Type 4189 pre-polarized microphone. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters. Refer to Appendix C for the results of the field measurement.

Construction Noise
The project proposes a mixed-use overlay across Planning Area 3 of the Specific Plan, allowing development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. There is no construction or development proposed as part of this project. Construction noise depends on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, limits of the proposed buildings and hardscapes, building heights, start and duration of construction phases, types and quantity of construction equipment to be used, trucks volume that depends on soil import and export volumes, hauling trips distance, etc., all of which cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, because implementation of the project does not propose any specific development and construction details are unknown, construction-related noise levels that may occur at any one time in any scale are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Therefore, construction noise is not quantified. Nonetheless, the proposed project would be subject to Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.1 through

4.5.5, which would help minimize the construction noise impacts through enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance and best management practices, which would be incorporated into construction plans and implemented during construction associated with new development near sensitive receptors. Furthermore, future developments within the project site would be subject to project-specific and site-specific discretionary approvals (including separate CEQA review) on a case-by-case basis to evaluate and mitigate, as needed, any project-specific environmental impacts.

Due to the proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses, the number of construction projects that may occur simultaneously, and the potential duration of construction activities, construction noise impacts could still result in a temporary substantial increase in noise levels above ambient conditions and exceedance of the 65 dBA Leq threshold used in Specific Plan EIR. Although the proposed project allows additional commercial and residential areas on the project site compared to the Specific Plan, construction activities would not be located any closer to the nearest sensitive receptors as the proposed project does not change the project site boundary. This project proposes similar land use types as the already permitted urban commercial uses in Planning Area 3 as analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR, and therefore similar construction techniques, equipment, and anticipated levels of construction noise would be expected. Construction activities associated with the additional commercial and residential uses would also be spread across the project site and would not be concentrated near any sensitive receptors for an extended period of time. As such, future development associated with the proposed project would not generate noise levels beyond what was analyzed in Specific Plan EIR.

Therefore, similar to the Specific Plan, short-term construction noise impacts from the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. As such, the project would 5493
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 76
not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Construction Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities (i.e., grading, which typically generates the most vibration impacts) are typically estimated using reference vibration levels of construction equipment at 25 feet as established in the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual and evaluated against Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

Construction vibration depends on multiple factors, including, but not limited to, limits of the proposed buildings and hardscapes, building heights, start and duration of construction phases, types and numbers of construction equipment to be used, etc., all of which cannot be determined at this stage of the planning process. As such, because there is no specific construction or development proposed within the proposed project site at this time, construction-related vibration impacts that may occur at any one time in any scale are speculative and cannot be accurately determined at this stage of the planning process. Nonetheless, it is expected that ground-borne vibration from proposed project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Further, the proposed project would be subject to Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.5.14, which would help minimize the construction vibration impacts through enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Further, the proposed project proposes changes to Planning Area 3, while the Specific Plan EIR only found significant and unavoidable construction vibration impact during construction of Planning Area 1. As the proposed project does not change the boundary of Planning Area 3, future development would not generate vibration levels beyond what was analyzed in the Specific Plan EIR. Consistent with the Specific Plan EIR, the proposed project would result in less than significant construction vibration impacts during construction within Planning Area 3. Furthermore, future developments within the project site would be subject to project-specific and site-specific discretionary approvals (including separate CEQA review) on a case-by-case basis to evaluate and mitigate, as needed, any project-specific environmental impacts. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Operational Noise
Off-Site Mobile Noise
Future development within the proposed project area would result in additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby potentially increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing 5494
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 77
and proposed land uses. The most prominent source of mobile traffic noise in the project vicinity is along I-10, Inland Empire Boulevard, and Archibald Avenue. The nearest sensitive receptors are the existing multi-family residences located across Inland Empire Boulevard.

To assess the off-site traffic CNEL noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed project, noise level contours were developed based on proposed projectspecific traffic impact analysis. Noise level contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in CNEL from the center of the roadway. Noise contours were used to assess the proposed project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at land uses adjacent to roadways conveying proposed project-related traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contours do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the study area.

Table 9, Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project, compares conditions with and without the project for year 2017, which was a scenario presented in the Specific Plan EIR) and year 2035 future scenarios. It should be acknowledged that the Specific Plan EIR used traffic data for 2014 (the year the Specific Plan EIR was prepared) as the existing condition. However, as detailed in the Specific Plan EIR Section 4.2, Traffic and Circulation, Year 2017 Conditions reflects an interim development condition with the completion and occupancy of the Specific Plan’s Planning Area 1 (industrial land uses) together with approximately 86,000 square feet of commercial/retail space in Planning Area 2. As such, Year 2017 Conditions would be most consistent with existing condition and traffic data from year 2017 were used to represent the “existing condition” for this project. Consistent with the Specific Plan EIR, for existing conditions, this analysis utilizes the following significance criteria: when the “without project” noise levels already exceed the acceptable ambient noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, a project noise level increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater is considered a significant impact if nearby noise-sensitive receivers are affected.

As shown in Table 9, under existing conditions, no roadway segments would experience a project noise level increase of 1.5 dBA CNEL or greater. However, under the cumulative condition, several roadway segments would experience a project noise level increase of

1.5 dBA CNEL or greater. Therefore, project vehicular-source noise impacts would also be cumulatively considerable. Similar to the Specific Plan, no feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce off-site vehicular-source noise impacts to less than significant levels and thus, the mobile noise impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.
5495
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 78
Table 9
Traffic Noise Levels With and Without Project
Roadway Segment
Existing1 Existing +
Project1
Existing +
Project -
Existing1
Cumulative
(Future with
Project) 1
Cumulative
- Existing1,2
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Difference
In dBA
Between
Existing
and
Existing +
Project
dBA CNEL
@ 100 Feet
from
Roadway
Centerline
Difference
In dBA
CNEL
Between
Cumulative
and
Existing
4th Street, West of
Archibald Avenue, East
of Hellman Avenue

65.2 65.8 0.5 67.4 2.1
4th Street, East of
Archibald Avenue 66.2 66.2 0.0 67.5 1.3
Inland Empire
Boulevard, East of
Archibald Avenue

63.0 63.5 0.5 65.1 2.1
Inland Empire
Boulevard, West of
Haven Avenue

63.7 64.0 0.2 65.1 1.3
Inland Empire
Boulevard, East of
Haven Avenue

63.6 63.9 0.2 64.8 1.1
Archibald Avenue, North
of 4th Street 65.2 66.2 1.0 67.3 2.1
Archibald Avenue, North
of Inland Empire
Boulevard

67.1 68.3 1.2 69.4 2.3
Archibald Avenue, South
of Inland Empire
Boulevard

68.3 69.3 1.0 70.6 2.3
Notes:

1. Modeling was prepared with Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77- 108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVNO) Emissions Levels; refer to Appendix C. Existing (Year 2017 Conditions as it most accurately represent existing conditions) ADTs are based on the Specific Plan EIR Appendix F, Noise Impact Analysis. With-project ADTs are based on traffic data prepared for the project.

2. Bolded values indicate the identified significance threshold has been exceeded.

Refer to Appendix C.

Stationary Operational Noise
The proposed project would allow for up to up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation. The main stationary noise source typical for commercial and residential uses would be mechanical equipment.

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units would be installed on the roof of future commercial and multi-family residential buildings. Typically, mechanical 5496
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 79
equipment, such as HVAC units, generates noise levels of 66 dBA at 3 feet from the source.22 Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling distance from the source. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project site are the existing multi-family residential uses to the north, located approximately 95 feet measured from the proposed project site boundary. As a conservative analysis, it is assumed that the HVAC units would be located at the project boundary. At 95 feet, noise levels from HVAC units would be approximately 36 dBA, which would not exceed the City’s exterior (65 dBA during daytime and 45 dBA during nighttime; refer to Municipal Code Section 5-29.04, Exterior Noise Standard) noise standards at the nearest sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the noise level would not exceed the ambient noise level (65.7 dBA; refer to Table 8) at the nearest sensitive receptors. As such, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Conclusion
It should be noted that as the proposed project is not located in Planning Area 4 and does not propose industrial uses, Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.5.9 through 4.5.13 do not apply. Therefore, long-term operational stationary noise impacts related to implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Operational Vibration
Long-term operation of the commercial and residential uses of the proposed project would not include or require equipment, facilities, or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration. As such, it can be reasonably inferred that operations associated with the proposed project would not create perceptible vibration impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant, consistent with Specific Plan EIR. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Airport Noise
The project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area according to Policy Map 2-1 of the ONT ALUCP.23 Since the project site is located within the ONT Airport Influence Area, the proposed project is subject to the Noise Criteria established in the ONT ALUCP.

As shown in ONT ALUCP Exhibit 1-9, Compatibility Factors: Noise, the southern portion 22 Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015.
23 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2018 Amendment, Map 2-1, Compatibility Policy Map: Airport Influence Area, https://www.ont-iac.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/ONT-AIA-policy-map-2-1.pdf, accessed March 21, 2025. 5497
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 80
of the project site is located within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL airport noise level contours. 24 According to the ONT ALUCP Table 2-3, Noise Criteria, commercial uses within the 60 to 65 dBA CNEL is considered a normally compatible land use and residential uses are conditionally compatible uses so long as the residential building structures meet an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
25 Future development plan(s) for the site would
be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination to ensure anticipated uses are consistent with the ONT ALUCP. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.5.1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise-generating Project construction activities shall occur between the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, or Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. The Project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the City shall conduct periodic inspection at its discretion.

4.5.2 Install temporary noise control barriers that provide a minimum noise level attenuation of 10.0 dBA when Project construction occurs near existing noise-sensitive structures. The noise control barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barrier must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise source. Unnecessary openings shall not be made.
• The noise barriers must be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. • The noise control barriers and associated elements shall be completely removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity.

4.5.3 During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receivers nearest the Project site.
24 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2018 Amendment, Exhibit 1-9, Compatibility Factors: Noise, https://www.ont-iac.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/ONT-compatibility-Exhibit-1-9-July-2018-Amendment.pdf, accessed January 7, 2025.
25 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2018 Amendment, Table 2-3, Noise Criteria, https://www.ont-iac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ALUCPChap-2-Table-2-3-Noise-Criteria-Amendment-July-2018-Final-Doc.pdf, accessed January 7, 2025. 5498
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 81

4.5.4 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receivers nearest the Project site (i.e., to the south) during all Project construction.

4.5.5 The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, or Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays). The Project Applicant shall prepare a haul route exhibit for review and approval by the City of Ontario Planning Division prior to commencement of construction activities. The haul route exhibit shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.

4.5.6 First floor residential patio areas adjacent to Inland Empire Boulevard shall include the construction of 6-foot high noise barriers.

4.5.7 All residential uses proposed within the Specific Plan shall be equipped with a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning).

4.5.8 All second floor residential façades facing Inland Empire Boulevard shall require upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of 29.

4.5.14 The operation of heavy equipment shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, or Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, and avoided at the Project site boundary nearest receiver location R4 whenever feasible.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.8 Transportation
Specific Plan EIR Findings
As detailed in the Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan does not present elements or aspects that would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Although the Specific Plan may result in increased demand for public transportation due to increases in population and employment, transit agencies routinely review and adjust their ridership schedules to accommodate public demand, and the need for transit-related facilities would be coordinated between the City and future development applicants as part of the City’s development review process. As such, impacts were determined to be less than significant in this regard.
5499
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 82
The Specific Plan EIR determined that compliance with the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) Program and payment of Fair Share Fees (Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.5 through 4.2.9) would fulfill mitigation requirements for Specific Plan’s contributions to potentially significant traffic/transportation impacts at facilities under the sole jurisdiction of the City of Ontario. However, at extra-jurisdictional or shared jurisdictional locations, the Specific Plan EIR determined that future projects in these locations would be subject to potentially significant traffic/transportation impacts, and project compliance with the City’s DIF Program and payment of Fair Share Fees would not ensure timely completion of required improvements. Further, at certain study area locations, implementation of required improvements would require additional right-of-way, acquisition of which may not feasible. Potentially significant Specific Plan-related traffic/transportation (intersection level-of-service [LOS]) impacts at extra-jurisdictional or shared jurisdictional locations, or at locations where additional right-of-way be required, were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Further, the Specific Plan EIR concluded that traffic-related impacts at several study intersections associated with the development of the Specific Plan were also considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Traffic impacts at the following study area intersections were determined to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable under at least one of the analysis scenarios (i.e., Existing Conditions, Year 2017 Conditions, Year 2020 Conditions, and/or Year 2035 Conditions):
• Archibald Avenue at Arrow Route (Intersection #2)
• Baker Avenue at 8th Street (Intersection #3)
• Hellman Avenue at 6th Street (Intersection #9)
• Haven Avenue at 6th Street (Intersection # 12)
• I-10 EB Ramp at 4th Street (Intersection #14)
• Vineyard Avenue at 4th Street (Intersection #20)
• Archibald Avenue at 4th Street (Intersection #23)
• Haven Avenue at 4th Street (Intersection #25)
• Archibald Avenue at Inland Empire Boulevard (Intersection #28) • Vineyard Avenue at I-10 EB Ramps (Intersection #32)
It was also determined that Specific Plan-generated traffic would contribute to cumulatively significant impacts affecting freeway facilities within the study area. As discussed in the Specific Plan EIR, there are no feasible means for project applicants or the City to mitigate cumulatively significant freeway facilities impacts, and these impacts are accordingly recognized as cumulatively significant and unavoidable.

With regard to hazards from design features or incompatible uses, and emergency access, the Specific Plan EIR noted that the final design of future site plans would be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer in order to ensure appropriate design and implementation of all circulation improvements within the Specific Plan. In addition, it was noted that the City of Ontario Police and Fire Departments would review the future site plans in regard to emergency access. The Specific Plan EIR further noted that efficient and safe operations would be provided by on-site and localized circulation and 5500
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 83
intersection improvements included as components of the Specific Plan. Overall, impacts would be less than significant.

The Specific Plan EIR also determined that the Specific Plan’s impact to change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis
Plans for Transit, Roadway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The proposed Mixed-Use Overlay would accommodate residential and commercial/retail uses within Planning Area 3, including up to 1,400 residential units and 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail use. Similar to buildout of the Specific Plan, all future proposed circulation improvements within Planning Area 3, including those related to transit, vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, would be designed in accordance with local established standards to ensure existing and planned circulation facilities in the project area are not adversely impacted by future development on-site. Future development plan and site plan(s) would be reviewed by various City departments to ensure vehicular and alternative transportation facilities can maintain existing and planned services. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Intersection Operations Analysis
The Specific Plan EIR did not evaluate VMT impacts as it was not required in the CEQA Guidelines at the time the Specific Plan EIR was prepared in 2015. Instead, the Specific Plan EIR evaluated transportation/traffic impacts utilizing the LOS methodology and LOSbased analysis is therefore provided in this Addendum. As such, intersection operations analysis was conducted to determine potential LOS changes upon implementation of the proposed project. Michael Baker International prepared the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 3 – Focused Traffic Study (Focused Traffic Study), dated November 20, 2025, to evaluate the project’s transportation impacts; refer to Appendix D, Focused Traffic Study.

The proposed project is anticipated to generate 10,670 net new trips, including 719 a.m. peak hour trips and 941 p.m. peak hour trips. An intersection operational analysis was conducted at eight intersections in the project area to determine if project-generated traffic would negatively affect intersection operations. The eight intersections evaluated in the Focused Traffic Study include:
• #10 Archibald Avenue and 6th Street;
• #20 Vineyard Avenue and 4th Street;
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street;
• #27 Vineyard Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard;
5501
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 84
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard;
• #33 Archibald Avenue and I-10 Ramp Single-Point Interchange (SPI); • #40 Project Driveway “C” and Inland Empire Boulevard; and • #41 Project Driveway “D” and Inland Empire Boulevard.

To remain consistent with the previous Specific Plan EIR analysis, the trip distribution for the proposed project was intentionally made to match the trip distribution from the Specific Plan EIR analysis. Appendix A of the Focused Traffic Study contains the original trip distribution for Planning Area 3 used in the original Transportation Impact Assessment conducted in 2015 and included as Appendix C, Traffic Impact Analysis, of the Specific Plan EIR (Traffic Impact Analysis, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment, Ontario, California, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, dated January 22, 2015 [2015 TIA]). Further, the Focused Traffic Study utilized Highway Capacity Manual 2000, using Synchro Software (Version 12) to remain consistent with the 2015 TIA analysis. The analysis utilized the same baseline “without project” volumes documented in the 2015 TIA. The “plus project” conditions reflect identical trips for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4; only the estimated trips for Planning Area 3 were updated for this analysis. The intent of the Focused Traffic Study analysis is to determine if new traffic impacts are identified at these study intersections and if the proposed improvements documented in the 2015 TIA are sufficient to mitigate any new potential impacts.

Additionally, intersection operational thresholds remain consistent with those used in the 2015 TIA.

The following study scenarios were evaluated:
• Existing Plus Project (Planning Area 1-4);
• Year 2020 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project (Planning Areas 1-4); and • Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project (Planning Areas 1-4).

Existing Plus Project Scenario
2015 TIA Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-1, 2015 TIA Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Existing Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA. As shown, the Specific Plan EIR determined that none of the study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS. As such, no significant impacts were identified at these intersections.

Proposed Project Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-2, Proposed Project Existing Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Existing Plus Project condition under the proposed project. As shown, under the existing plus project condition, all intersections would still operate at an acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds.
5502
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 85
Thus, the analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the proposed project, the intersections’ operations under the Existing Plus Project Scenario do not degrade to unacceptable LOS compared to buildout of the Specific Plan and therefore, no new transportation impacts would occur in this regard.

Year 2020 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project Scenario 2015 TIA Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-3, 2015 TIA Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA and included in the Specific Plan EIR. As shown, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour; and
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour.

As such, a significant impact was identified for these locations. Mitigation improvements were included in the 2015 TIA and Specific Plan EIR to improve the LOS of these intersections. The following improvements were proposed for the intersections and are required pursuant to Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2.3:
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street
o Construct 2nd northbound left turn lane
o Additional northbound through lane
o Modify traffic signal
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard
o Construct 3rd northbound left turn lane
o Additional southbound through lane
o Modify traffic signal
The 2015 TIA and Specific Plan EIR concluded that with the implementation of these improvements per Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 4.2.3 the potentially significant impacts at the two identified intersections would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Proposed Project Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-4, Proposed Project Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2020 Cumulative Plus Project condition under the proposed project. Similar to the 2015 TIA and Specific Plan EIR findings, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
5503
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 86
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour; and
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour.

With the implementation of identical mitigation improvements developed in the 2015 TIA and included in Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.3, all intersections under the Year 2020 Cumulative Traffic Conditions Plus Project would operate at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds. Thus, the analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the proposed project, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS compared to buildout of the Specific Plan and therefore, no new transportation impacts would occur in this regard.

Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Scenario
2015 TIA Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-5, 2015 TIA Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project condition documented in the 2015 TIA and Specific Plan EIR.

As shown, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• #20 Vineyard Avenue and 4th Street – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour;
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour; and
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour.

As such, a potentially significant impact was identified for these locations. Mitigation improvements were developed to improve the LOS of these intersections. The following improvements were proposed for the intersections and are required pursuant to Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.3 and 4.2.4:
• #20 Vineyard Avenue and 4th Street
o Construct additional southbound through lane
o Modify traffic signal
• #23 Archibald Avenue and 4th Street
o Construct 2nd northbound left turn lane
o Additional northbound through lane
o Modify traffic signal
• #28 Archibald Avenue and Inland Empire Boulevard
o Construct 3rd northbound left turn lane
o Additional southbound through lane
o Modify traffic signal
5504
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 87
As shown, with the implementation of these improvements per Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, the Specific Plan EIR determined that the potentially significant impacts at the identified intersections would be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Proposed Project Findings
Focused Traffic Study Table 4-6, Proposed Project Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Intersection Analysis Results, summarizes the analysis results for the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project condition under the proposed project. Similar to the 2015 TIA and Specific Plan EIR findings, most intersections operate at acceptable LOS for both peak hours with the exception of:
• #20 Vineyard Avenue and 4th Street – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour;
• #23 Archibald Ave and 4th St – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour; and • #28 Archibald Ave and Inland Empire Blvd – operates at LOS F during the PM Peak Hour.

With the implementation of identical mitigation improvements developed in the 2015 TIA and included in Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, all intersections under the Year 2035 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Scenario would operate at acceptable LOS based on individual intersection thresholds. Thus, the analysis indicates that, with the inclusion of the mitigation improvements developed in the 2015 TIA and included in the Specific Plan EIR, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS compared to buildout of the Specific Plan and therefore, no new transportation impacts would occur in this regard.

Conclusion
Overall, the analysis for all three scenarios indicates that, with the implementation of identical mitigation improvements developed in the 2015 TIA and included in Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, the intersections’ operations do not degrade to unacceptable LOS. Therefore, outside of the impacts identified in the 2015 TIA, no new transportation impacts would occur due to the proposed project. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Hazardous Design Feature or Incompatible Use
Similar to development elsewhere within the Specific Plan area, all future roadway improvements within Planning Area 3 in accordance with the project must be designed in accordance with Caltrans and City established standards for roadway design, signing, striping, sight distance and be subject to review by the City. Compliance with existing Caltrans and City standards would be verified as part of the site plan review process for 5505
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 88
future development plans within Planning Area 3. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Inadequate Emergency Access
Temporary and short-term traffic detours and traffic disruption could result from construction activities related to future development within Planning Area 3. Management and control of construction traffic would be addressed through the preparation and submittal of a Construction Area Traffic Management Plan that would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to or concurrent with future building plan review(s). A Construction Area Traffic Management Plan would identify traffic controls for any street closures and detours, construction vehicle access routes, hours of construction traffic, or other potential disruptions to traffic circulation during construction.

Further, all future roadway improvements within Planning Area 3 would be designed in accordance with Caltrans and City established standards for roadway design, signing, striping, sight distance and be subject to review by the City. In accordance with City policies, coordination with the Ontario Fire Department and Ontario Police Department during site plan review of future development plans for Planning Area 3 would ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.2.3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay requisite fees toward the construction of Year required 2020 improvements as summarized at Table 4.2-21 at the intersections of:
• Archibald Avenue at Arrow Route (Study Area Intersection 2); • I-10 EB Ramp at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 14); • Archibald Avenue at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 23); • Haven Avenue at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 25); • Archibald Avenue at Inland Empire Boulevard (Study Area Intersection 28); and
• Vineyard Avenue at I-10 EB Ramps (Study Area Intersection 32).

4.2.4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay requisite fees toward the construction of Year 2035 improvements as summarized at Table 4.2-24 at the intersections of:
• Archibald Avenue at Arrow Route (Study Area Intersection 2); • Baker Avenue at 8th Street (Study Area Intersection 3); 5506
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 89
• Hellman Avenue at 6th Street (Study Area Intersection 9); • Haven Avenue at 6th Street (Study Area Intersection 12); • Vineyard Avenue at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 20); • Archibald Avenue at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 23); • Haven Avenue at 4th Street (Study Area Intersection 25); and • Archibald Avenue at Inland Empire Boulevard (Study Area Intersection 28).

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.9 Tribal Cultural Resources
Specific Plan EIR Findings
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was enacted in July 1, 2015 and expanded CEQA by establishing a formal consultation process for California tribes within the CEQA process.

Section 21074 of AB 52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called tribal cultural resources. Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is either listed on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or include in a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. AB 52 was not in effect at the time the Specific Plan EIR was certified.

The analysis provided in the Cultural Resources section of the Specific Plan EIR did not identify any historical or archaeological resources, including Native American resources.

In addition, no comments were received from Native American tribes on the Specific Plan EIR when it was circulated for public review. However, the Specific Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.7 to address impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Proposed Project Analysis
AB 52 states that prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, a lead agency shall begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requested to the lead agency, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation. As this environmental document (i.e., an Addendum) is not a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, AB 52 consultation would not apply to the proposed project.
5507
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 90
The analysis provided in the Cultural Resources section of the Specific Plan EIR did not identify any historical or archaeological resources, including Native American resources.

Thus, upon review, there is no further information regarding the potential presence of tribal cultural resources on the project site. Further, the Specific Plan EIR included Mitigation Measures 4.11.1 through 4.11.7 to address impacts to tribal cultural resources.

These measures include requirements for Native American monitors during excavation/grading, procedures for halting work if artifacts are found during grounddisturbing activities, and provisions for notification/consultation with affected tribes regarding the recovery, treatment, and disposition of artifacts. Future development in accordance with the proposed project would be required to implement Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 4.11 through 4.17. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures:

4.11.1 Prior to development approval on the Project site and issuance of any grading, building, or other permit authorizing ground-disturbing activity, the Project Applicant(s) shall include the following wording on all construction contract documentation:
“If during grading or construction activities, cultural resources are discovered on the Project site, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and the resources shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist and any affected Tribes (Tribes). Any unanticipated cultural resources that are discovered shall be evaluated and a final report prepared by the qualified archeologist. The report shall include a list of the resources discovered, documentation of each site/locality, and interpretation of the resources identified, and the method of preservation and/or recovery for identified resources. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified archaeologist and the Tribe determines the resources to be historic or unique, avoidance and/or mitigation would be required pursuant to and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement required under Mitigation Measure 4.9.2.”

4.11.2 At least 30 days prior to seeking a grading permit, the Project Applicant(s) shall contact potentially affected Tribes to notify the Tribes of grading, excavation, and the monitoring program and to coordinate with the City of Ontario and the Tribes to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, outlining provisions and requirements for addressing the treatment of cultural resources; Project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any 5508
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 91
cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site; and establishing on-site monitoring provisions and/or requirements for professional Tribal monitors during all ground-disturbing activities. A copy of this signed agreement shall be provided to the Planning Director and Building Official prior to the issuance of the first grading permit.

4.11.4 All cultural materials, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods, and human remains, which will be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement required by Mitigation Measure 4.9.2, that are collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archeological studies or excavations on the Project site shall be curated according to the current professional repository standards. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the affected Tribe’s/Tribes’ curation facility(ies), which meets the standards set forth in 36 CRF Part 79 for federal repositories.

4.11.6 Prior to development approval on the Project site and issuance of any grading, building, or other permit authorizing ground-disturbing activity, the 5509
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 92
Project Applicant(s) shall include the following wording on all construction contract documentation:
“If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological resources are discovered during grading, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery. The developer, the Project archeologist, and the Tribe(s) shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. If the developer and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the City of Ontario Planning Director. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe(s). Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the City of Ontario. In the event the significant resources are recovered and if the qualified archaeologist determines the resources to be historic or unique as defined by relevant state and local law, avoidance and mitigation would be required pursuant to and consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4.”

However, monitoring may be discontinued as soon the qualified professional is satisfied that construction will not disturb cultural and/or paleontological resources.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.

3.2.10 Utilities and Service Systems
Specific Plan EIR Findings
The Initial Study prepared for the Specific Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to water quality would be less than significant. Regarding water supply demand and wastewater treatment capacities, the Specific Plan EIR determined that Specific Plan buildout would result in an incremental increase in an area-wide need for these services, but that this would be accommodated by available water sources and treatment capacities. As such, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Regarding stormwater drainage, the Specific Plan EIR determined that adherence to existing regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Regarding solid waste disposal, the Specific Plan EIR determined that current and future landfill capacities would be available to accommodate buildout of the Specific Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.
5510
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 93
Proposed Project Analysis
Water Service and Supply
The project proposes to modify the Specific Plan to include a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 of the Specific Plan area, allowing the development of up to 1,400 residential units and up to 50,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses. OMUC provides water services to the City of Ontario, including the project site. The City of Ontario Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply (WSA), prepared by Albert A. Webb Associates, and dated November 4, 2025, evaluated water demands associated with the proposed project; refer to Appendix E.

Based on the WSA, the project is projected to result in a water demand of approximately 260 AFY; refer to WSA Table 2-5, Proposed Project Water Demand. In comparison, the estimated total water demand of Planning Area 3 as presented in the 2020 UWMP, dated June 2021, is approximately 143 AFY. Thus, the project would result in an increase of approximately 117 AFY compared to what was assumed for the project site in the 2020 UWMP. However, the WSA notes that the unit water demand factor for the proposed high density residential component of the project (i.e., 1,400 units) is a highly conservative value for the project and potable water demand for this use is likely overestimated.

Additionally, the WSA notes that the City’s forthcoming water master plan update and 2025 UWMP will assume a conservative total water demand for Planning Area 3 to be 274 AFY (i.e., greater than the 143 AFY assumed in the 2020 UWMP and greater than the project’s estimated water demand of 260 AFY).

The WSA concluded that current OMUC water production capacities are greater than needed to meet the average day demands under Citywide buildout conditions. OMUC also has forecasted that excess water supplies will be available to meet Citywide demand during normal, single-dry, and multiple dry water years over the next 20 years; refer to WSA Table 3-8, OMUC Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand (AFY), Table 3-9, OMUC Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY), and Table 3-10, OMUC Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY). Therefore, the WSA concluded that OMUC’s total projected potable and recycled water supplies during normal, singledry, and multiple dry water years over a 20-year projection would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project in addition to OMUC’s existing and planned future uses; project impacts would be less than significant. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Wastewater Treatment
Similar to Specific Plan buildout, buildout of the project would generate additional wastewater compared to existing conditions, which could increase sewer flows and increase demand on the wastewater treatment provider. However, the Specific Plan EIR determined that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) currently has surplus collection 5511
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 94
and treatment capacity in its wastewater systems. Additionally, the increase in population and employment growth induced by the proposed project would be within Citywide forecasts.26 Further, according to TOP 2050 SEIR, IEUA has experienced a decrease in the volume of sewage flow of approximately 10 percent over the last 20 years, due to a decrease in indoor water consumption with new development compliance with California Green Building Standards Code and mandated water conservation efforts. The IEUA anticipates a significant increase in the growth of its service area in the next 10 years, with 40 percent growth resulting from new development in the City. The IEUA develops 10-year forecasts and specifies capital improvements that will be implemented to meet the increase in demand; further, future projects have been assumed in the IEUA’s Sewer System Management Plans. Future development projects would be required to pay sewer connection fees established by the City to pay for any future required improvements. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Stormwater Drainage
The proposed Mixed-Use Overlay would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces on-site after buildout compared to the analysis in the Specific Plan EIR. All future development would be required to adhere to applicable State and local stormwater regulations, including the Santa Ana RWQCB’s MS4 permit, San Bernardino County Stormwater Program, and low impact development (LID) criteria, that require postdevelopment stormwater discharge to be equal to or less than pre-development discharge. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum.

Solid Waste
Buildout of the project could increase solid waste generation and increase demand for solid waste services beyond the already permitted Urban Commercial uses in Planning Area 3. However, the Specific Plan EIR determined that adequate capacity was available at regional landfills, including the El Sobrante Landfill in the City of Corona. Additionally, the increased population and employment growth induced by the proposed project compared to Specific Plan buildout would be within Citywide forecasts.27 Further, future developments within Planning Area 3 would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), Assembly Bill (AB) 341, AB 1826, and applicable City policies regarding waste diversion and recycling. As such, the project would not result in a new significant environmental effect or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant environmental effect as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR and 2019 Addendum. 26 City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022. 27 City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022.
5512
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 95
Certified Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: None.

Addendum Project Conditions: None.
5513
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 96
This page intentionally left blank.
5514
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 97

4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION
As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed project constitutes minor or technical changes and do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects as compared to the conclusions of the Specific Plan EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Specific Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the Specific Plan EIR have occurred. As identified in the Specific Plan EIR, buildout of the Specific Plan would result in significant environmental impacts with regard to air quality, noise, and transportation. However, the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of these effects. In addition, there are no new or different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce these significant impacts. 5515
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 98
This page intentionally left blank.
5516
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 99

5.0 REFERENCES
Albert A. Webb Associates, City of Ontario Planning Area 3 of the Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification of Sufficient Water Supply, November 4, 2025.

Applied Planning, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report, March 2015.

California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan, November 16, 2022.

California Air Resources Board, RE: CARB Review of Southern California Association of Governments’ 2024 SCS Senate Bill 375 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Draft Technical Methodology, March 29, 2024.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/SCAG%20memo%20final.pdf, accessed February 13, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed March 5, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, California Mineral Resources Data Portal, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/, accessed March 25, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed March 5, 2025.

California Department of Conservation, Special Report 202: Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the ClaremontUpland Production-Consumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, 2007.

California Department of Conservation, Update of Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the Claremont-Upland ProductionConsumption Region, Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, California, 2007.

California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2024, with 2020 Benchmark, May 2024.

California Department of Forestry and Fire, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=988d431a42b242b2 9d89597ab693d008, accessed March 26, 2025.
5517
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 100
California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa, accessed March 5, 2025.

California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) January 2025 - Preliminary, March 14, 2025.

California Energy Commission, 2023 Integrated Energy Policy Report, page 130, July 14, 2024.

California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption, https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumptiondashboards-0, accessed September 22, 2025.

California Energy Commission, Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, page 140, May 10, 2023.

California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption,
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricitydata/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-1, accessed September 22, 2025.

City of Ontario, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364), The Ontario Plan 2050, August 2022.

City of Ontario, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan, revised by Resolution No. 2019-174, adopted December 17, 2019.

City of Ontario, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Addendum, November 15, 2019.

City of Ontario, Official Zoning Map, January 1, 2016.

City of Ontario, Ontario Municipal Code, current through Ordinance 3293, passed December 17, 2024.

City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050, Exhibit LU-01: Land Use Plan, January 27, 2010.

City of Ontario, The Ontario Plan 2050 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, August 2022.

Elliott H. Berger, Rick Neitzel, and Cynthia A. Kladden, Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with Over 1700 Measurement Values, June 26, 2015. 5518
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 101
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Traffic Impact Analysis, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment, Ontario, California, January 22, 2015.

Michael Baker International, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, September 2025.

Michael Baker International, Biological Resources Assessment for Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California, September 15, 2025.

Michael Baker International, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Planning Area 3 – Focused Traffic Study, November 20, 2025.

Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, July 2018 Amendment, 2018.

Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy – Connect SoCal, September 3, 2020. 5519
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Draft | December 2025 102
This page intentionally left blank.
5520
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDICES
5521
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY/GHG EMISSIONS/ENERGY DATA
5522
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
1 / 47
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
5523
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
2 / 47

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
5524
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
3 / 47

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
5525
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
4 / 47

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated
5526
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
5 / 47

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
5527
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
6 / 47

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
5528
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
7 / 47

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Ontario Meredith SPA
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.8
Precipitation (days) 21
Location 34.06939461223625, -117.59628637815813
County San Bernardino-South Coast
City Ontario
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 5241
EDFZ 10
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Regional Shopping
Center
50 1000sqft 1.00 50,000 5,000 0.00 — Assume 10 percent
of site area for
landscaping
5529
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
8 / 47
Apartments Low
Rise
1,400 Dwelling Unit 24 1,484,000 148,400 0.00 4,634 Assume 10 percent of site area for
landscaping

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 166 121 68 785 2.2 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,967 135,165 144,132 115 4.5 294 148,659 Mit. 166 121 68 785 2.2 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,762 135,165 143,927 95 4.5 294 147,941 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 2% — < 0.5% 18% — — < 0.5%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 156 111 70 646 2.1 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,967 129,251 138,219 115 4.7 18 142,512 Mit. 156 111 70 646 2.1 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,762 129,251 138,014 95 4.7 18 141,794 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 2% — < 0.5% 18% — — 1%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 87 80 47 385 0.97 4.6 78 83 4.4 20 24 1,271 106,947 108,218 79 4.7 133 111,713 5530
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
9 / 47
Mit. 87 80 47 385 0.97 4.6 78 83 4.4 20 24 1,066 106,947 108,013 58 4.7 133 110,995 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 16% — < 0.5% 26% — — 1%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 16 15 8.7 70 0.18 0.83 14 15 0.80 3.6 4.4 210 17,706 17,917 13 0.77 22 18,495 Mit. 16 15 8.7 70 0.18 0.83 14 15 0.80 3.6 4.4 176 17,706 17,883 9.7 0.77 22 18,376 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 16% — < 0.5% 26% — — 1%

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 43 39 36 349 0.89 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 91,410 91,410 4.0 4.1 283 93,015 Area 122 82 26 433 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,278 33,540 39 0.05 — 34,532 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 586 0.00 586 59 0.00 — 2,051 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 166 121 68 785 2.2 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,967 135,165 144,132 115 4.5 294 148,659 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 41 37 39 292 0.83 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 85,718 85,718 4.2 4.2 7.3 87,090 Area 114 74 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 586 0.00 586 59 0.00 — 2,051 5531 Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
10 / 47
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 156 111 70 646 2.1 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,967 129,251 138,219 115 4.7 18 142,512 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 41 36 39 303 0.84 0.59 78 79 0.55 20 20 — 86,603 86,603 4.2 4.3 122 88,099 Area 46 43 2.3 80 0.09 3.5 — 3.5 3.4 — 3.4 566 1,868 2,434 2.7 < 0.005 — 2,502 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 586 0.00 586 59 0.00 — 2,051 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 87 80 47 385 0.97 4.6 78 83 4.4 20 24 1,271 106,947 108,218 79 4.7 133 111,713 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.4 6.6 7.2 55 0.15 0.11 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,338 14,338 0.69 0.71 20 14,586 Area 8.4 7.9 0.41 15 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.61 — 0.61 94 309 403 0.44 < 0.005 — 414 Energy 0.13 0.06 1.1 0.47 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,953 2,953 0.22 0.02 — 2,963 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20 106 125 2.0 0.05 — 191
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 97 0.00 97 9.7 0.00 — 340
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8
Total 16 15 8.7 70 0.18 0.83 14 15 0.80 3.6 4.4 210 17,706 17,917 13 0.77 22 18,495

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 43 39 36 349 0.89 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 91,410 91,410 4.0 4.1 283 93,015 Area 122 82 26 433 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,278 33,540 39 0.05 — 34,532 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 5532
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
11 / 47
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38 0.00 — 1,333 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 166 121 68 785 2.2 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,762 135,165 143,927 95 4.5 294 147,941 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 41 37 39 292 0.83 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 85,718 85,718 4.2 4.2 7.3 87,090 Area 114 74 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38 0.00 — 1,333 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 156 111 70 646 2.1 52 79 131 50 20 70 8,762 129,251 138,014 95 4.7 18 141,794 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 41 36 39 303 0.84 0.59 78 79 0.55 20 20 — 86,603 86,603 4.2 4.3 122 88,099 Area 46 43 2.3 80 0.09 3.5 — 3.5 3.4 — 3.4 566 1,868 2,434 2.7 < 0.005 — 2,502 Energy 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 17,838 17,838 1.3 0.09 — 17,898 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38 0.00 — 1,333 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total 87 80 47 385 0.97 4.6 78 83 4.4 20 24 1,066 106,947 108,013 58 4.7 133 110,995 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.4 6.6 7.2 55 0.15 0.11 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,338 14,338 0.69 0.71 20 14,586 Area 8.4 7.9 0.41 15 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.61 — 0.61 94 309 403 0.44 < 0.005 — 414 Energy 0.13 0.06 1.1 0.47 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,953 2,953 0.22 0.02 — 2,963 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 20 106 125 2.0 0.05 — 191
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 63 0.00 63 6.3 0.00 — 221
5533
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
12 / 47
Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8
Total 16 15 8.7 70 0.18 0.83 14 15 0.80 3.6 4.4 176 17,706 17,883 9.7 0.77 22 18,376

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

9.2 8.1 9.0 90 0.24 0.16 22 22 0.15 5.5 5.6 — 24,691 24,691 0.98 1.1 77 25,106 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
34 31 27 259 0.65 0.43 58 58 0.40 15 15 — 66,719 66,719 3.1 3.0 206 67,909 Total 43 39 36 349 0.89 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 91,410 91,410 4.0 4.1 283 93,015 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

8.7 7.6 9.7 74 0.23 0.16 22 22 0.15 5.5 5.6 — 23,141 23,141 1.00 1.1 2.0 23,492 Apartme
nts
Low Rise
32 29 29 218 0.61 0.43 58 58 0.40 15 15 — 62,577 62,577 3.2 3.1 5.3 63,598 Total 41 37 39 292 0.83 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 85,718 85,718 4.2 4.2 7.3 87,090 5534 Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
13 / 47
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

1.6 1.4 1.8 14 0.04 0.03 3.9 3.9 0.03 0.98 1.0 — 3,871 3,871 0.17 0.18 5.5 3,935 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

5.8 5.3 5.3 41 0.11 0.08 10 10 0.07 2.6 2.7 — 10,467 10,467 0.53 0.52 15 10,651 Total 7.4 6.6 7.2 55 0.15 0.11 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,338 14,338 0.69 0.71 20 14,586

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

8.7 7.6 9.7 74 0.23 0.16 22 22 0.15 5.5 5.6 — 23,141 23,141 1.00 1.1 2.0 23,492 5535
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
14 / 47
Apartme 32 29 29 218 0.61 0.43 58 58 0.40 15 15 — 62,577 62,577 3.2 3.1 5.3 63,598 nts
Total 41 37 39 292 0.83 0.59 79 80 0.55 20 21 — 85,718 85,718 4.2 4.2 7.3 87,090 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

1.6 1.4 1.8 14 0.04 0.03 3.9 3.9 0.03 0.98 1.0 — 3,871 3,871 0.17 0.18 5.5 3,935 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

5.8 5.3 5.3 41 0.11 0.08 10 10 0.07 2.6 2.7 — 10,467 10,467 0.53 0.52 15 10,651 Total 7.4 6.6 7.2 55 0.15 0.11 14 14 0.10 3.6 3.7 — 14,338 14,338 0.69 0.71 20 14,586

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 709 709 0.04 0.01 — 712
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 9,561 9,561 0.59 0.07 — 9,597
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,270 10,270 0.64 0.08 — 10,309 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5536
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
15 / 47
Regiona
Shopping
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 709 709 0.04 0.01 — 712
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 9,561 9,561 0.59 0.07 — 9,597
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,270 10,270 0.64 0.08 — 10,309 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 118
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,583 1,583 0.10 0.01 — 1,589
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,700 1,700 0.11 0.01 — 1,707

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 709 709 0.04 0.01 — 712
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 9,561 9,561 0.59 0.07 — 9,597
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,270 10,270 0.64 0.08 — 10,309 5537
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
16 / 47
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 709 709 0.04 0.01 — 712
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 9,561 9,561 0.59 0.07 — 9,597
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 10,270 10,270 0.64 0.08 — 10,309 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — 117 117 0.01 < 0.005 — 118
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,583 1,583 0.10 0.01 — 1,589
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,700 1,700 0.11 0.01 — 1,707

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 94 94 0.01 < 0.005 — 95 5538
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
17 / 47
Apartme 0.69 0.34 5.9 2.5 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,473 7,473 0.66 0.01 — 7,494 nts
Total 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,568 7,568 0.67 0.01 — 7,589 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 94 94 0.01 < 0.005 — 95 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.69 0.34 5.9 2.5 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,473 7,473 0.66 0.01 — 7,494 Total 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,568 7,568 0.67 0.01 — 7,589 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.13 0.06 1.1 0.46 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,237 1,237 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,241 Total 0.13 0.06 1.1 0.47 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,253 1,253 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,256

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5539
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
18 / 47
Regiona 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 94 94 0.01 < 0.005 — 95 l
Shoppin
g
Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.69 0.34 5.9 2.5 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,473 7,473 0.66 0.01 — 7,494 Total 0.70 0.35 6.0 2.6 0.04 0.48 — 0.48 0.48 — 0.48 — 7,568 7,568 0.67 0.01 — 7,589 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center

0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 94 94 0.01 < 0.005 — 95 Apartme
nts
Low Rise

0.13 0.06 1.1 0.46 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,237 1,237 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,241 Total 0.13 0.06 1.1 0.47 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 1,253 1,253 0.11 < 0.005 — 1,256

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 5540
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
19 / 47
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 79 39 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Consum
er
Product
s
33 33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.6 2.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

7.7 7.3 0.78 82 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 221 221 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 Total 122 82 26 433 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,278 33,540 39 0.05 — 34,532 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 79 39 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Consum
er
Product
s
33 33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.6 2.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 114 74 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.98 0.49 0.32 4.4 0.02 0.63 — 0.63 0.61 — 0.61 94 284 378 0.44 < 0.005 — 389 5541
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
20 / 47
Consum 6.0 6.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Product
s
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.47 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.97 0.92 0.10 10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25 25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25 Total 8.4 7.9 0.41 15 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.61 — 0.61 94 309 403 0.44 < 0.005 — 414

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 79 39 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Consum
er
Product
s
33 33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.6 2.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

7.7 7.3 0.78 82 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 221 221 0.01 < 0.005 — 222 Total 122 82 26 433 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,278 33,540 39 0.05 — 34,532 5542
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
21 / 47
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Hearths 79 39 25 352 1.2 51 — 51 49 — 49 8,262 25,057 33,319 39 0.05 — 34,310 Consum
er
Product
s
33 33 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

6.0 6.0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.47 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.97 0.92 0.10 10 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 25 25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 25 Total 8.4 7.9 0.41 15 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.61 — 0.61 94 309 403 0.44 < 0.005 — 414

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 5543
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
22 / 47
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 7.1 37 44 0.73 0.02— 68
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 112 601 713 12 0.28— 1,083
Total——————————— 119 639 758 12 0.29— 1,151
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 7.1 37 44 0.73 0.02— 68
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 112 601 713 12 0.28— 1,083
Total——————————— 119 639 758 12 0.29— 1,151
Annual——————————————————
Regiona l
Shoppin g
Center
——————————— 1.2 6.2 7.4 0.12 < 0.005— 11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
——————————— 19 100 118 1.9 0.05— 179
Total——————————— 20 106 125 2.0 0.05— 191

4.4.2. Mitigated
5544
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
23 / 47
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.1 37 44 0.73 0.02 — 68
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 112 601 713 12 0.28 — 1,083
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.1 37 44 0.73 0.02 — 68
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 112 601 713 12 0.28 — 1,083
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 119 639 758 12 0.29 — 1,151 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.2 6.2 7.4 0.12 < 0.005 — 11
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 19 100 118 1.9 0.05 — 179
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 20 106 125 2.0 0.05 — 191
5545
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
24 / 47

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 28 0.00 28 2.8 0.00 — 99
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 558 0.00 558 56 0.00 — 1,952
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 586 0.00 586 59 0.00 — 2,051 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 28 0.00 28 2.8 0.00 — 99
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 558 0.00 558 56 0.00 — 1,952
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 586 0.00 586 59 0.00 — 2,051 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.7 0.00 4.7 0.47 0.00 — 16
5546
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
25 / 47
Apartme
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 92 0.00 92 9.2 0.00 — 323
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 97 0.00 97 9.7 0.00 — 340

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00 — 64
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 363 0.00 363 36 0.00 — 1,269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38 0.00 — 1,333 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — 18 0.00 18 1.8 0.00 — 64
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 363 0.00 363 36 0.00 — 1,269
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 381 0.00 381 38 0.00 — 1,333 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5547
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
26 / 47
Regiona — — — — — — — — — — — 3.0 0.00 3.0 0.30 0.00 — 11 l
Shoppin
Center
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 60 0.00 60 6.0 0.00 — 210
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 63 0.00 63 6.3 0.00 — 221

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
5548
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
27 / 47
Apartme — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
nts
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5549
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
28 / 47
Regiona — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 0.24
l
Shoppin
g
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Regiona
l
Shoppin
g
Center
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Apartme
nts
Low Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.8 1.8

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5550
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
29 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —5551
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
30 / 47
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5552
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
31 / 47
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5553
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
32 / 47
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5554
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
33 / 47
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 5555
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
34 / 47
Vegetati TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e on
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 5556
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
35 / 47
Daily,——————————————————
Summer
(Max)
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
5557
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
36 / 47
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Regional Shopping
Center
2,029 2,029 2,029 740,403 30,337 30,337 30,337 11,072,908 Apartments Low
Rise
8,641 8,641 8,641 3,154,038 81,233 81,233 81,233 29,649,897

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Regional Shopping
Center
2,029 2,029 2,029 740,403 30,337 30,337 30,337 11,072,908 Apartments Low
Rise
8,641 8,641 8,641 3,154,038 81,233 81,233 81,233 29,649,897

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Regional Shopping Center Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Gas Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Electric Fireplaces 0 0
5558
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
37 / 47
Regional Shopping Center No Fireplaces 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 0
Regional Shopping Center Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Gas Fireplaces 1,190 1,190
Apartments Low Rise Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Apartments Low Rise No Fireplaces 140 140
Apartments Low Rise Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Apartments Low Rise Catalytic Wood Stoves 70 70
Apartments Low Rise Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 70 70
Apartments Low Rise Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
— Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
undefined 3,005,100 1,001,700 60,000 20,000 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
5559
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
38 / 47
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Regional Shopping Center 486,417 532 0.0330 0.0040 294,775 Apartments Low Rise 6,560,049 532 0.0330 0.0040 23,319,182

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Regional Shopping Center 486,417 532 0.0330 0.0040 294,775 Apartments Low Rise 6,560,049 532 0.0330 0.0040 23,319,182

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Regional Shopping Center 3,703,626 80,296
Apartments Low Rise 58,353,645 2,912,768

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Regional Shopping Center 3,703,626 80,296
Apartments Low Rise 58,353,645 2,912,768 5560
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
39 / 47

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Regional Shopping Center 53 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 1,035 0.00

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Regional Shopping Center 34 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 673 0.00

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced5561 Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
40 / 47
Regional Shopping
Center
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.0 4.0 18
Regional Shopping
Center
Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.5 2.5 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5562
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
41 / 47

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 20 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.1 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm 5563
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
42 / 47
Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 2 1 1 3 5564
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
43 / 47
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91
AQ-PM 98
AQ-DPM 68
Drinking Water 99
Lead Risk Housing 21
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 70
Traffic 82
Effect Indicators — 5565
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
44 / 47
CleanUp Sites 9.6
Groundwater 0.00
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 76
Impaired Water Bodies 44
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 61
Cardio-vascular 80
Low Birth Weights 58
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 59
Housing 55
Linguistic 60
Poverty 62
Unemployment 43

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 37.64917233
Employed 57.44899269
Median HI 38.70139869
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 25.15077634
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 32.04157577
Transportation —
5566
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
45 / 47
Auto Access 90.86359553
Active commuting 79.16078532
Social—
2-parent households 37.81598871
Voting 42.25587065
Neighborhood—
Alcohol availability 45.65635827
Park access 20.33876556
Retail density 37.89298088
Supermarket access 45.41254972
Tree canopy 30.50173232
Housing—
Homeownership 70.21686129
Housing habitability 83.25420249
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 80.35416399 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 95.11099705
Uncrowded housing 51.23829077
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 37.58501219
Arthritis 47.0
Asthma ER Admissions 22.7
High Blood Pressure 51.5
Cancer (excluding skin) 60.5
Asthma 37.3
Coronary Heart Disease 63.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 45.1
Diagnosed Diabetes 38.1
Life Expectancy at Birth 73.1
5567
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
46 / 47
Cognitively Disabled 32.0
Physically Disabled 59.0
Heart Attack ER Admissions 17.8
Mental Health Not Good 39.8
Chronic Kidney Disease 55.3
Obesity 35.5
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 41.5
Stroke 51.7
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 47.1
Current Smoker 42.3
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 43.7
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 64.0
Elderly 82.5
English Speaking 49.7
Foreign-born 60.4
Outdoor Workers 83.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 51.5
Traffic Density 93.2
Traffic Access 49.0
Other Indices—
Hardship 53.1
Other Decision Support—
5568
Ontario Meredith SPA Detailed Report, 11/4/2025
47 / 47
2016 Voting 54.9

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 76
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 43
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Yes Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data

8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Per PD and assume 10 percent for the landscape area. Total acreage adjusted to match PD.

Operations: Vehicle Data Per project trip generation analysis by MBI (Total PA-3 Net Trip Gen Potential) Operations: Hearths Wood fire places removed as SCAQMD Rule 445 prohibits the installation of any open or enclosed permanently installed wood burning device.

Operations: Architectural Coatings Per SCAQMD Rule 1113 5569
Meredith SPA Energy Calculations
Electricty and Natural Gas Usage
(kWh/yr) (MWh/yr) (kBTU/yr) (Therms/yr)
Regional Shopping Center 486,417 486 294,775 2,948
Apartments Low Rise 6,560,049 6,560 23,319,182 233,192
Total 7,046,466 7,046 23,613,957 236,140
Project Annual Energy
Consumption
San Bernardino County Annual
Energy Consumption (2022)1,2 Percentage Increase Countywide 7,046 16,206,401 0.0435%
236,140 547,159,228 0.0432%
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

1. County annual electricity consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Electricity Consumption, https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-0

2. County annual natural gas consumption data source: California Energy Commission, Natural Gas Consumption , https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energyconsumption-dashboards-1 Land Use
Natural Gas (therms)
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions regarding land use and energy consumptions used in this analysis.

Energy Type
Notes:

Electricity Use Natural Gas Use
Electricity (MWh)
5570
Meredith SPA Energy Calculations
Operation On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption
Vehicle Type
Percent of Vehicle
Trips1 Daily Trips2 Annual Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Average Fuel
Economy (miles
per gallon)3
Total Annual Fuel
Consumption (gallon)4
Passenger Cars 0.56 5,990 22,860,887 22 1,039,131
Light/Medium Trucks 0.39 4,117 15,713,872 17.3 908,316
Heavy Trucks/Other 0.05 563 2,148,047 6.4 335,632
Total -- 10,670 40,722,805 -- 2,283,080
2,283,080
1,099,671,804

0.2076%
Source: Refer to CalEEMod outputs for assumptions used in this analysis.

Notes:

1. Percent of Vehicle Trip distribution based on trip characteristics within the CalEEMod model and trip generation.

2. Daily Trips taken from trip generation.

3. Average fuel economy derived from the Department of Transportation.

Total Operational On-Road (Mobile) Fuel Consumption (gallon)

4. Total Daily Fuel Consumption calculated by dividing the daily VMT by the average fuel economy (i.e., VMT/Average Fuel Economy).

5. Countywide operational on-road fuel consumption are from CARB's EMFAC2021 Countywide On-Road Fuel Consumption (2027) (gallon) 5
Percentage Increase Countywide
5571
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL REPORTS
5572
5 Hutton Centre Drive #500 | Santa Ana, CA 92707
Office: 949-472-3505
September 15, 2025 JN 205836

CITY OF ONTARIO
David F. Eoff IV, Principal Planner
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment for Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California Dear David Eoff,
Michael Baker International, Inc. is pleased to submit this technical report documenting the results of a biological resources assessment for the proposed Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project (project) located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. The biological study area (BSA) included in this assessment incorporates the project’s limits of disturbance within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 011-032-129 and 011-032-174 through -177, totaling 25.8 acres, plus a 500-foot buffer (77.0 acres) for a total BSA of 102.8 acres. This report is intended to support the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The 25.8-acre project site is currently a vacant lot located within the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Attachment A, Figure 1, Regional Vicinity). The project site is generally bound by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, Archibald Avenue to the east, Interstate 10 (I-10) to the south, and a concrete wash to the west (Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creek), and is within Section 22 of Township 01 South, Range 07 West, of the Guasti, California 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Attachment A, Figure 2, Project Vicinity). Beyond the identified roadways, the project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, commercial development to the east, I-10 to the south, and commercial development beyond the channelized creeks to the west. The project site does not fall within any Natural Communities Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation (i.e., up to 400 hotel rooms and 250,000 square feet of commercial uses; a total buildout of 480,000 square feet) (Attachment A, Figure 3, Project Site). 5573
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 2

3.0 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located within a primarily commercial and high-density residential area within the City of Ontario. The project site is mostly flat with elevations ranging from approximately 970 to 980 feet above mean sea level, and has areas of bare ground and vegetation consistent with historic disturbance. One soil type was identified on-site utilizing the Web Soil Survey: Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil type is a very deep, well-drained soil that is formed from granitic sources and occurs in alluvial fans and floodplains, including urban areas.

4.0 METHODS

4.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field survey, Michael Baker conducted a thorough literature review and records search to characterize existing site conditions and assess the potential for special-status1 biological resources to occur that might pose a constraint to project implementation. A query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2025a) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2025) was conducted to obtain a list of special-status plant and wildlife species occurrence records within the USGS Prado Dam, Guasti, Ontario, Mt. Baldy, Cucamonga Peak, Corona North, Devore, Fontana, and Riverside West 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPaC online database was also reviewed to identify special-status species and other resources, such as critical habitat, known or expected to occur on the project site or within the immediate vicinity (USFWS 2025a). Other sources of information about the Project site and surrounding area include the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2025), the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2025b), Google Earth (2025), HistoricAerials.com (2025), and Calflora database (Calflora 2025). All the information obtained informed Michael Baker’s understanding of the BSA and assisted with the field survey and subsequent analysis. The results presented in this report provide a detailed assessment of the suitability of the habitat on-site to support special-status plant and wildlife species and other sensitive natural resources.

4.2 Habitat Assessment/Field Survey
Michael Baker biologist Stephen Anderson conducted a general biological resources survey and habitat assessment on August 5, 2025, between 0750 and 0945 to document existing conditions and conduct a habitat assessment for special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and aquatic resources. Weather conditions were hazy and slightly cloudy with temperatures ranging from 74 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit and wind speeds of 1 to 5 miles per hour. 1 Special-status refers to plant and wildlife species that are federal or state-listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated a California Rare Plant Rank of 1, 2, or 4 by the California Native Plant Society; wildlife species that are designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as Fully Protected, or Species of Special Concern; and other state or locally rare vegetation communities.
5574
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 3 Classification of the on-site vegetation communities and other land uses is based on the descriptions of terrestrial vegetation classification systems described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site vegetation communities, and the presence of potentially regulated jurisdictional features were noted. Michael Baker used geographic information systems (GIS) software to digitize the mapped vegetation communities and overlayed the data onto an aerial photograph to further analyze existing conditions and quantify the acreages of each vegetation community on-site.

All plant and wildlife species observed during the field survey were recorded. Plant species observed were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field while unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed and later identified using taxonomic guides. Plant species nomenclature and taxonomy follows The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), and scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). Wildlife detections were made through aural and visual detection, as well as observation of sign including scat, trails, tracks, burrows, and nests. Field guides used to assist with identification of species during the field survey included The Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2014) for birds, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) for herpetofauna, and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006) for mammals. Wildlife species taxonomy follows the North American Butterfly Association (NABA 2025) for butterflies, the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (Crother et al. 2017) for herpetofauna, the American Ornithological Society for birds (Chesser et al. 2024), and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals. Scientific names are provided immediately following common names of wildlife species (first reference only).

4.3 Special-Status Species Potential to Occur Assessment The potential for special-status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated based on:
• each species' known geographic distribution and elevation range; • species-specific habitat requirements (e.g., vegetation communities/land covers, soils, hydrology, slope/aspect, and other requirements);
• life history traits (e.g., disturbance tolerance); and • Michael Baker biologists’ expertise, knowledge, and best professional judgement.

Current and historic records of species identified during the literature review were also considered during the analysis; however, determination of a species' potential to occur was not solely based on the age or location of these previously documented records. The current regulatory/conservation status of specialstatus plant and wildlife species was verified through lists and resources provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), specifically the Special Animals List (CNDDB 2025b) and Special 5575
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 4 Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CNDDB 2025c). The potential to occur categories used in this analysis are defined as follows:
• Present: The species was observed or detected within the study area. • Expected: The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, high quality suitable habitat (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors) is present, and viable landscape connectivity to a local, known extant population(s) or sighting(s) is within the study area.
• Moderate: The study area is within the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is moderate to low quality suitable habitat (considering vegetation, soils, and other factors), and there is limited or no landscape connectivity to a local, known, extant population. • Not Expected: The study area is outside the known geographic distribution and elevation range of the species, there is marginal to no suitable habitat, and there is no connectivity to known, extant populations.
• Absent: The species was not detected during focused or agency-approved protocol surveys.

4.4 Aquatic Resources Delineation
An aquatic resources delineation was conducted within the boundaries of the project site by Michael Baker on August 5, 2025, to verify the jurisdictional limits of waters of the U.S. regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), waters of the State regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), wetlands regulated by USACE and RWQCB, and jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat regulated by the CDFW. In addition, the Streamflow Duration Assessment Method (SDAM) was applied to determine the flow duration (i.e., perennial, intermittent, ephemeral) of the aquatic feature within the project site. Detailed methods for these efforts are included under separate cover in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Michael Baker International 2025).

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
The project site supports disturbed California buckwheat scrub and disturbed areas. The extent of each vegetation community and land cover type is listed in Table 1 and shown in Attachment A, Figure 4, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types. A total of 26 plant species, 16 native (62 percent) and 10 non-native (38 percent), were recorded during the site visit. Site photographs are included in Attachment B, and a list of all plant species observed is included in Attachment C. Surrounding land use consists of roadways, residential development, and commercial development. 5576
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 5 TABLE 1. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Project Site
(acres)
500-foot buffer
(acres) Total (acres)
California Buckwheat Scrub 0.0 0.7 0.7
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 0.3 0.0 0.3
Concrete-lined Channel 0.0 7.3 7.3
Developed 0.0 60.5 60.5
Disturbed 25.5 8.5 34.0
TOTAL 25.8 77.0 102.8
California Buckwheat Scrub
California buckwheat scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance) consists of a monotypic stand of California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) shrubs within Deer Creek northwest of the project site within the 500-foot buffer.

Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub
Disturbed California buckwheat scrub consists of a monotypic stand of California buckwheat shrubs in the western portion of the project site interspersed with non-native, weedy vegetation. The California buckwheat shrubs are short (i.e., less than one foot tall), indicating previous disturbance in this area (i.e., mowing).

Concrete-lined Channel
The confluence of Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creek, both concrete-lined channels, occurs just off-site to the west of the project site.

Developed
Developed areas surround the project site and include commercial and residential developments and roadways.

Disturbed
Disturbed land cover occurs throughout the remainder of the project site. This land cover type is dominated by non-native species including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and short podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

5.2 General Wildlife Inventory
A total of 9 wildlife species were observed during the field survey: 1 reptile, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis); 5 birds, red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and Say’s 5577
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 6 phoebe (Sayornis saya); and 3 mammals, California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), coyote (Canis latrans), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), all of which are native species adapted to life in urban areas. These species are also listed in Attachment C.

5.3 Special-Status Biological Resources
Sensitive Natural Communities
The following ten natural communities considered sensitive by CDFW were identified during the query of the CNDDB:
• California Walnut Woodland
• Canyon Live Oak Ravine Forest
• Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
• Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
• Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream • Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest
• Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest
• Southern Riparian Forest
• Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland
• Southern Willow Scrub
The project site consists of disturbed California buckwheat scrub and disturbed and developed land cover types and does not support any sensitive natural communities.

Special-Status Plant Species
Based on the results of the literature review and records search, 78 special-status plant species were analyzed for their potential to occur on the project site (Attachment D). After a review of specific habitat preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges, and considering the disturbed condition of the project site, no special-status plant species have the potential to occur.

The project site is not within or adjacent to designated critical habitat for any listed plant species (USFWS 2025a).

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on the results of the literature review and records search, a total of 54 special-status wildlife species were analyzed for their potential to occur within the BSA (Attachment D). After a review of specific habitat 5578
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 7 preferences, known distributions, and elevation ranges, and considering the existing disturbed condition of the project site, two special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur: monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus, federal proposed threatened) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, state candidate endangered [SCE] and species of special concern [SSC]).

Monarch has the potential to fly through the project site. The project site provides limited nectar resources for foraging due to the dominance of weedy, non-native species. No milkweed (Asclepias) species were observed during the field visit; therefore, monarch is not expected to breed on-site. Similarly, no suitable overwintering habitat is present on-site. The nearest known monarch record is from 2023 within Cucamonga-Guasti Regional Park approximately 0.3 miles to the northeast (iNaturalist n.d.).

No burrowing owls or suitable burrowing owl burrows were detected on-site during the field survey.

However, burrowing owls are known from the area. The nearest known records north of I-10 are from 2016 approximately 1.25 miles east of the project site, and the nearest known records south of I-10 are from 2017 approximately 0.3 miles southeast and south southwest (CNDDB 2025a). The most recent records are from 2023 south and east of Ontario International Airport (CDFW 2025).

The project site is not within or adjacent to critical habitat for any listed wildlife species (USFWS 2025a).

State and Federal Jurisdictional Aquatic Features
Three key agencies regulate activities within inland lakes, streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The USACE Regulatory Branch regulates activities that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the state agencies, the RWQCB regulates discharges to waters of the State, including wetlands, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State; and the CDFW regulates alterations to lakes, streambeds, and associated riparian habitat pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).

As mentioned previously, the project site is overlain by one soil type: Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil type is a very deep, well-drained soil that is formed from granitic sources, and it occurs in alluvial fans and floodplains, including urban areas.

There are no wetland features mapped onsite by the National Wetlands Inventory; however, two riverine features are mapped just off-site to the west: Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creek. Both riverine features are human-made, concrete channels following the former path of the native streams. The channels support vertical concrete walls, concrete bottom, and no vegetation.

One jurisdictional aquatic feature was mapped within the eastern portion of the project site (Attachment A, Figure 5, Aquatic Resources Delineation). The riverine feature is depicted as a USGS blueline stream. 5579
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 8 The feature originates on-site at the northern project site boundary through a 3-foot culvert under Inland Empire Boulevard and travels south for approximately 532 feet until it exits the southern project site boundary and flows into a 3-foot underground culvert. The channel has a consistent width throughout the project site with an ordinary high water mark of 3 feet and top of bank width of 12 feet. Vegetation within the channel is dominated by Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), short podded mustard, and telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora). The feature supports 0.03 acres of jurisdictional non-wetland waters of the state regulated by the RWQCB and 0.15 acres of streambed regulated by CDFW. Due to the lack of a hydrological surface connection to a traditional navigable waterway and due to the ephemeral flow regime, the riverine feature onsite is not considered waters of the U.S. and would not be regulated by USACE. In addition, the feature did not support hydric soils; therefore, it is not considered a wetland.

Additional details of the aquatic resources delineation can be found in the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report (Michael Baker International 2025).

5.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors link areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by areas of non-suitable habitat such as rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Wildlife corridors are essential to the regional ecology of a species because they provide avenues of genetic exchange and allow animals to access alternative territories as dictated by fluctuating population densities. Fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates “islands” of wildlife habitat that are more or less isolated from each other. Corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by (1) allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, thereby permitting depleted populations to be replenished and promoting genetic exchange; (2) providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic events (such as fire or disease) that could lead to local extinction; and (3) serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and shelter. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape-level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. Although it is commonly used as a synonym for wildlife corridor, a habitat linkage refers to a more substantial, or wider, land connection between two habitat areas. Habitat linkages allow for the periodic exchange of animals between habitat areas, which is essential to maintain adequate gene pools.

The project site is within a highly urbanized area within the City of Ontario. The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial development in all directions; it is not within or adjacent to any natural open space areas or other natural features that would be used by wildlife as a corridor or habitat linkage.

The project site is adjacent to and east of the confluence of Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek, two concrete channelized waterways with vertical concrete walls, concrete bottoms, and no vegetation.

Cucamonga Creek originates in the San Gabriel Mountains and is channelized for more than 7 miles north of the project site. Similarly, Deer Creek originates in the San Gabriel Mountains east of Cucamonga Creek and is channelized for more than 8 miles before its confluence with Cucamonga Creek. South of the 5580
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 9 confluence of these creeks, Cucamonga Creek continues south as a channelized waterway for less than one mile where it flows underground for approximately 0.3 miles under the Ontario International Airport runway system. Due to the developed nature of the concrete channels and lack of vegetation, these channels provide low value wildlife movement habitat. They may be used by more ubiquitous species adapted to urban environments such as coyote or raccoon but are less likely to be used by more secretive species that require vegetative cover such as mountain lion or bobcat.

6.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion examines the impacts to biological resources that may occur as a result of the project. The determination of impacts is based on both the features of the project and the biological values of the habitat and sensitivity of plant and wildlife species potentially affected. Impacts to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which mirror the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. The questions below model those included in the checklist of questions listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and that are considered to determine if the project would have significant impacts to biological resources. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the entire 25.8-acre project site will be impacted.

6.1 Impacts to Special-Status Species
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As discussed in Section 5.3, two special-status wildlife species, monarch and burrowing owl, have a moderate potential to occur within the project site.

Monarch may fly through the project site; however, they are not expected to breed or overwinter on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat. Additionally, if they occurred, they would be expected in very low numbers due to the disturbed nature of the site and dominance by non-native weedy vegetation. Impacts would not remove habitat that would affect the long-term status of monarch populations; therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant.

Although burrowing owl or burrowing owl burrows were not detected on-site, there are known burrowing owl locations nearby the project site. Site conditions could change between the processing of environmental documentation and project implementation. Therefore, there is potential for burrowing owl to colonize the site prior to project implementation. Impacts to burrowing owl are considered potentially significant. Compliance with Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1, Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey, provided below in Section 7.0, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
5581
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 10

6.2 Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The project site is completely developed and supports ornamental landscaping and disturbed, weedy vegetation. There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities present within the project site boundaries. Therefore, the project would have no impact on riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities.

6.3 Impacts to State or Federal Wetlands
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than significant with mitigation. The project site is entirely developed and does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands. Therefore, there would be no impact to state or federally protected wetlands.

Although the project site does not support state or federally protected wetlands, it does support one aquatic feature that would be regulated by the RWQCB and CDFW. Impacts to this feature, which supports

0.03 acres of RWQCB waters of the state and 0.15 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed, would require permits from these regulatory agencies. Therefore, impacts to the aquatic feature on-site are considered potentially significant. Compliance with MM BIO-2, Regulatory Approvals, provided below in Section 7.0, would reduce impacts to this aquatic feature to less than significant.

6.4 Impacts to Wildlife Movement or Wildlife Corridors
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than significant with mitigation. The project site is within a developed, urban area and is surrounded on all sides by existing development. The project site has no connectivity to any natural habitats that would serve as migration corridors. Therefore, there would be no impact to native wildlife movement or wildlife corridors.
5582
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 11 Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code2(CFGC). To maintain compliance with the MBTA and CFGC, clearance surveys are typically required during the breeding season (generally February 15 to August 31) prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to avoid direct and indirect impacts to active bird nests and/or nesting birds. Consequently, if an active bird nest is destroyed or if project activities result in indirect impacts to nesting birds (e.g., nest abandonment, loss of reproductive effort), it is considered “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Although no bird nests were observed during the field survey, the vegetation within and adjacent to the project site provides suitable nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species that are adapted to developed areas. Impacts to nesting birds are considered potentially significant. Compliance with MM BIO-3, Nesting Birds, provided below in Section 7.0, would reduce this impact to less than significant.

6.5 Conflicts with Local Policies or Ordinances
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The City of Ontario has adopted tree preservation and protection measures, including requirements for Protected Root Zones, fencing, and arborist oversight during construction. However, the project site does not support any trees; therefore, the proposed project would not impact trees subject to this ordinance.

6.6 Conflicts with Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there will be no conflict.

7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Pre-construction Survey
A pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities to avoid impacts to burrowing owls and/or occupied 2 Section 3503 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by CFGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey); and Section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game bird except as provided by the rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et. sq.).
5583
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 12 burrows. The pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and in accordance with the methods outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).

Documentation of surveys and findings shall be submitted to the City of Ontario for review and filing. If no burrowing owls or occupied burrows are detected, project activities may begin, and no additional avoidance and minimization measures shall be required.

If an occupied burrow is found outside, but within 500 feet, of the development footprint, the qualified biologist shall establish a “no-disturbance” buffer around the burrow location(s). The size of the “nodisturbance” buffer shall be determined in consultation with CDFW and be based on the species status (i.e., breeding, non-breeding) and proposed level of disturbance. If an occupied burrow is found within the development footprint and cannot be avoided, a burrowing owl exclusion and mitigation plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to initiating project activities.

BIO-2: Regulatory Compliance
Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary regulatory authorizations for work within jurisdictional waters and streambeds. Although a Section 404 permit from the USACE is not required for the project, the applicant shall obtain an Approved Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE to confirm the absence of jurisdictional waters. Additionally, the applicant shall secure a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements permit from the RWQCB pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The applicant shall also submit formal notification to the CDFW and obtain a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code for any activities within CDFW jurisdiction.

All permit applications shall demonstrate compliance with CEQA, and applicable fees shall be paid based on the extent of jurisdictional impacts and project costs. Copies of final permits and approvals shall be provided to the lead agency prior to initiation of construction activities. Compensatory mitigation for impacts would be determined during the formal notification process and shall be approved by the RWQCB and CDFW prior to work occurring. Mitigation is anticipated to include one or more of the following:
restoration of the impacted feature on-site, payment of an in-lieu fee to an agency-approved mitigation bank, or acquisition of off-site lands that contain similar jurisdictional features that would be held in a restrictive deed in perpetuity.

BIO-3: Nesting Birds
If construction commences during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a preconstruction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist within three days prior to construction activities. The survey will occur within all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area and a 100-foot buffer where access is permitted. If nesting birds are found, an avoidance area will be established around the nest by the qualified biologist until it has been determined that the young have 5584
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 13 fledged or nesting activities have ceased. The size of the avoidance buffer shall be determined by the qualified biologist based on the location of the nest and disturbance tolerance of the bird species. The project site shall be re-surveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than seven days during the nesting season.

The proposed project, inclusive of mitigation measures outlined above, will mitigate potentially significant adverse impacts to biological resources. Please contact me at 949-330-4147 or [email protected] with any questions you may have regarding the results and/or conclusions of this report.

Sincerely,
Stephen Anderson
Senior Biologist
Attachments
A. Figures
B. Site Photographs
C. Plant and Wildlife Species Compendium
D. Special-Status Species Potential to Occur Tables
5585
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 14

REFERENCES
Baldwin, Bruce G., Douglas Goldman, David J. Keil, Robert Patterson, Thomas J. Rosatti, and Dieter Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press.

Calflora. 2025. Accessed August 5, 2025. https://www.calflora.org/.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2025. Biogeographic Information and Observation System, Bios6 version 6.25.0416.

Chesser, R. T., S. M. Billerman, K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, B. E. Hernández-Baños, R. A. Jiménez, O.

Johnson, A. W. Kratter, N. A. Mason, and P. C. Rasmussen. 2024. Checklist of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. https://checklist.americanornithology.org/.

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2025a. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [June 29, 2025].

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). July 2025b. Special Animals List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2025c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society), Rare Plant Program. 2025. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9.5). Accessed August 5, 2025. https://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Crother, B.I., ed. 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in Our Understanding.

Herpetological Circular, no. 43. 8th ed. Shoreview, Minnesota: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. https://ssarherps.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/8th-Ed-2017- Scientific-and-Standard-English-Names.pdf.
eBird. 2025. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. http://www.ebird.org.

Google (Google, LLC). 2025. Google Earth Pro, version 7.3.6.10201.

HistoricAerials. 2025. Accessed August 5, 2025. http://www.historicaerials.com. iNaturalist. n.d. Accessed September 3, 2025. https://www.inaturalist.org. 5586
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page 15 Michael Baker International. 2025. Aquatic Resources Delineation Report, Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project, City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California. Prepared for the City of Ontario.

NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2025. Checklist and English Names of North American Butterflies. (Ed. 2.6; M. Braby, B. Cassie, A. Edwards, M. Epstein, J. Glassberg, P. W. Hall, F.

Heath, Y.-F. Hsu, T. Larsen, D. Lohman, N. Pierce, M. Scoble, J. Springer, A. Swengel, J. Tennent, G. Tudor, D. Vane-Wright, A. Viloria, J. West, & S.-H. Yen, Contributors). Society for the Study of Butterflies. Morristown, New Jersey. https://naba.org/butterfly-names-checklist/.

Reid, F.A. 2006. A Field Guide to Mammals of North America, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition).

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA.

Sibley, D.A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds, Second Edition. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York.

USDA NRCS (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2025. Web Soil Survey. Accessed Feb. 18, 2025. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed August 5, 2025. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/index.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025b. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed Feb. 18, 2025. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Online version. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 5587

ATTACHMENT A
Figures
5588
Regional Vicinity
Figure 1
9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Source: ArcGIS Online, 2018
^_
Project
Site
Project Location
^
°
0 2.5 5
Miles
5589
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Project Vicinity
Figure 2
°
0 0.5 1
Mile
9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Source: USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Harrison Mountain, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino North, and Silverwood Lake, California (2021) 5590
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E
Date Pa ml Pa
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10
N
Archibald A
ve
N
Archibald A
v e
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
Project Site
Figure 3
°
0 290 580
Feet
9/3/2025 9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
5591
Deer C
Coast
Distribution
Center
Deer
Creek
10 10
Inland Empire Blvd
55 Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertown
USA
10 N Archibald Ave
Inland Empire Blvd
55A
Los Jalapeños
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Figure 4
°
0 100 200 400
Feet
9/4/2025 9/4/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site
500-ft Survey Buffer
Concrete-Lined Channel (7.31 acres)
Developed (60.48 acres)
Disturbed (34.03 acres)
Disturbed Caiifornia Buckwheat Scrub (0.31 acres)
acre)
California Buckwheat Scrub (0.65 acre)

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
5592
Deer
Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E Date Palm Pa
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10 N Archibald Ave N Archibald A
v e
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
Aquatic Resources Delineation
Figure 5
°
0 290 580
Feet
9/4/2025 9/4/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site
CDFW Vegetated Streambed (0.15 acres)
RWQCB Non-Wetland Waters of the State (0.03 acres)
Soil Pit
Reference Point

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

34.070981,
-117.600101
5593

ATTACHMENT B
Site Photographs
5594

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page B-1 Photograph 1. North-facing view of the disturbed California buckwheat scrub in the western portion of the project site (34.0690°, -117.6001°).

Photograph 2. South-facing view of disturbed habitat
from the north central project site boundary (34.070078°, -117.598298°). 5595

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page B-2 Photograph 3. North-facing view of the aquatic feature entering the northern boundary of the project site through a culvert under Inland Empire Boulevard.

Photograph 4. South-facing view of the jurisdictional aquatic feature on-site (34.069093°, -117.594853°).
5596

ATTACHMENT C
Plant and Wildlife Species Compendiums
5597

ATTACHMENT C

SPECIES COMPENDIUMS
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page C-1 Wildlife
Birds
ACCIPITRIDAE—HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, & ALLIES
Buteo jamaicensis—red-tailed hawk
CORVIDAE—CROWS & JAYS
Corvus brachyrhynchos—American crow
FRINGILLIDAE—FRINGILLINE & CARDUELINE FINCHES & ALLIES
Haemorhous mexicanus—house finch
COLUMBIDAE—PIGEONS & DOVES
Zenaida macroura—mourning dove
TYRANNIDAE—TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis saya—Say's phoebe
Mammals
SCIURIDAE—SQUIRRELS
Otospermophilus beecheyi—California ground squirrel
CANIDAE—WOLVES & FOXES
Canis latrans—coyote
LEPORIDAE—HARES & RABBITS
Sylvilagus audubonii—desert cottontail
Reptiles
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE—IGUANID LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis—western fence lizard
Plants – Vascular Species

EUDICOTS
ASTERACEAE—Sunflower Family
Ambrosia psilostachya—western ragweed
Encelia californica—California brittle bush
Erigeron canadensis—Canadian horseweed
Heterotheca grandiflora—telegraphweed
Lactuca serriola—prickly lettuce*
BRASSICACEAE—Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana—short podded mustard*
CACTACEAE—Cactus Family
Opuntia sp.—pricklypear
CHENOPODIACEAE—Goosefoot Family
Koelreuteria elegans—flamegold*
Salsola tragus—prickly Russian thistle*
CUCURBITACEAE—Gourd Family
Cucurbita palmata—coyote gourd
EUPHORBIACEAE—Spurge Family
Croton californicus—California croton
5598

ATTACHMENT C

SPECIES COMPENDIUMS
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page C-2 FABACEAE—Legume Family
Acmispon americanus—Spanish clover
GERANIACEAE—Geranium Family
Erodium cicutarium—redstem stork's bill*
MYRTACEAE—Myrtle Family
Eucalyptus sp.—eucalyptus
Melaleuca sp.—bottlebrush
NYCTAGINACEAE—Four O'clock Family
Mirabilis jalapa—marvel of Peru*
OLEACEAE—Olive Family
Fraxinus sp.—ash
POLYGONACEAE—Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum—California buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile—slender woolly buckwheat
SOLANACEAE—Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii—sacred thorn-apple
TAMARICACEAE—Tamarisk Family
Tamarix ramosissima—tamarisk*
VITACEAE—Grape Family
Vitis vinifera—wine grape*

MONOCOTS
CYPERACEAE—Sedge Family
Cyperus sp.—sedge
JUNCACEAE—Rush Family
Juncus acutus—spiny rush
POACEAE—Grass Family
Bromus diandrus—ripgut brome*
Schismus barbatus—common Mediterranean grass*
*Non-native species
5599

ATTACHMENT D
Special-Status Species Potential to Occur Tables
5600

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-1

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Abronia villosa
var. aurita
chaparral sandverbenaNone/None/1B.1/BLM-S,
USFS-S
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Desert dunes;
Sandy/annual herb/(Jan)Mar–Sep/245–
5250
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Acanthoscyphus
parishii var.
parishii
Parish's
oxytheca
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest; Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/June–Sep/4005–
8530
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Amaranthus
watsonii
Watson's
amaranth
None/None/4.3/None Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert scrub/annual herb/Apr–Sep/65–5580
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Ambrosia
monogyra
singlewhorl
burrobrush
None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub;
Sandy/perennial shrub/Aug–Nov/35–1640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia
FE/None/1B.1/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Alkaline
(sometimes), Clay (sometimes), Disturbed
areas (often), Loam (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Apr–Oct/65–1360
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Aphyllon validum
var. validum
Rock Creek
broomrape
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Granitic/perennial herb (parasitic)/May–
Sep/3380–6560
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Arctostaphylos
glandulosa var.
gabrielensis
San Gabriel
manzanita
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral (rocky)/perennial evergreen shrub/Mar/1950–4920
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Arenaria
paludicola
marsh
sandwort
FE/SE/1B.1/None Marshes and swamps (brackish,
freshwater); Openings, Sandy/perennial
stoloniferous herb/May–Aug/10–560
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Rocky/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Feb–June/590–3280
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5601

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-2 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Astragalus
bicristatus
crested milkvetchNone/None/4.3/USFS-S Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Carbonate
(usually), Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial herb/May–
Aug/5580–9005
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton's
milk-vetch
FE/None/1B.1/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Burned areas (sometimes),
Carbonate, Disturbed areas (sometimes),
Sandstone (usually)/perennial herb/Jan–
Aug/15–2100
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Atriplex coulteri Coulter's
saltbush
None/None/1B.2/None Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland;
Alkaline (sometimes), Clay
(sometimes)/perennial herb/Mar–Oct/10–
1510
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Berberis nevinii Nevin's
barberry
FE/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub; Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/perennial
evergreen shrub/(Feb)Mar–June/230–2705
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Calochortus
clavatus var.
gracilis
slender
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial bulbiferous herb/Mar–
June(Nov)/1050–3280
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Calochortus
plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Valley and foothill grassland; Granitic,
Rocky/perennial bulbiferous herb/May–
July/330–5580
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Rocky/perennial bulbiferous
herb/May–July/345–2805
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Calystegia felix lucky morninggloryNone/None/1B.1/None Meadows and seeps (sometimes alkaline), Riparian scrub (alluvial); Alkaline
(sometimes), Loam (sometimes)/annual
rhizomatous herb/Mar–Sep/100–705
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.
5602

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-3 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Camissoniopsis
lewisii
Lewis' eveningprimroseNone/None/3/None Cismontane woodland, Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland; Clay (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/Mar–
May(June)/0–985
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range.

Centromadia
pungens var. laevis
smooth
tarplant
None/None/1B.1/None Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps,
Playas, Riparian woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland; Alkaline/annual
herb/Apr–Sep/0–2100
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Chloropyron
maritimum var.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
FE/SE/1B.2/BLM-S Coastal dunes, Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)/annual herb
(hemiparasitic)/May–Oct(Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Chorizanthe
leptotheca
Peninsular
spineflower
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest; Granitic/annual
herb/May–Aug/985–6235
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's
spineflower
None/None/1B.1/BLM-S,
USFS-S
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Valley and foothill grassland;
Openings, Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/Apr–June/900–
4005
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca
white-bracted
spineflower
None/None/1B.2/BLM-S,
USFS-S
Coastal scrub (alluvial fans), Mojavean
desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper woodland;
Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/Apr–June/985–
3935
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Cladium
californicum
California sawgrassNone/None/2B.2/USFS-S Marshes and swamps (alkaline, freshwater), Meadows and seeps/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–Sep/195–5250
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Claytonia peirsonii
var. peirsonii
Peirson's spring
beauty
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Granitic,
Metamorphic, Scree, Talus/perennial
herb/(Mar)May–June/4955–9005
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.
5603

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-4 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay, Seeps,
Serpentine/annual herb/Mar–July/100–
2430
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate
tarplant
None/None/4.2/None Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Sandy (sometimes), Vernally
Mesic (usually)/annual herb/(Mar)Apr–
Nov/80–3085
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Diplacus johnstonii Johnston's
monkeyflower
None/None/4.3/None Lower montane coniferous forest
(disturbed areas, gravelly, roadsides, rocky,
scree)/annual herb/May–Aug/3200–9580
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
FE/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans); Sandy/annual
herb/Apr–June/655–2495
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Dudleya
multicaulis
many-stemmed
dudleya
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Clay (often)/perennial herb/Apr–
July/50–2590
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Eriastrum
densifolium var.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
FE/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans); Gravelly (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial herb/Apr–Sep/300–
2000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Eriogonum
microtheca var.
johnstonii
Johnston's
buckwheat
None/None/1B.3/USFS-S Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest;
Rocky/perennial deciduous shrub/July–
Sep/6000–9600
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Eriogonum
umbellatum var.
minus
alpine sulfurflowered
buckwheat
None/None/4.3/None Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest;
Gravelly/perennial herb/June–Sep/5905–
10065
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Eriophyllum
lanatum var.
obovatum
southern Sierra
woolly
sunflower
None/None/4.3/None Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Loam,
Sandy/perennial herb/June–July/3655–
8205
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.
5604

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-5 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Fritillaria
pinetorum
pine fritillary None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland,
Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest; Granitic
(sometimes), Metamorphic
(sometimes)/perennial bulbiferous
herb/May–July(Sep)/5695–10825
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Galium
angustifolium var.
gabrielense
San Antonio
Canyon
bedstraw
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest; Granitic, Rocky (sometimes), Sandy
(sometimes)/perennial herb/Apr–
Aug/3935–8695
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Galium jepsonii Jepson's
bedstraw
None/None/4.3/None Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest; Granitic,
Gravelly (sometimes), Rocky
(sometimes)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/July–Aug/5055–8205
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Galium johnstonii Johnston's
bedstraw
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland,
Riparian woodland/perennial herb/June–
July/4005–7545
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Heuchera
caespitosa
urn-flowered
alumroot
None/None/4.3/USFS-S Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian forest
(montane), Upper montane coniferous
forest; Rocky/perennial rhizomatous
herb/May–Aug/3790–8695
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Hordeum
intercedens
vernal barley None/None/3.2/None Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland (depressions, saline flats),
Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–June/15–
3280
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia None/None/1B.1/USFS-S Chaparral (maritime), Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/perennial
herb/Feb–July(Sep)/230–2660
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Juglans californica Southern
California black
walnut
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland/perennial
deciduous tree/Mar–Aug/165–2955
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5605

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-6 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Juncus acutus var.
leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush
None/None/4.2/None Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt),
Meadows and seeps (alkaline
seeps)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/(Mar)May–June/10–2955
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Juncus duranii Duran's rush None/None/4.3/None Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Upper montane
coniferous forest; Mesic/perennial
rhizomatous herb/July–Aug/5800–9200
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Lasthenia glabrata
var. coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
None/None/1B.1/BLM-S Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools/annual herb/Feb–June/5–
4005
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Lepechinia
fragrans
fragrant pitcher
sage
None/None/4.2/USFS-S Chaparral/perennial shrub/Mar–Oct/65– 4300
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Jan– July/5–2905
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Lilium humboldtii
var. ocellatum
ocellated
Humboldt lily
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Riparian woodland; Openings/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Mar–July(Aug)/100–5905
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Lilium parryi lemon lily None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Riparian forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest;
Mesic/perennial bulbiferous herb/July–
Aug/4005–9005
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Linanthus
concinnus
San Gabriel
linanthus
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest;
Openings, Rocky/annual herb/Apr–
July/4985–9185
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Lycium parishii Parish's desertthornNone/None/2B.3/None Coastal scrub, Sonoran desert scrub/perennial shrub/Mar–Apr/445–3280
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's
bushmallow
None/None/1A/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub/perennial
deciduous shrub/June–July/1000–1495
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5606

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-7 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Microseris
douglasii var.
platycarpha
small-flowered
microseris
None/None/4.2/None Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools;
Clay/annual herb/Mar–May/50–3510
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Monardella
australis var.
jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella
None/None/1B.1/USFS-S Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest; Alluvial Terraces, Scree, Slopes,
Talus, Washes/perennial rhizomatous
herb/July–Sep/4430–5740
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Monardella
breweri var.
glandulifera
Brown's Flat
monardella
None/None/1B.2/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest; Dry, Openings/annual herb/May–
Aug/4265–4920
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Monardella
macrantha var.
hallii
Hall's
monardella
None/None/1B.3/USFS-S Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley and foothill
grassland/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Oct/2395–7200
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Monardella
pringlei
Pringle's
monardella
None/None/1A/None Coastal scrub (sandy)/annual herb/May– June/985–1310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Monardella
saxicola
rock
monardella
None/None/4.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Lower montane coniferous forest; Rocky,
Serpentine (usually)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/June–Sep/1640–5905
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Monardella viridis green
monardella
None/None/4.3/None Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–Sep/330–3315
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Muhlenbergia
californica
California
muhly
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps;
Mesic, Seeps, Streambanks/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–Sep/330–6560
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Muhlenbergia
utilis
aparejo grass None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps, Meadows and
seeps; Alkaline (sometimes), Serpentine
(sometimes)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Mar–Oct/80–7630
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5607

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-8 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate vernal
pool navarretia
None/None/1B.2/None Coastal scrub, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline), Vernal
pools; Mesic/annual herb/Apr–July/10–
3970
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Opuntia basilaris
var. brachyclada
short-joint
beavertail
None/None/1B.2/BLM-S,
USFS-S
Chaparral, Joshua tree "woodland",
Mojavean desert scrub, Pinyon and juniper
woodland/perennial stem/Apr–
June(Aug)/1395–5905
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Oreonana vestita woolly
mountainparsley
None/None/1B.3/BLM-S,
USFS-S
Lower montane coniferous forest,
Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper
montane coniferous forest; Gravelly
(sometimes), Talus (sometimes)/perennial
herb/Mar–Sep/5300–11485
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Phacelia
mohavensis
Mojave
phacelia
None/None/4.3/None Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps,
Pinyon and juniper woodland; Gravelly
(sometimes), Sandy (sometimes)/annual
herb/Apr–Aug/4595–8205
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Phacelia stellaris Brand's star
phacelia
None/None/1B.1/None Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub/annual herb/Mar–June/5–1310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobaccoNone/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; Gravelly,
Sandy/perennial herb/(July)Aug–
Nov(Dec)/0–6890
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Quercus durata
var. gabrielensis
San Gabriel oak None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland/perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–May/1475–3280
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Romneya coulteri Coulter's
matilija poppy
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Burned areas (often)/perennial rhizomatous herb/Mar–
July(Aug)/65–3935
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Sagittaria sanfordii Sanford's
arrowhead
None/None/1B.2/BLM-S Marshes and swamps (shallow
freshwater)/perennial rhizomatous herb
(emergent)/May–Oct(Nov)/0–2135
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5608

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-9 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Senecio aphanactis chaparral
ragwort
None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Alkaline (sometimes)/annual
herb/Jan–Apr(May)/50–2625
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Senecio
astephanus
San Gabriel
ragwort
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Rocky,
Slopes/perennial herb/May–July/1310–
4920
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
None/None/2B.2/USFS-S Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert scrub,
Playas; Alkaline, Mesic/perennial
herb/Mar–June/50–5020
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Sidotheca
caryophylloides
chickweed
oxytheca
None/None/4.3/USFS-S Lower montane coniferous forest
(sandy)/annual herb/July–Sep(Oct)/3655–
8530
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass
None/None/2B.2/None Cismontane woodland, Meadows and
seeps; Mesic/perennial herb/Apr–
July/985–6560
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous
forest/perennial herb/May–Aug/2200–
8205
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Marshes
and swamps, Meadows and seeps, Valley
and foothill grassland (vernally mesic);
Streambanks/perennial rhizomatous
herb/July–Nov/5–6695
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.

Symphyotrichum
greatae
Greata's aster None/None/1B.3/None Broadleafed upland forest, Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Riparian woodland;
Mesic/perennial rhizomatous herb/June–
Oct/985–6595
Not expected to occur. No suitable
habitat is present.
5609

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-10 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other)
Habitats/ Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur in BSA
Thysanocarpus
rigidus
rigid fringepod None/None/1B.2/USFS-S Pinyon and juniper woodland; Dry, Rocky, Slopes/annual herb/Feb–May/1970–7220
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Viola pinetorum
var. grisea
grey-leaved
violet
None/None/1B.2/BLM-S Meadows and seeps, Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous
forest/perennial herb/Apr–July/4920–
11155
Not expected to occur. The study area
is outside of the species’ known
elevation range, and there is no
suitable habitat present.

Status Legend:

Federal
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered
FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened
FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) None: No federal listing
FDL: Delisted
State
SE: State listed as endangered
ST: State listed as threatened
SR: State rare
SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered
SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened
None: No state listing
SDL: State delisting
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
CRPR 3: Review List: Plants about which more information is needed CRPR 4: Watch List: Plants of limited distribution
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 Moderately threatened in California (20–80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3 Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
5610

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-11

SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN STUDY AREA Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitats Potential to Occur in BSA Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad FE / None / CDFW-SSC Desert wash | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland | South coast flowing waters | South coast standing waters; Semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill and desert riparian, desert wash, etc.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Batrachoseps
gabrieli
San Gabriel
slender
salamander
None / None / USFS-S Talus slope; Known only from the San Gabriel Mtns. Found under rocks, wood, and fern fronds, and on soil at the base of talus slopes.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Rana boylii pop.
6 foothill yellowlegged frog -
south coast DPS
FE / SE / BLM-S, USFS-S Aquatic | Riparian forest | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland | South coast flowing waters; Southern Coast Ranges from
Monterey Bay south through San Gabriel Mountains; west of the Salinas River in Monterey Co, south through Transverse Ranges, and east through San Gabriel Mountains. Historically may have ranged to Baja California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Rana muscosa southern
mountain
yellow-legged
frog
FE / SE / USFS-S Aquatic; Disjunct populations known from southern Sierras (northern DPS) and San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mtns (southern DPS). Found at 1,000 to 12,000 ft in lakes and creeks that stem from springs and snowmelt. May overwinter under frozen lakes.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Spea hammondii western
spadefoot
FPT / None / BLM-S,

CDFW-SSC
Cismontane woodland | Coastal scrub | Valley & foothill grassland | Vernal pool | Wetland; Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Taricha torosa Coast Range
newt
None / None / CDFWSSCWet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grassland; Coastal drainages from Mendocino County to San Diego County.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Birds
Agelaius tricolor tricolored
blackbird
None / ST / BLM-S,

CDFW-SSC
Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Swamp | Wetland; Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity.

Largely endemic to California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
None / None / CDFWSSCValley & foothill grassland; Dense grasslands on rolling hills, lowland plains, in valleys and on hillsides on lower mountain slopes.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.
5611

ATTACHMENT D

Golden eagle may be observed
flying over the project site;
however, is not expected to
forage or nest onsite due to the
lack of suitable habitat.

Asio otus long-eared owl None / None / CDFWSSCCismontane woodland | Great Basin scrub | Riparian forest | Riparian woodland | Upper montane coniferous forest; Riparian bottomlands grown to tall willows and cottonwoods; also, belts of live oak paralleling stream courses.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Athene
cunicularia
burrowing owl None / SCE / BLM-S,

Moderate potential to occur.

Burrowing owls are known to
occur in the area. Although no
suitable burrows were observed
onsite, burrowing owls may use
the project site for foraging.

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's
hawk
None / ST / BLM-S Great Basin grassland | Riparian forest | Riparian woodland | Valley & foothill grassland; Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees.

Swainson's hawk may be
observed flying over the project
site; however, they are not
expected to forage or nest onsite
due to the lack of suitable
habitat.

Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus
wren
None / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SCoastal scrub; Southern California coastal sage scrub. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooFT / SE / BLM-S, USFS-S Riparian forest; Riparian forest nester, along the broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger river systems.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail None / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SFreshwater marsh | Meadow & seep; Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono County.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Cypseloides niger black swift None / None / CDFWSSCNests in moist crevices, caves, and cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons; forages over a wide range of habitats; Coastal belt of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties; central and southern Sierra Nevada; San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.
5612

ATTACHMENT D

CDFW-FP
Cismontane woodland | Marsh & swamp | Riparian woodland | Valley & foothill grassland | Wetland; Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland.

White-tailed kite may be
observed flying over the project
site; however, they are not
expected to forage or nest onsite
due to the lack of suitable
habitat.

Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE / SE / None Riparian woodland; Riparian woodlands in Southern California. Not expected to occur. No suitable habitat is present.

Icteria virens yellow-breasted
chat
None / None / CDFWSSCRiparian forest | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland; Summer resident; inhabits riparian thickets of willow and other brushy tangles near watercourses.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None / ST / BLM-S,

CDFW-FP
Brackish marsh | Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Salt marsh | Wetland; Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
FT / None / CDFW-SSC Coastal bluff scrub | Coastal scrub; Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub below 2500 ft in Southern California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present. The
California buckwheat scrub
onsite is disturbed; the shrubs
are very low-growing and appear
to have been mowed in the past.

The shrubs are not tall enough to
be suitable habitat for coastal
California gnatcatcher.

Setophaga
petechia
yellow warbler None / None / CDFWSSCRiparian forest | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland; Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water. Also nests in montane shrubbery in open conifer forests in Cascades and Sierra Nevada.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Vireo bellii
pusillus
least Bell's vireo FE / SE / None Riparian forest | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland; Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Fishes
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana
sucker
FT / None / CDFW-SSC Aquatic | South coast flowing waters; Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south coastal streams.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.
5613

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-14 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitats Potential to Occur in BSA Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SAquatic | South coast flowing waters; Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San Luis Rey River basin. Introduced into streams in Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave and San Diego river basins.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
steelhead -
southern
California DPS
FE / SCE / None Aquatic | South coast flowing waters; Federal listing refers to populations from Santa Maria River south to southern extent of range (San Mateo Creek in San Diego County).

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Rhinichthys
gabrielino
Santa Ana
speckled dace
FPT / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SAquatic | South coast flowing waters; Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel rivers. May be extirpated from the Los Angeles River system.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble
bee
None / SCE / None Open grassland and scrub communities supporting suitable floral resources. Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico.

Not expected to occur due to the
disturbed nature of the site and
dominance of weedy species
such as Russian thistle (Salsola
tragus), common Mediterranean
grass (Schismus barbatus), and
short podded mustard
(Hirschfeldia incana).

Callophrys mossii
hidakupa
San Gabriel
Mountains elfin
butterfly
None / None / USFS-S Lower montane coniferous forest; San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountains at elevations of 3,000 to approximately 5,500 ft.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present, and
the project site is outside of the
known elevation range of this
species.

Danaus plexippus
plexippus
monarch -
California
overwintering
population
FPT / None / USFS-S Closed-cone coniferous forest; Winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.

Monarchs may fly through the
project site; however, they are
not expected to breed or
overwinter due to the lack of
suitable habitat. No milkweed
species were detected onsite to
support breeding monarchs and
the project site. Foraging habitat
is limited since the project site is
dominated by weedy species
such as Russian thistle, common
Mediterranean grass, and short
podded mustard.
5614

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-15 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitats Potential to Occur in BSA Euphydryas
editha quino
quino
checkerspot
butterfly
FE / None / None Chaparral | Coastal scrub; Sunny openings within chaparral and coastal sage shrublands in parts of Riverside and San Diego counties.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present and
the project site is outside of the
known geographic range of this
species.

Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly
FE / None / None Interior dunes; Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands formation in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside counties.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present. The
project site supports one soil
type, Tujunga loamy sand. No
Delhi sands occur onsite.

Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat None / None / BLM-S,

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None / None / CDFWSSCChaparral | Coastal scrub; Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties, inclusive of Orange County.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Chaetodipus
fallax pallidus
pallid San Diego
pocket mouse
None / None / CDFWSSCDesert wash | Pinon & juniper woodlands | Sonoran desert scrub; Desert border areas of San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties in desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent scrub, pinyon-juniper, etc.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
FE / SE / CDFW-SSC Coastal scrub; Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam substrates characteristic of alluvial fans and flood plains.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat
FT / ST / None Coastal scrub | Valley & foothill grassland; Primarily annual and perennial grasslands, but also occurs in coastal scrub and sagebrush with sparse canopy cover.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat
None / None / BLM-S,

CDFW-SSC
Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Coastal scrub | Valley & foothill grassland; Many open, semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, grasslands, chaparral, etc.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Lasiurus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat
None / None / CDFWSSCDesert wash; Found in valley foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert woodrat
None / None / CDFWSSCCoastal scrub; Coastal scrub of Southern California from San Diego County to San Luis Obispo County.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.
5615

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-16 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitats Potential to Occur in BSA Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed freetailed batNone / None / CDFWSSCJoshua tree woodland | Pinon & juniper woodlands | Riparian scrub | Sonoran desert scrub; Variety of arid areas in Southern California; pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat
None / None / CDFWSSCRocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky outcrops; forages over water ; Lowlying arid areas in Southern California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Ovis canadensis
nelsoni
desert bighorn
sheep
None / None / BLM-S,

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles
pocket mouse
None / None / CDFWSSCCoastal scrub; Lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage communities in and around the Los Angeles Basin.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Reptiles
Actinemys pallida southwestern
pond turtle
FPT / None / BLM-S,

CDFW-SSC, USFS-S
Freshwater environments such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow-moving streams with abundant aquatic vegetation, typically in low to mid-elevation areas.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California
legless lizard
None / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SBroadleaved upland forest | Chaparral | Coastal dunes | Coastal scrub; Generally south of the Transverse Range, extending to northwestern Baja California. Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations in the Tehachapi and Piute Mountains in Kern County.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
None / None / CDFWSSCArid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral, open areas with loose soil; Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, south to Baja California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orangethroated
whiptail
None / None / USFS-S Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Coastal scrub; Inhabits lowelevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley-foothill hardwood habitats.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present, and
the project site is outside of the
known geographic range of this
species.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail None / None / CDFWSSCHot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.; Found in deserts and semi-arid areas with sparse vegetation and open areas. Also found in woodland and riparian areas.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.
5616

ATTACHMENT D

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Biological Resources Assessment September 15, 2025
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Page D-17 Scientific Name Common Name
Status
(Federal/State/Other) Habitats Potential to Occur in BSA Coleonyx
variegatus
abbotti
San Diego
banded gecko
None / None / CDFWSSCChaparral | Coastal scrub; Coastal and cismontane Southern California.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present, and
the project site is outside of the
known geographic range of this
species.

Crotalus ruber red-diamond
rattlesnake
None / None / CDFWSSC, USFS-SChaparral | Mojavean desert scrub | Sonoran desert scrub; Chaparral, woodland, grassland, and desert areas from coastal San Diego County to the eastern slopes of the mountains.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present, and
the project site is north of the
northern edge of this species'
range.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
coast horned
lizard
None / None / BLM-S,

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None / None / BLM-S,

CDFW-SSC, USFS-S
Marsh & swamp | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland |
Wetland; Coastal California from vicinity of Salinas to northwest Baja California. From sea to about 7,000 ft elevation.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Thamnophis
sirtalis pop. 1
south coast
gartersnake
None / None / CDFWSSCArtificial standing waters | Marsh & swamp | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland | South coast flowing waters | South coast standing waters | Wetland; Southern California coastal plain from Ventura County to San Diego County, and from sea level to about 850 m.

Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat is present.

Status Legend:

Federal
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
FPE: Federally proposed for listing as endangered
FPT: Federally proposed for listing as threatened
FC: Federal candidate species (former Category 1 candidates) None: No federal listing
FDL: Delisted
State
SE: State listed as endangered
ST: State listed as threatened
SR: State rare
SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered
SCT: State candidate for listing as threatened
None: No state listing
SDL: State delisting
Other
BCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern BLM-S: Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species
CDFW-FP: California Fully Protected Species
CDFW-SSC: California Species of Special Concern
USFS-S: U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species
5617
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan
Amendment Project
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County,
California
September 2025
Prepared for: Prepared by:

City of Ontario
303 E. B Street
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: David F. Eoff
909-395-2425
Michael Baker International
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contact: Stephen Anderson
949-330-4147
JN 205836
5618
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan
Amendment Project
City of Ontario, San Bernardino County,
California
September 2025
The undersigned certify that this report is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions of jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland “waters of the U.S.,” “waters of the State,” and streambed/banks and associated riparian vegetation delineation for the above-referenced project.

Stephen Anderson
Senior Biologist
Natural Resources and Regulatory Services
Travis Whitney
Technical Manager
Natural Resources and Regulatory Services
Michael Baker JN 205836
5619
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page i
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Executive Summary
Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) prepared the Aquatic Resources Delineation Report for the proposed Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project (project or project site), located in the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California.

This report documents all aquatic features identified by Michael Baker within the project site that are potentially subject to the following jurisdictions:
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (PorterCologne Act), and • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).

Michael Baker identified state and federal jurisdictional areas within the project site, following the most recent, acceptable guidelines for conducting a jurisdictional delineation in this region.

Table ES-1 summarizes the total jurisdiction for each regulatory agency; however, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits.

TABLE ES-1. JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE Aquatic
Feature Latitude/Longitude
Jurisdictional Limits

USACE RWQCB CDFW
Linear
Wetland Non Feet -
wetland Wetland Nonwetland
Unvegetated
Streambed
Vegetated
Streambed
Associated
Riparian
AF-1

34.069418°/-
117.594853° -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.15 -- 532
Total -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.15 -- 532
The lone aquatic feature onsite (AF-1) is non-wetland and ephemeral, meaning that it would fall outside of the jurisdictional authority of the USACE, however it would be subject to the jurisdictional authority of the RWQCB and CDFW. Under this scenario, AF-1 would require applicable permits/authorizations be in place prior to the commencement of project construction.

Based on a detailed review of current site conditions and project design plans, the following regulatory permits/authorizations would be required:

1. Approved Jurisdictional Determination or similar approval from the USACE to formally receive concurrence that the ephemeral aquatic feature within the project site meet the current definition of waters of the U.S. (Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming, September 8, 2023) and, therefore, is not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA;
5620

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page ii
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

2. RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements (Porter-Cologne Act) for impacts associated with the placement of dredge and/or fill material into Waters of the State; and,

3. CFGC Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for impacts occurring to waters of the State comprised of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian areas.
5621
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page i
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. i Section 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description....................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Regulations............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................... 5

2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ......................................................................... 6

2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ................................................................... 7 Section 3. Methodology........................................................................................................... 8

3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................................... 8

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ........................................................................11

3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................11 Section 4. Literature Review ..................................................................................................12

4.1 Watershed Review......................................................................................................12

4.2 Local Climate..............................................................................................................12

4.3 USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle ................................................................12

4.4 Aerial Photograph .......................................................................................................12

4.5 Soil Survey .................................................................................................................13

4.6 Hydric Soils List of California ......................................................................................13

4.7 National Wetlands Inventory .......................................................................................13

4.8 Flood Zone .................................................................................................................13

4.9 National Hydrography Dataset ....................................................................................14 Section 5. Site Conditions......................................................................................................15

5.1 Aquatic Resources......................................................................................................15 Section 6. Findings .................................................................................................................17

6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................17

6.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ........................................................................17

6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ..................................................................18 Section 7. Regulatory Approval Process...............................................................................22

7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ....................................................................................22

7.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board ........................................................................22

7.3 California Department Of Fish And Wildlife .................................................................22

7.4 Recommendations......................................................................................................22 Section 8. References.............................................................................................................23 5622

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page ii
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1. Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site................................................................i Table 1. Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site...................................................................19

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1. Regional Vicinity .................................................................................................................2 Exhibit 2. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................................3 Exhibit 4. RWQCB/CDFW Jurisdictional Map ...............................................................................20

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Documentation
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix C Wetland Data Form
Appendix D Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method Data Form 5623
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page iii
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°F ................................ Degrees Fahrenheit
AF................................ Aquatic Feature
amsl............................. above mean sea level
CDFW.......................... California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA .......................... California Environmental Quality Act CFGC .......................... California Fish and Game Code CWA ............................ Clean Water Act
EPA.............................. Environmental Protection Agency FAC.............................. Facultative
FACU ........................... Facultative Upland
FACW .......................... Facultative Wetland
FEMA........................... Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM............................ Flood Insurance Rate Map Michael Baker.............. Michael Baker International NHD............................. National Hydrography Dataset OBL ............................. Obligate Wetland
OHWM......................... ordinary high-water mark
Porter-Cologne Act....... California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act Procedures .................. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State
Project or project site ... Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Regional Supplement... Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0
Revised Definition ........ Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming RPW ............................ Relatively Permanent Water RWQCB....................... Regional Water Quality Control Board SDAM .......................... User Manual for a Beta Streamflow Duration Assessment Method for the Arid West of the United States, Version 1.1
SP................................ Soil Pit
TNW ............................ Traditional Navigable Waters UPL.............................. Obligate Upland
USACE ........................ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Manual............ 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual USDA........................... U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service USGS .......................... U.S. Geological Survey
USFWS........................ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5624

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page iv
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project WQC............................ Water Quality Certification 5625
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 1
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 1. Introduction
On behalf of the City of Ontario, Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) prepared this Aquatic Resources Delineation Report to describe, map, and quantify aquatic and other aquatic features located within the proposed project site.

This report describes the regulatory setting, methodologies, and results of the jurisdictional delineation. This report presents Michael Baker’s best professional determination of the jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies; however, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits.

1.1 Project Location
The 25.8-acre project site is currently a vacant lot located within the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County, California (Attachment A, Figure 1, Regional Vicinity). The project site is generally bound by Inland Empire Boulevard to the north, N Archibald Avenue to the east, Interstate 10 (I-10) to the south, and a concrete-lined channel to the west (Deer Creek and Cucamonga Creek), and is within Section 22 of Township 01 South, Range 7 West, of the Guasti, California 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map (Attachment A, Figure 2, Site Vicinity). Beyond the identified roadways, the project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, commercial development to the east and south, and commercial development to the west.

1.2 Project Description
The project proposes a Mixed-Use Overlay across Planning Area 3 to allow for up to 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and up to 1,400 multi-family dwelling units in addition to the uses permitted under the site’s Urban Commercial designation (i.e., up to 400 hotel rooms and 250,000 square feet of commercial uses; a total buildout of 480,000 square feet) (Attachment A, Figure 3, Project Site).
5626
Regional Vicinity
Figure 1
9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
Source: ArcGIS Online, 2018
^_
Project
Site
Project Location
^
°
0 2.5 5
Miles
5627
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Project Vicinity
Figure 2
°
0 0.5 1
Mile
9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
Source: USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Harrison Mountain, Lake Arrowhead, San Bernardino North, and Silverwood Lake, California (2021) 5628
Deer
Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E Date Palm Pa
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10 N Archibald Ave N Archibald A
v e
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
Project Site
Figure 3
°
0 290 580
Feet
9/3/2025 9/3/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT
Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
5629
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 5
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 2. Regulations
Three agencies regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regulatory Division regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act).

2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Since 1972, the USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly regulate discharges of dredged or fill material into “waters of the U.S.”, including wetland and non-wetland aquatic features, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Section 404 is founded on the findings of a direct connection between the aquatic feature in question and interstate commerce via Relatively Permanent Waters (RPW), and ultimately Traditional Navigable Waters (TNW), through direct or indirect connection as defined by USACE regulations. On September 8, 2023, the EPA and the USACE published the Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming (Revised Definition) in the Federal Register to define waters of the U.S., at which point the final rule became effective across the nation including the state of California. Under the revised definition, waters of the U.S. are defined as:1
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or 1 40 CFR 120.2(a)
5630

REGULATIONS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 6
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
(5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
Applicants for a federal license or permit for activities that may discharge to waters of the U.S. must seek a Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the State or Indian tribe with jurisdiction.2In California, there are nine (9) Regional Boards that issue or deny WQCs for discharges within their geographical jurisdiction. The WQC is based on a finding that the discharge will meet water quality standards, which are defined as numeric and narrative objectives in each Regional Board’s Basin Plan, and other applicable requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board has this responsibility for projects affecting waters within multiple RWQCBs. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction extends to all waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and to non-federal waters of the State (described below).

The Porter-Cologne Act gives the State broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter-Cologne Act has become an important regulatory tool following the recent redefinition of waters of the U.S. with respect to the State’s authority over isolated non-federal waters. Generally, any entity proposing to discharge waste into waters of the State must file a Report of Waste Discharge.

Although “waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the RWQCB also interprets waste to include the discharge of fill material into water bodies.

On April 2, 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California. The Procedures consist of four major elements:

1. A wetland definition;

2. A framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the State;

3. Wetland delineation procedures; and

4. Procedures for the submittal, review, and approval of applications for WQCs and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities.
2 Title 33, United States Code, Section 1341; Clean Water Act Section. 5631

REGULATIONS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 7
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project The Procedures became effective May 28, 2020.

2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC establish a fee-based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, or when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, to ensure that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided.

Section 1602 of the CFGC requires any person, State, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following:
(1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.

This applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State, including the maintenance of existing drain culverts, outfalls, and other structures. Notification to CDFW under the Lake or Streambed Alteration Program is generally required when an activity occurs within the top of active banks or outer extent of the canopy/dripline of any associated riparian vegetation, if present.
5632
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 8
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 3. Methods
The analysis in this report is supported by site reconnaissance conducted by Michael Baker on August 5, 2025. The field delineation aimed to verify the jurisdictional limits of waters of the U.S. and waters of the State (including potential wetlands) located within the boundaries of the project site. While in the field, Michael Baker recorded jurisdictional features on an aerial base map at a scale of 1" = 100' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as guidelines. Data points were obtained with a Garmin Map62 Global Positioning System to record and identify specific widths for ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) indicators and the locations of photographs, soil points, and other pertinent jurisdictional features, if present. These data were then transferred as a .shp file and added to the report's jurisdictional exhibits. The jurisdictional exhibits were prepared using ESRI ArcMap Version 10 software and comply with the USACE Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resource Delineations, dated January 2016.

3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

3.1.1 Non-wetland Water of the U.S.

The limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters extend to the OHWM, which is defined as “...that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” An OHWM can be determined by the observation of a natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris; wracking; vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; sediment sorting; leaf litter disturbed or washed away; scour; deposition; multiple observed flow events; bed and banks; water staining; and/or change in plant community.3

3.1.2 Wetland Waters of the U.S.

Michael Baker used the methods outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (Regional Supplement; USACE, 2008) to delineate the limits of USACE jurisdictional wetlands. The Regional Supplement is part of a series of regional supplements to the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE Manual). According to the USACE Manual, identification of wetlands is based on a threeparameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. To be considered a wetland, an area must exhibit at least minimal characteristics within these three parameters. The Regional Supplement presents wetland indicators, delineation guidance, and other information that is specific to the Arid West Region. In the field, Michael Baker used the methodology listed below to examine the vegetation, soils, and evidence of hydrology and documented findings on USACE wetland determination data forms, when applicable. 3 CWA regulations 33 CFR §328.3(e).
5633

METHODS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 9
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

3.1.2.1 Vegetation
Nearly 5,000 plant species in the United States may occur in wetlands. These plants, typically referred to as hydrophytic vegetation, are listed in regional publications by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during growing season. Hydrophytic vegetation decisions are based on the assemblage of plant species growing on a site, rather than the presence or absence of indicator species. Plant indicator status categories are described below:
• Obligate Wetland (OBL): Plants that occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions, but which may also occur rarely in non-wetlands; • Facultative Wetland (FACW): Plants that occur usually in wetlands, but also occur in non-wetlands;
• Facultative (FAC): Plants with similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non-wetlands;
• Facultative Upland (FACU): Plants that occur sometimes in wetlands, but occur more often in non-wetlands; and
• Obligate Upland (UPL): Plants that occur rarely in wetlands but occur almost always in non-wetlands under natural conditions.

Vegetation strata are sampled separately when evaluating indicators of hydrophytic vegetation. A stratum for sampling purposes is defined as having 5 percent or more total plant cover.

Cover of vegetation is estimated and is ranked according to their dominance. Species that contribute to a cumulative total of 50 percent of the total dominant coverage, plus any species that comprise at least 20 percent (also known as the “50/20 rule”) of the total dominant coverage, are recorded on a wetland determination data form. Wetland indicator status is assigned to each species using The National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5 (USACE, 2020). If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species from all strata were Obligate Wetland, Facultative Wetland, or Facultative species, the criteria for wetland vegetation is met.

3.1.2.2 Hydrology
Wetland hydrology indicators are presented in four groups, which are:
• Group A – Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils: Based on the direct observation of surface water or groundwater during the site visit. • Group B – Evidence of Recent Inundation: Consists of evidence that the site is subject to flooding or ponding, although it may not be inundated currently. These indicators include water marks, drift deposits, sediment deposits, and similar features. • Group C – Evidence of Recent Soil Saturation: Consists of indirect evidence that the soil was saturated recently. Some of these indicators, such as oxidized rhizospheres 5634

METHODS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 10
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project surrounding living roots and the presence of reduced iron or sulfur in the soil profile, indicate that the soil has been saturated for an extended period. • Group D – Evidence from Other Site Conditions or Data: Consists of vegetation and soil features that indicate contemporary rather than historical wet conditions and include shallow aquitard and the FAC-neutral test.

If wetland vegetation criteria are met, the presence of wetland hydrology is evaluated at each transect by recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to free water in the soil test pits. The lateral extent of the hydrology indicators is used as a guide for locating soil pits for evaluation of hydric soils and jurisdictional areas. In portions of the stream where the flow is divided by multiple channels with intermediate sand bars, the entire area between the channels is considered within the OHWM and the wetland hydrology indicator is considered met for the entire area.

3.1.2.3 Soils
A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 16-20 inches.4 The concept of hydric soils includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial measures are included in the concept of hydric soils. The limits of wetland hydrology indicators are also used as a guide for locating soil pits. If any hydric soil features are located, progressive pits are dug moving laterally away from the active channel until hydric features are no longer present within the top 20 inches of the soil profile.

Once in the field, soil characteristics are verified by digging soil pits along each transect to an excavation depth of 20 inches; in areas of high sediment deposition, soil pit depth may be increased. Soil pit locations are usually placed within the drainage invert or within adjoining vegetation. At each soil pit, the soil texture and color are recorded by comparison with standard plates within a Munsell Soil Chart (2012). Munsell Soil Charts aid in designating color labels to soils, based by degrees of three simple variables – hue, value, and chroma. Any indicators of hydric soils, such as organic accumulation, iron reduction, translocation, and accumulation, and sulfate reduction, are also recorded. Hydric soil indicators are in the following three groups:
• All Soils: Refers to soils with any U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) soil texture. Hydric soil indicators within this group include histosol, histic epipedon, black histic, hydrogen sulfide, stratified layers, 1-centimeter muck, depleted below dark surface, and thick dark surface. • Sandy Soils: Refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy fine sand and coarser. Hydric soil indicators within this group include sandy mucky mineral, sandy gleyed matrix, sandy redox, and stripped matrix.
4 According to the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (USACE 2008), growing season dates are determined through on-site observations of the following indicators of biological activity in a given year: (1) above-ground growth and development of vascular plants, and/or (2) soil temperature.
5635

METHODS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 11
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project • Loamy and Clayey Soils: Refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy very fine sand and finer. Hydric soil indicators within this group include loamy mucky mineral, loamy gleyed matrix, depleted matrix, redox dark surface, depleted dark surface, redox depressions, and vernal pools.

3.1.3 Streamflow Duration Assessment Method
Michael Baker determined stream duration using the methods outlined in the Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods for the Arid West and Western Mountains of the United States of America (SDAM; USACE, 2024). This manual is intended to offer a rapid and repeatable method to distinguish between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streamflow regimes. The SDAM considers several variables in determining the stream duration of a given reach, including presence and abundance of hydrophytic plant species, aquatic invertebrates, EPT taxa (comprised of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), algae, and other single indicators (fish and/or algae cover ≥10%).

3.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board

3.2.1 Non-wetland Waters of the State
The RWQCB generally shares the USACE jurisdictional methodology for identifying non-wetland waters unless the waterbody is not jurisdictional to the USACE under the Revised Definition.

Non-wetland waters of the State do not require connectivity to downstream TNWs and can include isolated and/or ephemeral aquatic features not subject to federal jurisdiction. In the case where the waterbody is not a water of the U.S., the RWQCB considers such waterbodies to be jurisdictional waters of the State.

3.2.2 Wetland Waters of the State
The Procedures adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 2, 2019, contain a wetland definition and wetland delineation procedures. The State wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the three-parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the USACE and outlined in the Regional Supplement to the USACE Manual. However, one exception is that an area can naturally lack vegetation and still qualify as a wetland water of the State if it satisfies both the hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters.

3.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The scope of CDFW jurisdictional authority includes the bed and bank of streambeds and extends to the dripline of any associated riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. 5636
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 12
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 4. Literature Review
Michael Baker conducted a thorough review of relevant literature and materials to preliminarily identify areas that may be under the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. The materials used during the literature review are summarized below and in Appendix A, Documentation. In addition, Section 8 has the complete list of references used throughout the course of this delineation.

4.1 Watershed Review
The Cucamonga Creek sub-watershed is within the larger Santa Ana River Watershed, which drains a 2,650 square-mile area and includes parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties in California. The Santa Ana River drains the largest coastal stream system of Southern California, is roughly 700 miles in length, and releases into the Pacific Ocean in Huntington Beach.

The Cucamonga Creek sub-watershed includes two portions of Cucamonga Creek: Reach 1 (Valley Reach) (State Waterbody ID CAR8012100019990211101136) and Reach 2 (Mountain Reach) (CAR8012402019991013163906). Cucamonga Creek generally flows north to south and ultimately drains into the Santa Ana River at the Prado Basin.

4.2 Local Climate
The Santa Ana River Watershed, similar to the region, is characterized by a year-round Mediterranean climate, or semi-arid climate, with warm, sunny, dry summers and cool, rainy, mild winters. Climatological data indicates the annual precipitation averages 20.61 inches per year.

Almost all precipitation occurs in the months between November and April, with little occurring between the months of May and October. The wettest months are February and March, with a monthly average total precipitation of 9.23 inches. The average minimum temperature for Silverado is 54 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), and the average maximum temperature is 75°F, with February being the coldest month and August and September being the hottest months (monthly average 88°F).

4.3 USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
The project site is within Section 22 of Township 01 South, Range 7 West, of the Guasti, California

7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map. Site topography slopes north to south, and onsite elevations range from 973 feet in the southeast portion of the project site to 985 feet along the northwest corner of the project site. Review of the topographic map indicates one potential linear aquatic resource. The topographic map shows the project site as undeveloped open space, with surrounding land use consisting of commercial development, transportation corridors, and a regional park.

4.4 Aerial Photograph
Prior to the field visits, Michael Baker reviewed multiple aerial photographs for the project site from Google Earth, including images dated 1994 through 2023. Aerial photographs can be useful 5637

LITERATURE REVIEW
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 13
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project during the delineation process, as the photographs often indicate the presence of drainages and riparian vegetation (if any). Review of the aerial photographs indicated the site has remained unchanged from development. The one drainage evident in the topographic map is visible on the aerial photographs. No additional potentially jurisdictional features are apparent from the aerial photographs

4.5 Soil Survey
Prior to the field delineation, Michael Baker researched soils within the project site using the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California (USDA, 2025). Soil surveys furnish soil maps and interpretations originally needed in providing technical assistance to farmers and ranchers; in guiding other decisions about soil selection, use, and management; and in planning, research, and disseminating the results of the research. In addition, soil surveys are now heavily utilized to obtain soil information with respect to potential wetland environments and jurisdictional areas (i.e., soil characteristics, drainage, and color). The presence of hydric soils is initially investigated by comparing the mapped soil series for the site to the County list of hydric soils. The following soil series has been reported onsite:
• Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Soils in the Tujunga series are typically comprised of somewhat excessively drained soils.

This soil type occurs on alluvial fans with slopes ranging from 0 to 5 percent and elevations ranging from 650 to 3,110 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Tujunga soils experience high to very high capacity to transmit water. Tujunga loamy sand is not a hydric soil.

4.6 Hydric Soils List of California
Michael Baker reviewed the Hydric Soils List of California (USDA, 2023) to verify whether the on-site soils mapped by USDA are considered to be hydric.5 Lists of hydric soils, along with soil survey maps, provide off-site ancillary tools to assist in wetland determinations. Lists and maps are not a substitute for field investigations. According to the soils list, none of the soils within the project site are listed as hydric.

4.7 National Wetlands Inventory
Michael Baker reviewed the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Map to gain an understanding of potential aquatic resource areas to investigate during the field survey. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, the project site does not contain any mapped aquatic features. The National Wetlands Inventory Maps are in Appendix A, Documentation.

4.8 Flood Zone
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program was reviewed for available flood data within the project site. According to Flood Insurance Rate Map 5 A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions.
5638

LITERATURE REVIEW
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 14
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project (FIRM) No. 06071C8628J, the project site is within Zone X (0.2% annual chance flood hazard).

FEMA map panels are in Appendix A, Documentation.

4.9 National Hydrography Dataset
Michael Baker reviewed the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for available hydrography data within the project site using The National Map Advanced Viewer from the USGS. According to the NHD, one potential ephemeral stream is noted within the project site generally flowing north to south. This potential ephemeral stream flows south through a culvert out of the project site and eventually dissipates roughly 0.4 miles south of the project site. The NHD map is in Appendix A, Documentation.
5639
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 15
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 5. Site Conditions
Michael Baker regulatory specialists conducted a jurisdictional delineation on August 5, 2025.

Field staff did not encounter any access limitations during the site visit. Refer to Appendix B for site photographs taken throughout the project site.

5.1 Aquatic Resources

5.1.1 Aquatic Feature 1 (AF-1)
AF-1 is a natural, earthen drainage feature that flows through the project site from north to south and ultimately dissipates roughly 0.4 miles south of the project site. AF-1 enters the project site via a 3-foot culvert along the northern end of the site. The first 25 feet of AF-1 consists of grouted riprap along the banks but then transitions to an earthen channel through the rest of the project site. AF-1 is comprised of loose, sandy soils and is mostly vegetated along the banks with upland plants similar in composition to the surrounding upland area. Some surface water was present within the northern portion of AF-1. Evidence of an OHWM and surface hydrology was observed via the following indicators:
• a natural line impressed on the bank,
• sediment deposition, and
• bed and banks.

The OHWM is approximately 3 feet in width along this feature, while the top of bank is roughly 12 feet in width.

Vegetation coverage was consistent throughout the channel, with flax-leaved horseweed (Erigeron bonariensis; FACU), short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana; UPL), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora; UPL) dominant throughout the channel. A few individuals of tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis; FACW) and spiny rush (Juncus acutus; FACW) were present at the northern end of AF-1.

Michael Baker conducted a stream duration assessment using the SDAM to determine the flow regime of this feature. AF-1 Reach 1 (downstream end latitude 34.068662°, longitude - 117.595148°) had a mean channel width of 1 meter and a reach length of 160 meters. AF-1 Reach 1 did not exhibit indicators of flow more than in direct response to precipitation and was accordingly classified as an aquatic feature with an ephemeral flow regime. Appendix D, SDAM Form, has a copy of the Arid West Streamflow Duration Assessment Method form.

Due to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, Michael Baker investigated one soil pit (SP-1) within the vicinity of AF-1 to document the presence or absence of wetland conditions.
• SP-1 was taken within a ponded area that contained the most abundant presence of hydrophytic vegetation, including tall cyperus and spiny rush. SP-1 was dug to a depth of 5640

SITE CONDITIONS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 16
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project 6 inches before hitting a restrictive layer of riprap. Although wetland hydrology was present within SP-1, hydric soil and hydrophytic-dominant vegetation were not. Therefore, it was determined that no wetlands are present within AF-1.

Appendix C, Wetland Data Forms, has a copy of the wetland determination data form. 5641
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 17
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 6. Findings
Michael Baker prepared this delineation to document the jurisdictional authority of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW within the project site. This report presents the best professional judgement in determining the extent of jurisdictional features using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies. However, as with any jurisdictional delineation, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries.

6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

6.1.1 Non-Wetland Waters of The U.S. Determination
Although evidence of an OHWM was noted within the boundaries of the project site, the aquatic feature on site is an ephemeral drainage feature, does not exhibit relatively permanent flow, and does not have a surface hydrological connection to a traditional navigable waterway. Therefore, AF-1 is not considered waters of the U.S.

6.1.2 Wetland Determination
As previously noted in Section 3.1.2, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters described in the USACE Regional Supplement to be considered a jurisdictional wetland. Based on the results of the site visit, Michael Baker determined that no wetland waters are present within the project site (Section 5.1.1).

6.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board

6.2.1 Non-Wetland Waters of the State Determination
As described in Section 6.1.1, the aquatic feature mapped onsite exhibits evidence of an OHWM, but is not considered waters of the U.S. However, this feature would fall under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Act and is considered waters of the State. Table 1, below, presents the total acreage of non-wetland waters of the State within the project site, as also shown in Figure 4, RWQCB Jurisdictional Map.

6.2.2 Wetland Determination
As described in Section 6.1.2, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters described in the Regional Supplement to the USACE Manual to be considered a USACE jurisdictional wetland.

The State wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the USACE three-parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology. However, one exception is that an area can lack vegetation and still satisfy the parameter for hydrophytic vegetation, thus qualifying the area as a wetland water of the State if the hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters are also fulfilled. Based on the results of the field delineation, Michael Baker determined that the aquatic feature on site does not contain wetland waters of the State.
5642

FINDINGS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 18
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The mapped feature exhibits a clear bed and bank and is considered CDFW jurisdictional streambed. Table 1, below, presents the total acreage of CDFW streambed resources within the project site, as also shown in Figure 5, CDFW Jurisdictional Map. 5643

FINDINGS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 19
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project TABLE 1. JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
Aquatic
Feature Latitude/Longitude Cowardin Code
Jurisdictional Limits

USACE RWQCB CDFW
Linear
Wetland Non Feet -
wetland Wetland Non-wetland Unvegetated Streambed
Vegetated
Streambed
Associated
Riparian
AF-1

34.069418°/-
117.594853° Riverine -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.15 -- 532
Total -- -- -- 0.03 -- 0.15 -- 532
5644
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E
Date Pa ml Pa
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10
N
Archibald A
ve
N
Archibald A
v e
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
RWQCB Jurisdictional Map
Figure 4
°
0 290 580
Feet
9/4/2025 9/4/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site
Non-Wetland Waters of the US/State (0.03 acre)
Soil Pit
Reference Point

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

34.070981,
-117.600101
5645
Deer Creek
Deer Creek
10 10
E Date Palm Paseo
Inland Empire Blvd
55 E
Date Pa ml Pa
Paseos at
Ontario
Burgertow
USA
10 10
N
Archibald A
ve
N
Archibald A
v e
Inland Empire Blvd
Los Jalapeñ
CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 5
°
0 290 580
Feet
9/4/2025 9/4/2025 \\Santca1hub\irvica1fs1\HROOT\pdata\205836\GIS Legend
Project Site
CDFW Vegetated Streambed (0.15 acre)
Soil Pit
Reference Point

MEREDITH INTERNATIONAL CENTRE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT

34.070981,
-117.600101
5646
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 22
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 7. Regulatory Approval Process
Michael Baker prepared this report to delineate the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional authority within the project site. Below is a summary of the various permits/authorizations that would be required prior to temporarily or permanently impacting on-site jurisdictional features.

7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S. and wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Based on a review of the proposed project, obtaining a Section 404 permit from the USACE for impacts occurring within USACE jurisdictional areas is not required. However, the applicant may be required to obtain an Approved Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE to confirm the findings of this report.

7.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board
The RWQCB regulates discharges to surface waters under Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Act. Therefore, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Porter-Cologne Waste Discharge Requirements issued from the RWQCB would be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within RWQCB jurisdictional areas. The RWQCB also requires that applicants demonstrate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance prior to issuance of the final permits. An application fee is required, which is calculated based on the combined total temporary and permanent impact acreages of jurisdictional impacts.

7.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW regulates substantial alterations to streambed resources under Section 1602 of the CFGC. Therefore, formal notification to, and subsequent authorization from CDFW would be required prior to commencement of any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. The CDFW also requires that CEQA compliance be obtained prior to issuing the final Lake or Streambed Alternation Agreement. A notification fee is required, which is calculated based on estimated project construction costs within any CDFW jurisdictional areas.

7.4 Recommendations
As part of the regulatory permitting process, this delineation will be forwarded to each of the regulatory agencies for their concurrence. The concurrence would be valid up to five years and would solidify findings noted within this report.
5647
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 23
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Section 8. References
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements Section 1600-1607- California Fish and Game Code.

Environmental Services Division.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.

Accessed online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.

Accessed online at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.

Calflora, What Grows Here?, Accessed online at: https://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2008. The Ecological and Hydrological Significance of Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams in the Arid and Semi-Arid American Southwest.

Office of Research and Development.

Federal Register. 2023. Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming, 88 F.R. 61964 (September 8, 2023).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2025. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06071C8628J. Accessed online at:
https://msc.fema.gov/nfhl.

Google, Inc. 2025. Google Earth Pro Imagery Version 7.3.6.9750, build date March 27, 2023.

Lichvar, R.W., D.C. Finnegan, M.P. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators and their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Waters of the United States” in the Arid Southwestern Channels. ERDC/CRREL TR-06-5. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Lichvar, R.W., and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
5648

REFERENCES
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 24
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project Mazor, R.D., Janes, A., Fritz, K.M., Topping, B., Nadeau, TL., Edgerton, R.F., and Nicholas, K. 2024. Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods for the Arid West and Western Mountains of the United States. Version 2.0. Document No. EPA-843-B2-24002 Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Charts. X-rite. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

SWRCB. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Effective May 28, 2020. Available online at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual.

USACE. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators and their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of “Water of the Unites States” in the Arid Southwestern Channels.

USACE. 2007. Practices for Documenting Jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA, Regional Guidance Letter 07-01.

USACE. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

USACE. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States.

USACE. 2016. Special Public Notice: Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Regulatory Division Regulatory Program. Issued on February 10, 2016.

USACE. 2017. Special Public Notice: Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. Issued on March 16, 2017.

USACE. 2022. National Ordinary High Water Mark Field Delineation Manual for Rivers and Streams (Interim Version). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

USACE. 2023. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6 Available online at https://wetlandplants.sec.usace.army.mil/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). August 30, 2025a. Custom Soil Resources Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California. Accessed online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
5649

REFERENCES
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Page 25
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project USDA. 2025b. Hydric Soils List of California. Accessed online at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html.

USDA. 2025c. Official Soil Series Descriptions (OSDs). Accessed online at https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2025. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2025a. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed online at:
https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
USGS. 2025b. 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle, Guasti, California. 5650
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX A

DOCUMENTATION
5651
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
Ü

SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT

SPECIAL FLOOD

HAZARD AREAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
Zone A, V, A99
With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulatory Floodway

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard Zone X
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes. Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance

17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.

The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 8/20/2025 at 8:46 PM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.

This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.

Legend

OTHER AREAS OF

FLOOD HAZARD

OTHER AREAS

GENERAL

STRUCTURES
OTHER

FEATURES

MAP PANELS
8 B

20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
1:6,000
117°36'13"W 34°4'24"N
117°35'35"W 34°3'54"N
Basemap Imagery Source: USGS National Map 2023
5652
Ontario-MeredithSP NWI
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
February 18, 2025
0 0.03 0.06 0.12 mi
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 km
1:3,762
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
5653
United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
San Bernardino
County Southwestern
Part, California
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
February 18, 20255654
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.

They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.

Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment.

Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.

The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.

Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951).

Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 5655
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
3 5656
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 12 San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California...................................14 TuB—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes.......................................14 References............................................................................................................16 4 5657
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.

Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.

The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape.

Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.

Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).

Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 5658
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research.

The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.

The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.

These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.

Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties.

While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.

Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.

Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.

After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report
6 5659
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.

Custom Soil Resource Report
7 5660
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 5661
9 Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3769750 3769830 3769910 3769990 3770070 3770150 3770230 3769750 3769830 3769910 3769990 3770070 3770150 3770230 444490 444570 444650 444730 444810 444890 444970 445050 445130 445210 445290 444490 444570 444650 444730 444810 444890 444970 445050 445130 445210 445290 34° 4' 17'' N
117° 36' 6'' W
34° 4' 17'' N
117° 35' 34'' W
34° 4' 0'' N
117° 36' 6'' W
34° 4' 0'' N
117° 35' 34'' W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,730 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.

Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
5662

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.

Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.

Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.

Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.

Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:

Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required.

This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below.

Soil Survey Area: San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
Survey Area Data: Version 16, Aug 30, 2024
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger.

Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 17, 2022—Jun 12, 2022
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report
10 5663

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.

Custom Soil Resource Report
11 5664
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI TuB Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes

31.4 100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest 31.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.

A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.

Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.

Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.

The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.

Custom Soil Resource Report
12 5665
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.

Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities.

Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.

Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.

Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.

These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.

A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.

The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.

An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.

Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.

Custom Soil Resource Report
13 5666
San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California
TuB—Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2sx6y
Elevation: 650 to 3,110 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 25 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 62 to 65 degrees F
Frost-free period: 325 to 365 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition
Tujunga, loamy sand, and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.

Description of Tujunga, Loamy Sand
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
C1 - 6 to 18 inches: loamy sand
C2 - 18 to 60 inches: loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches) Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Ecological site: R019XG912CA - Sandy Fan
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tujunga, gravelly loamy sand
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Custom Soil Resource Report
14 5667
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Hanford, sandy loam
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15 5668
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.

Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.

Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States.

National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 16 5669
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report
17 5670
Meredith SPA
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery and US Topo. Data refreshed February, 2025., USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Flow Direction
Connector
CanalDitch
StreamRiver - Ephemeral
Artificial Path
Flowline - Large Scale
Ephemeral
Artificial Path
Canal Ditch
Connector
Area - Large Scale
CanalDitch
Waterbody - Large Scale
Lake Pond
Reservoir
Layers
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
8/19/2025
5671
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
5672

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report September 15, 2025 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project B-1 Photograph 1. South-facing view of the northern end of AF-1 (34.070073- 117.594839°).

Photograph 2. View looking south along the middle of AF-1 (34.069291°, - 117.594850°).
5673

ATTACHMENT B

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report September 15, 2025 Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project B-2 Photograph 3. View looking north along the southern end of AF-1 (34.068684°, - 117.595138°).

Photograph 4. View looking northeast towards Soil Pit 1 at the northern end of AF-1 (34.069948°, - 117.594869°).
5674
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX C

WETLAND DATA FORM
5675
5676
5677
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Appendix
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment Project

APPENDIX D

ARID WEST STREAMFLOW

DURATION ASSESSMENT METHOD

DATA FORM
5678
Streamflow Duration Assessment Methods
SDAM Version 3.0.0 Release Date: June 2025
https://www.epa.gov/streamflow-duration-assessment
Visit date: 2025-08-05
Report generated date: 2025-08-05
Project name: Meredith SPA
Site code: N/A
Regional SDAM classification: EPHEMERAL
Northeast
Southeast
Western
Mountains
Arid
West
Pacific
Northwest Great
Plains
5679
General site information
Project name or number: Meredith SPA
Site code or identifier: N/A
SDAM Region: Arid West
Adjacent SDAM Regions within 10 miles: Unknown
Assessor(s): Stephen Anderson, Audrey Tamayo
Waterway name: Unnamed Drainage
Visit date: 2025-08-05
Current weather conditions: Clear/Sunny
Notes on current or recent weather conditions: No recent rain events Location: Not provided
Surrounding land use within 100 m: Urban, industrial, or residential Notes on land use: Undeveloped land subject to regular mowing Description of reach boundaries: Culvert at north end, culvert at south end Assessment reach length (m): 150
Disturbed or difficult conditions: Stream modifications (e.g., channelization) Notes on disturbances or difficult site conditions: Regularly mowed outside of channel Observed hydrology
Percent of reach with surface flow: 0
Percent of reach with surface and sub-surface flows: 0
Number of isolated pools: 1
Notes on observed hydrology: Surface water present at north end of reach Site photos
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 2 of 11 5680
Top of reach looking downstream:

Middle of reach looking upstream:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 3 of 11 5681
Middle of reach looking downstream:

Bottom of reach looking upstream:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 4 of 11 5682
Site sketch
Indicators
Mean bankfull channel width (m): 1
Notes on mean bankfull channel width: Bankfull consistent throughout channel.

Mean bankfull channel width photos and descriptions:

Description: Upstream end
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 5 of 11 5683
Description: middle
Description: downstream end
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 6 of 11 5684
Perennial indicator taxa: No perennial indicator taxa detected Aquatic macroinvertebrates in assessment area: Aquatic macroinvertebrates absent Notes on aquatic macroinvertebrates:

Macroinvertebrate photos and photo descriptions:

Slope (to the nearest half-percent): 0.99
Notes about slope:

Slope is minor and consistent
Slope photos and descriptions:

Description:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 7 of 11 5685
Number of hydrophytic plant species: 2
Vegetation in assessment area: vegetation present
Notes on hydrophytic plants:

Hydrophytic vegetation presence is very minor
Hydrophyte photos and photo descriptions:

Description: Hydrophytes at north end of drainage
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 8 of 11 5686
Prevalence of upland rooted plants in streambed: 0 (Poor) Rooted upland plants are prevalent within the streambed/thalweg.

Notes about upland rooted plants:

Upland rooted plants present throughout drainage
Upland rooted plants photos and descriptions:

Description: Upland plants along banks and within thalweg Algal cover: Not Detected
Check here if algae exclusively appears to have been deposited from an upstream source, and no local growth is evident: Not checked
Notes about algal cover:

None
Algal cover photos and descriptions:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 9 of 11 5687
Differences in vegetation: 0 (Poor) No compositional or density differences in vegetation are present between the banks and the adjacent uplands.

Notes about differences in vegetation:

None
Vegetation differences photos and descriptions:

Riffle-pool sequence: 0 (Poor) No riffle-pool sequences observed.

Notes about riffle-pool sequence:

None
Riffle-pool photos and descriptions:

Supplemental information
Additional notes about the assessment:

None
Supplemental information photos and descriptions:

SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 10 of 11 5688
Arid West Regional SDAM classification

EPHEMERAL
SDAM resources
End of Report
SDAM Version 3.0.0 June 2025, Date of site visit: 2025-08-05 Page 11 of 11 5689
Meredith International Centre Specific Plan Amendment – Planning Area 3 Project Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report

APPENDIX C

NOISE DATA
5690
Site Number: NM-1
Recorded By: Dennis Dinh, Darshan Shivaiah
Job Number: 205836
Date: 4/02/2025
Time: 11:59 a.m.

Location: West of the 2505 East Date Palm Paseo Building Source of Ambient Noise: Traffic along Inland Empire Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB)

67.8 57.4 84.6
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 06/04/2023
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 06/04/2023
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 06/04/2023
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 06/04/2023
Weather Data
Est.

Duration: 10 minutes Sky: Sunny
Note: dBA Offset = -0.01 Sensor Height (ft): 5 ft
Wind Ave Speed (mph / m/s) Temperature (degrees Fahrenheit) Barometer Pressure (inches) 6 62 30.06
Photo of Measurement Location

5691
2250
Instrument: 2250
Application: BZ7225 Version 4.7.6
Start Time: 04/02/2025 11:59:59
End Time: 04/02/2025 12:09:59
Elapsed Time: 00:10:00
Bandwidth: 1/3-octave
Max Input Level: 142.15
Time Frequency
Broadband (excl. Peak): FSI AC
Broadband Peak: C
Spectrum: FS Z
Instrument Serial Number: 3011133
Microphone Serial Number: 3086765
Input: Top Socket
Windscreen Correction: UA-1650
Sound Field Correction: Free-field
Calibration Time: 04/02/2025 11:02:21
Calibration Type: External reference
Sensitivity: 43.4710383415222 mV/Pa
ONTSPA_001
Start End Elapsed Overload LAeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 67.8 84.6 57.4
Time 11:59:59 AM 12:09:59 PM 0:10:00
Date 04/02/2025 04/02/2025
5692
Cursor: (A) Leq=67.8 dB LFmax=84.6 dB LFmin=57.4 dB
ONTSPA_001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
110
120
130
dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:09:59 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
Cursor: [78.2 ; 78.4[ dB Level: 0.1% Cumulative: 0.8%
ONTSPA_001
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% Based on LAF , 10ms Class width: 0.2 dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:09:59 PM dB
L1 = 77.5 dB
L5 = 73.7 dB
L10 = 71.3 dB
L50 = 63.5 dB
L90 = 60.5 dB
L95 = 59.9 dB
L99 = 58.9 dB
Level Cumulative
5693
Cursor: 04/02/2025 12:04:58 PM - 12:04:59 PM LAIeq=64.6 dB LAFmax=64.8 dB LCpeak=84.0 dB LAFmin=61.7 dB ONTSPA_001
12:00:00 PM 12:02:00 PM 12:04:00 PM 12:06:00 PM 12:08:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
ONTSPA_001
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 64.6 64.8 61.7
Time 12:04:58 PM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
5694
Cursor: (A) Leq=63.2 dB
ONTSPA_001

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 12:04:58 PM - 12:04:59 PM
Hz
LZeq
Cursor: 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:00:00 PM LAIeq=69.0 dB LAFmax=67.8 dB LCpeak=83.8 dB LAFmin=--- ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
12:00:00 PM 12:10:00 PM 12:20:00 PM 12:30:00 PM 12:40:00 PM 12:50:00 PM 01:00:00 PM 20 40
60 80
100
120
140
dB
LAIeq LAFmax LCpeak LAFmin
5695
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
Start Elapsed Overload LAIeq LAFmax LAFmin
time time [%] [dB] [dB] [dB]
Value 0.00 69.0 67.8 ---
Time 11:59:59 AM 0:00:01
Date 04/02/2025
Cursor: (A) Leq=63.2 dB LFmax=67.8 dB LFmin=---
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports

12.50 31.50 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 A C 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
dB 04/02/2025 11:59:59 AM - 12:00:00 PM
Hz
LZeq LZFmax LZFmin
5696
ONTSPA_001 Periodic reports
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
% No statistic available
dB
5697
Site Number: NM-2
Recorded By: Dennis Dinh, Darshan Shivaiah
Job Number: 205836
Date: 4/02/2025
Time: 12:17 p.m.

Location: Approximately 100 feet east of the East Date Palm Paseo and Inland Empire Boulevard intersection Source of Ambient Noise: Traffic along Inland Empire Boulevard Noise Data
Leq (dB) Lmin (dB) Lmax (dB)

66.8 59.7 79.5
Equipment
Category Type Vendor Model Serial No. Cert. Date Note
Sound
Sound Level Meter Brüel & Kjær 2250 3011133 06/04/2023
Microphone Brüel & Kjær 4189 3086765 06/04/2023
Preamp Brüel & Kjær ZC 0032 25380 06/04/2023
Calibrator Brüel & Kjær 4231 2545667 06/04/2023
Weather Data
Est.

Ontario City CouncilJune 16, 2026

Ontario City Council
June 16, 2026