Ontario City Council
August 16, 2022

STRATEGY 8 SMART GROWTH AND INFILL
Encourage revitalization of neighborhoods through higher-density, mixed-use, infill development and creative reuse of under-utilized sites within the urban core. This measure is supportive of community-wide GHG reduction goals and does not have directly measurable GHG reductions.

Strategy 8 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
STRATEGY 8 ACTIONS:
 Identify opportunities to increase residential density in and around the urban core.  Examine the development review process and other zoning approval processes to reduce or eliminate regulations that increase costs for higher density development.  Regularly identify underutilized parcels in existing infill areas to support increased housing and business opportunities consistent with the adopted Housing Element.

STRATEGY 9 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Encourage development of compact, mixed-use, and transit-oriented development to improve the regional jobs-housing balance, especially on corridors served by high-ridership transit and bus rapid transit (BRT), such as Holt Avenue.

Strategy 9 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 330 1,440
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0008 0.0020 STRATEGY 9 ACTIONS:
 Require that development within the transit-oriented development (TOD) corridor maintains and improves the mobility of people and vehicles along and across the corridor through safety considerations such as separated sidewalks and bike lanes or traffic-calming measures.
 Require development within the TOD corridor to protect and improve as needed transportation infrastructure, equitably considering the safety, comfort, and effectiveness of all transportation modes.
1066
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 59
 Establish and maintain land use patterns in the TOD corridor that will attract and serve riders of public transit, such as higher-density mixed-use buildings near existing highfrequency transit stops.  Revise land use and development standards in the TOD corridor as needed to remove any barriers to appropriate higher-density development.

STRATEGY 10 INCREASE TRANSPORTATION RIDERSHIP
Ensure a reliable and responsive transit system with dedicated and secure funding and resources to support increased ridership.

Strategy 10 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 27,980 31,450
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0697 0.0445 STRATEGY 10 ACTIONS:
 Collaborate with LA Metro, Metrolink, and Omnitrans to implement “Smart Bus” technology, global positioning systems (GPS), and electronic displays at all transit stops to provide customers with “real-time” arrival and departure time information.  Support efforts to establish dedicated bus lanes.
 Collaborate with regional transit operators on programs to increase use of the City’s public transportation system. To the extent feasible, support shorter transit passenger travel time through reduced headways and increased speed. Support efforts by regional transit operators to reduce the average fleet travel time by 5 minutes.  In collaboration with transit agencies, support new transit routes, increased transit frequency and operating hours, and other improvements to transit quality.  Support citywide outreach campaigns by transit agencies to promote the use of public transit, including fare-free days to encourage mode shifts.  Coordinate with large regional employers to establish a shuttle service that connects transit centers to employment centers during commuting hours.
 Encourage employers to offer ridership programs, public transit passes, and telecommuting to employees.
1067
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

STRATEGY 11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND ROADWAY

MANAGEMENT
Implement traffic and roadway management strategies to improve mobility and efficiency and reduce associated emissions. This measure is supportive of community-wide GHG reduction goals and does not have directly measurable GHG reductions.

Strategy 11 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
STRATEGY 11 ACTIONS:
 Work with the Traffic Management Center to develop an annual signal synchronization program for identified priority corridors to understand changing traffic conditions, including peak hour conditions and traffic congestion patterns; update signal timing to match the specific needs of study corridors; and report on progress in travel time, average speed, and delay to measure effectiveness of the signal synchronization project.  Work with the Traffic Management Center to ensure that signal timing is updated on a regular basis to comply with latest State requirements and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle crossing time for roadways with crosswalks and/or bicycle facilities.

STRATEGY 12 COMMUNITY VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION
Promote and incentivize the adoption of electric vehicles (EV) citywide, including light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, for municipal, commercial, and residential uses.

Strategy 12 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 62,880 465,140
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.1565 0.6584 STRATEGY 12 ACTIONS:
 Develop and implement a plan to transition the City’s municipal fleet to low-and zeroemission vehicles, to the greatest extent feasible.  Collaborate with Omnitrans to encourage investment in electric buses.  Encourage the use of electric vehicles by increasing access to availability of public EV charging stations.
1068
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 61
 Work with SCAQMD to participate in CARB’s Proposition 1B–Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program to incentivize investment in cleaner trucks and electrification infrastructure to reduce air pollution emissions from freight activity beyond enforceable requirements.
 Incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles by providing EV rebates for Ontario residents and/or facilitating awareness rebates available from public agencies.  Provide information about EV rebate programs and other incentives through multiple communication channels to raise awareness about and increase purchases of EVs among residents and business owners, including creating a dedicated web page on the City website with information about purchasing EVs and installing EV chargers.

STRATEGY 13 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS
Work with transit agencies, school districts, and employers to facilitate an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, car sharing, bicycling, and walking.

Strategy 13 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 1,800 3,840
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0045 0.0054 STRATEGY 13 ACTIONS:
 Encourage local school districts to develop school transit plans to substantially reduce automobile trips to and congestion surrounding schools.  Increase pedestrian and bicycle facilities through implementation of the Active Transportation Master Plan, expanding the active transportation network to include 186.7 miles of bicycle facilities and pedestrian safety improvements to promote higher bicycle ridership and walking rates.
 Seek funding for active transportation infrastructure improvements.  Implement scooter-share pilot program in Ontario Ranch in 2023. 1069
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

STRATEGY 14 VEHICLE IDLING
Limit idling of heavy-duty trucks. Support the SCAMQD and CARB anti-idling requirements and provide signage in key areas where idling that is not consistent with SCAMQD or CARB requirements might occur.

Strategy 14 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 1,950 1,780
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0049 0.0025 STRATEGY 14 ACTIONS:
 Evaluate the feasibility of an idling ordinance that reduces the legally allowed idling time for heavy duty trucks (greater than 26,000 gross vehicle weight) to 3 minutes. California law currently limits idling time to 5 minutes. Ordinance must include a violation fee and enforcement mechanisms.
 Create a public awareness campaign to raise awareness about and increase compliance with idling ordinance.
 Install signage regarding new idling limit of 3 minutes in areas designated for industrial uses.

STRATEGY 15 PARKING POLICY AND EVENT PARKING
Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that encourages carpooling and the use of alternative transportation, including providing parking spaces for car-share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation.

Strategy 15 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 2,230 8,110
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0056 0.0115 STRATEGY 15 ACTIONS:
 Establish a market pricing scheme for on-street parking in Downtown Ontario.  Designate at least 5 percent of downtown parking spaces as loading and unloading areas for taxis, ridesharing or Transportation Network Companies, buses, and shuttles.  Designate a portion of parking revenues that can support City-led GHG reduction projects.  Consider establishing policies and programs to reduce onsite parking demand and promote ride-sharing during events at the Ontario Convention Center and other event venues. 1070
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 63
Off-Road
Off-road equipment is used in many important sectors of the Ontario economy, such as construction, landscaping, warehousing and logistics, and others. The use of off-road equipment contributes to community-wide GHG emissions, air pollution, and noise-levels in Ontario.

Construction equipment is also a significant source of air pollution in the heavy-duty off-road equipment sector.25 By encouraging the transition to electric off-road equipment, Ontario can improve quality of life and reduce air pollution while reducing GHG emissions.

STRATEGY 16 ELECTRIFICATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING

EQUIPMENT
Promote and incentivize the transition to electric construction and landscaping equipment.

Strategy 16 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 4,810 26,020
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0120 0.0368 STRATEGY 16 ACTIONS:
 Support state and regional efforts to replace diesel-powered construction and landscaping equipment with electric equipment.
 Conduct targeted outreach to local construction and landscaping companies to raise awareness about and increase participation in available electric equipment rebate programs.

STRATEGY 17 IDLING ORDINANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions from construction activity.

Strategy 17 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 40 100
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0001 0.0001 STRATEGY 17 ACTIONS:
 Evaluate the feasibility of an equipment idling ordinance that reduces the legally allowed idling time for heavy duty construction equipment to 3 minutes. Ordinance must include a violation fee and enforcement mechanisms.
 Conduct targeted outreach to local construction companies to raise awareness about and increase compliance with the equipment idling ordinance. 1071
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

Waste
Reducing GHG emissions released from community waste can be done by reducing the amount of waste that the community creates and capturing emissions released from landfills. This reduction can take a variety of forms, from reducing the amount of packing used in commercial products to reimagining alternative uses for items that might otherwise be considered garbage. The types of waste produced in Ontario include food waste, construction and demolition waste, household appliances, and single-use plastics. Strategies to reduce waste must be tailored to reflect the unique uses and composition of each of these materials. Waste reduction and reuse measures reduce emissions by reducing the amount of material that would otherwise decompose in a landfill. The emissions from decomposing waste can be captured and used for electricity, offsetting emissions from electricity use for facility operations.

STRATEGY 18 METHANE CAPTURE AT LANDFILLS
Support efforts to reduce methane emissions from regional landfills.

Strategy 18 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 22,410 57,370
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0558 0.0812 STRATEGY 18 ACTIONS:
 Encourage efforts to coordinate with regional landfills to install methane capture technology and associated monitoring systems with a goal of increasing the methane capture rate to the highest extent feasible.
 Encourage the use of captured methane for generating electricity to offset fossil fuel energy use and reduce GHG emissions.

STRATEGY 19 WASTE DIVERSION
Exceed waste diversion goals recommended by AB 939 and CALGreen by adopting a citywide diversion target of at least 75 percent of waste.

Strategy 19 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 14,490 38,670
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0361 0.0547 1072
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 65
STRATEGY 19 ACTIONS:
 Establish a source-reduction program that promotes options to rethink, refuse, reduce, reuse, regenerate, recycle, and recover materials by working with regional partners.  Establish sharing, exchange, and reuse program(s), including fix-it clinics, swap events, second-hand markets, and shop-local campaigns, by working with community and regional partners.
 Promote awareness of life-cycle emissions of products through public outreach campaigns.  Explore options to develop and adopt an ordinance to prohibit specific types of single-use or disposable plastics, particularly for use by restaurants, caterers, and other commercial kitchens.
 Engage with businesses using food packaging to determine barriers to switching to biodegradable or compostable food packaging and work to remove those barriers.  Provide educational outreach programs to multifamily residents, multifamily property owners, single-family homeowners, and business owners to support composting programs.  Increase the share of Ontario residents and business owners that have green compost carts or bins by working with waste haulers.
 Provide counter-top compost bins to residents of Ontario by working with regional partners and community-based organizations.
 Work with food service facilities to understand barriers to composting and work to mitigate these concerns.
 Encourage local restaurants to partner with food rescue organizations to divert food that would otherwise be thrown away to nonprofit organizations for distribution to those in need.
 Explore options to develop and adopt an ordinance requiring residences, businesses, and City facilities to practice responsible appliance disposal for all decommissioned units, including refrigerators/freezers, window air-conditioning units, and dehumidifiers. 1073
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

STRATEGY 20 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE RECOVERY

ORDINANCE
Increase the amount of waste recycled during construction and demolition of buildings. This measure is supportive of community-wide GHG reduction goals and does not have directly measurable GHG reductions.

Strategy 20 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) None
(supportive)
None
(supportive)
STRATEGY 20 ACTIONS:
 In compliance with AB 939 and CALGreen, implement an ordinance requiring building projects to recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of unused or leftover building materials.  Incentivize the recycling of construction debris by working with regional partners.  Research and consider providing financial incentives to encourage the recycling of construction debris.
 Determine how certain construction materials may be donated and reused to help those in need by working with local community-based organizations and construction companies. 1074
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 67
Water and Wastewater
Increasing water recycling and efficiency of water use reduces emissions by reducing the amount of energy needed to process, heat, and deliver water. In addition to saving energy, water conservation and efficiency helps protect one of California’s most precious resources, and in turn helps the City of Ontario to be more resilient to drought and water shortage. Meanwhile, individual homes and businesses benefit from reduced utility costs. This CCAP also recommends strategies to increase efficiency of water and wastewater treatment processes, which can reduce the amount of electricity required to operate water treatment facilities, further reducing GHG emissions in the water and wastewater sector.

STRATEGY 21 INDOOR WATER EFFICIENCY
Encourage water-efficient retrofits of new and existing buildings by working with water providers and regional agencies.

Strategy 21 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 4,580 2,540
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0114 0.0036 STRATEGY 21 ACTIONS::
 Explore establishing a reach code for water efficiency standards applicable to new residential and commercial development.
 Explore a target for reduced indoor and outdoor water use in existing buildings.  Partner with Ontario Municipal Utilities Company to encourage water conservation at municipal facilities and in the community.
 Publicize available incentives and low-cost solutions to water-efficiency retrofits in existing buildings.
 Provide incentives for water-efficient appliances, plumbing fixtures, and irrigation systems to encourage improved water efficiency.

STRATEGY 22 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPES AND WATER RECYCLING Promote drought-tolerant and fire-wise landscaping. Encourage increased use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, agricultural, and industrial use.

Strategy 22 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 3,400 0
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0085 0.0000 1075
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

STRATEGY 22 ACTIONS:
 Develop a native, drought-tolerant, and fire-resistant landscaping list and require new development or redevelopment to use this list in landscaping plans.  Enforce, and update as appropriate, the Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance to reduce outdoor water use.
 Encourage water-efficient landscaping practices through incentives and rebates for residential landscapes.
 Reduce municipal outdoor water use through a water monitoring and management system for all City irrigation operations.

STRATEGY 23 WATER SYSTEM AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS EFFICIENCY Maximize efficiency at drinking water treatment, pumping, and distribution facilities, including development of off-peak-demand schedules for heavy commercial and industrial users.

Strategy 23 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 150 0
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0004 0.0000 STRATEGY 23 ACTIONS:
 Work with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the local wastewater treatment provider, to upgrade and replace wastewater treatment and pumping equipment with more energy efficient equipment as feasible.
 Assess and upgrade City-owned water pumping and treatment equipment, as needed, to increase energy efficiency and save energy costs.

STRATEGY 24 METHANE CAPTURE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Work with Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the local wastewater treatment provider, to increase methane capture rate.

Strategy 24 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 960 2,280
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0024 0.0032 STRATEGY 24 ACTIONS:
 Work with Inland Empire Utilities Agency to explore the possibility of generating electricity from captured methane to power various facilities and reduce operating costs. 1076
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 69
Agriculture
Historically, Ontario was an agricultural community with abundant dairy farms. Dairy farms that remain operational in the city limits contribute to the release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas with approximately 28 times the global warming potential (GWP) of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.26 This CCAP recommends strategies that involve collaboration with regional partners, agencies, and members of the agricultural community to reduce GHG emissions from the agriculture sector in Ontario.

STRATEGY 25 METHANE CAPTURE FOR DAIRY OPERATIONS
Encourage and incentivize local dairy operations to reduce methane emissions through methane capture technology.

Strategy 25 GHG Reduction Potential 2030 2050
Absolute GHG Reduction (MTCO2e) 3,160 0
Per capita GHG Reduction (MTCO2e per capita) 0.0079 0
STRATEGY 25 ACTIONS:
 To comply with SB 1383, work with local dairies to encourage installation of methane digesters to capture methane emissions from decomposing manure.

In addition to the GHG reduction strategies that address specific sources of Ontario’s GHG emissions, this CCAP recommends strategies that help to successfully implement the CCAP but are not currently quantifiable actions. These actions are included to complement the strategies for specific sectors, including climate change education, carbon sequestration, and green jobs. 1077
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

Leadership
STRATEGY 26 CLIMATE CHANGE AWARENESS AND EDUCATION
Promote climate change awareness and GHG reduction community-wide through a variety of mechanisms, including support of climate change education in schools or community colleges.

STRATEGY 26 ACTIONS:
 Promote educational resources to students and parents each year and encourage community educators to
incorporate clean energy and climate change discussions into their curriculum by partnering with CSU San
Bernardino and school districts.
 Use City newsletters to spotlight community members,
including K-12 teachers and students, who are working on climate change or sustainability and who are making a
difference in our community.
 Increase energy educational resources in the Ontario
School District and Ontario-Montclair School District by working with the San Bernardino County Office of
Education.
 Work with nonprofits and community-based organizations to develop a list of green volunteer opportunities and skills trainings for high school students, such as community
gardening, tree planting, bicycle advocacy, food recovery, and composting.
 Promote and support opportunities for Ontario
community members to test appliances and equipment
that support increased energy and water conservation and transitions to all-electric appliances.

TREE PLANTING IN

ONTARIO
Since 2019, the City has
planted 1,000 trees of
five different species :
tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), pink trumpet
tree (Handroanthus
impetiginosus), London
plane tree (Platanus x
hispanica), Chinkapin
oak (Quercus
muehlenbergii), and
Chinese flame tree
(Koelreuteria bipinnata).

As part of Ontario
Together, 365 native
oak trees were planted
in disadvantaged
communities in Central
Ontario. Trees provide
numerous social and
ecological benefits to
the community—they
provide shade, offer
wildlife habitat, help
purify the air, sequester
carbon, absorb water,
and improve aesthetics
and property values in
neighborhoods and
commercial areas.
1078
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 71
Carbon Sequestration
STRATEGY 27 CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Establish a City-wide carbon sequestration project and sequestration goal of 5,000 MTCO2e per year.

STRATEGY 27 ACTIONS:
 Organize citywide tree planting volunteer days, prioritizing public schools and neighborhoods in environmental justice areas, as an extension of the City's urban forestry program.
 Conduct public workshops to educate community members about the ecological, social, and economic benefits of trees and provide basic training in tree planting and maintenance.  Seek grants in partnership with community-based organizations to fund the carbon sequestration project.
 Publicize the carbon sequestration project to raise awareness about the project and recruit volunteers.
 Explore opportunities to establish a carbon offset program for development projects, ensuring that offset activities occur in California, and that they occur locally or regionally to the greatest extent possible. GHG reductions from carbon offsets must be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable.
1079
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

Economy
STRATEGY 28 GREEN JOBS
Support green-jobs training and opportunities to create sustainable, living wage, quality employment opportunities
STRATEGY 28 ACTIONS:
 Partner with community colleges, local nonprofits, and community groups to provide green-jobs training for residents.
 Provide information about green jobs, especially to people currently or recently working in polluting or extractive industries.
 Collaborate with community-based organizations and regional partners to amend the City’s economic development strategy and attract businesses to Ontario that contribute to a sustainable economy.
1080
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 73
Summary of Total GHG Emissions Reductions
Collectively, the strategies in this chapter achieve substantial GHG reductions for the years 2030 and 2050 that amount to 0.541 MTCO2e per capita and 1.092 MTCO2e per capita, respectively.

Table 20 shows the reductions achieved by topic, and Figure 5 shows these reductions relative to Ontario’s community-wide emissions. The three sectors with the greatest potential to reduce community-wide GHG emissions are the transportation sector, energy sector, and waste sector, in that order.

Table 20 Absolute and Per Capita GHG Emission Reduction Potential by Sector Sector
2030
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2050
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2030 Emissions
(MTCO2e per capita)
2050 Emissions
(MTCO2e per capita)
Transportation 56,950 132,410 0.142 0.187
Energy 97,170 511,760 0.242 0.724
Off-road 4,850 26,120 0.012 0.037
Waste 36,900 96,040 0.092 0.136
Water 11,290 2,540 0.028 0.004
Agriculture 960 2,280 0.002 0.003
Total 208,120 771,150 0.518 1.092
In total, implementation of this CCAP is projected to reduce Ontario’s GHG emissions to 1,414,620 MTCO2e by 2030 and to 926,610 MTCO2e by 2050. This has the potential to reduce 2030 emissions to 49 percent below 2005 levels and reduce 2050 emissions to 83 percent below 2008 levels. The CCAP strategies provide a flexible path to reduce the community’s GHG emissions to meet the City’s adopted 2030 and 2050 emission targets and to support the State’s adopted target for 2030 and its goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. Ontario’s 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets are 6.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2030 and 2.0 MTCO2e per capita in 2050, as shown in Table 21. 1081
Climate Action Plan

5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy

Figure 5 Ontario Per Capita GHG Emissions with Reduction Strategies, 2019 to 2050 Table 21 Progress to Absolute and Per Capita GHG Emissions Targets Target 2030 Description 2050 Description
Baseline Emissions 8.25 MTCO2e per person 8.25 MTCO2e per person Target 6.0 MTCO2e per person 2.0 MTCO2e per person
Emissions with All Measure Reductions 3.52 MTCO2e per person 1.31 MTCO2e per person 1082
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 75

6. IMPLEMENTATION
To ensure the success of the 2022 CCAP update, the City of Ontario will integrate the goals and strategies of this plan into TOP 2050 and other City plans as applicable and prioritize and implement the programs and activities in those plans. As the City moves forward with updating other planning documents, such as the municipal and zoning codes or specific plans, staff will ensure that these documents support and are consistent with the CCAP.

Implementing the 2022 CCAP will require City leadership to execute these strategies and report progress. This CCAP contains a work plan that includes responsible departments/divisions, time frames, and relative costs associated with each measure. Staff will monitor progress on an annual basis and will provide an annual update to City decision-makers.

As part of CCAP implementation, staff will apply some strategies and actions to existing or new development projects through the City’s permit application and review process. A separate and forthcoming supplement to the Implementation Strategy will be screening tables for use by project applicants as part of applicable permit application processes.

The strategies in this CCAP are accompanied by a list of recommended actions selected by City staff and stakeholders. The list of recommended actions represents suggested means of achieving the measure but are not a prescriptive path to implementation. Furthermore, not all the listed actions may be necessary for the City to achieve its GHG reduction target or support Ontario’s GHG reduction goals.

Due to ongoing changes in technology and regulations and the emergence of new best practices and funding opportunities, this approach enables the City to adapt and leverage new opportunities or partnerships without being constrained by a specific implementation pathway.

The City’s Sustainability Program Manager will serve as an ongoing advisor for CCAP implementation. As part of annual progress reports, the Sustainability Program Manager and City staff will evaluate the effectiveness of each measure to ensure that anticipated reductions are occurring. If reductions do not occur as expected, the City can modify and add additional strategies to the CCAP to ensure the reduction target is achieved.

The following strategies and associated actions are designed to guide Ontario in successfully implementing the CCAP.
1083
Climate Action Plan

6. Implementation

Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategy 1: Monitor and report progress toward Community Climate Action Plan target achievement on an annual basis.
 Assign responsibility for facilitating and supporting CCAP implementation to the City’s Community Development Agency.
 Identify key staff from each department responsible for supporting the Sustainability Program Manager with information and updates for annual reporting and monitoring.  Continue to involve community partners and other key stakeholders in reviewing and recommending CCAP action items.
 Prepare an annual progress report on implementation of the recommended GHG reduction strategies for review and consideration by the City Council. When information is available, provide updates on estimated GHG emissions reductions and current GHG emissions levels.

Implementation Strategy 2: Continue collaborative partnership with agencies and community groups that support Community Climate Action Plan implementation.  Continue formal membership and participation in local and regional organizations that provide tools and support for energy efficiency, energy conservation, GHG emissions reductions, adaptation, public information, and implementation of this CCAP.  As appropriate and at the direction of City Council, commit to formal membership through joint powers authorities or other partnerships to implement high priority strategies from the CCAP.
 Provide policy input to partner agencies (e.g., League of Cities) on policy barriers that need to be addressed at the State level.

Implementation Strategy 3: Secure necessary funding to implement the Community Climate Action Plan.
 Identify funding sources and levels for reduction strategies as part of annual reporting.  Include emissions reduction strategies in department work plans, the capital improvement program, and other plans as appropriate.
 Pursue local, regional, State, and federal grants to support implementation.  Explore dedicated funding sources for CCAP implementation.  Explore opportunities to allocate a portion of revenues from revenue-generating strategies to CCAP implementation.
1084
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 77
Implementation Strategy 4: Continue to update the baseline emissions inventory and Community Climate Action Plan every five years.
 Prepare a GHG emissions inventory no later than for the calendar year 2024 that shows GHG emissions after emergency conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to have ended.
 Update the CCAP within five years of adoption to incorporate new technology, practices, and other options to further reduce emissions.

Implementation Strategy 5: Maintain and update the Community Climate Action Plan to allow for greater resilience.
 Coordinate updates of the CCAP, General Plan Safety Element (TOP 2050), and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan cycle to ensure plan alignment and coordination of climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
 Assess the implementation status and effectiveness of CCAP strategies.

Work Plan
The Work Plan contains information to support staff and community implementation of the strategies to effectively integrate them into budgets, the capital improvement program, and other programs and projects. The strategies of success are defined as follows:

Strategy Number: The abbreviation that is used to refer to the strategies in the CCAP and all corresponding workbooks.

Strategy: The language used to guide actions needed for reductions.

GHG Reductions (MTCO2e): Amount of GHG emissions reduced by 2030 and 2050.

City Staff Time: The estimated cost to the City (in staff hours) to complete implementation of the strategy, ranked as:
 Low (less than 80 hours)
 Medium (80 to 500 hours)
 High (more than 500 hours)
Time Frame: The year by which a strategy should be effective by fiscal year’s end. The exact status of a strategy will vary based on its actions, and many strategies will be ongoing through and beyond 2030. An effective strategy is one that will be actively on track to achieve its targeted GHG emissions reductions and performance standards. Performance standards are the level that should 1085
Climate Action Plan

6. Implementation

be met or exceeded to support overall achievement of the community’s GHG reduction. Appendix A includes the performance assumptions and standards for each quantified strategy. For a strategy to be effective, the necessary programs and efforts should be active, and any infrastructure or other capital improvements should be in place. The effective year is not the end year, as many of the strategies are programs that are intended to remain in effect for the foreseeable future, and so they do not have end dates. Time frames for effectively setting up the strategies are described as follows:

Criteria Immediate Short-term Midterm Long-term
Prioritization Highest High Medium Low
Initiation
Timeline
Within one
year Within 3 years
Within 3 to 5 years
(when resources are
available)
Within 6+ years
Completion
Timeline
As soon as
possible
As soon as
feasible
High priority after 3
years and completed
within 8 years
When
appropriate or
possible
Lead Department: The lead City department tasked with implementing the strategy.

Partners: Example local organizations that the City will partner with in implementing the given policy. Additional community partners will be welcome.

Although significant GHG reduction policies and initiatives are already in place, the actions proposed in this plan, by necessity, far surpass the scale of existing efforts. Implementing the plan and ensuring that it results in real, additional GHG emissions reductions will require increased coordination across sectors and institutionalizing climate protection efforts across the community.

The large number of strategies and programs recommended in this plan will take many years to implement, given limitations in both staff time and funding.

This chapter outlines the main components of the process for turning this plan into action and identifies specific actions from earlier chapters that are recommended for short-term implementation. While short-term priorities are illustrated, please note that priorities can and do shift based on funding availability, advances in technology, new and better ideas, and other reasons. The CCAP and this implementation section should be considered a living document. A summary of the implementation work plan for each strategy can be seen in Table 22. 1086
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 79
Table 22 GHG Reduction Strategy Implementation Work Plan Strategy
No. Strategy
2030 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2050 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2030 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
2050 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
City Staff
Time Time Frame
Lead
Department(s)/
Agency
Community Partners
1 Building electrification
Promote and incentivize the phase-out of gas
appliances in new and existing homes and
businesses throughout the community to
advance GHG reductions, increase energy
efficiency, and protect public safety and
environmental health.
10,310 102,640 0.026 0.145 High Short-term Building
SCE, SoCalGas, SoCalREN,
Building Industry Association
of Southern California
(BIASC)
2 Onsite solar energy for existing residential
development
Continue to support and facilitate installation of
rooftop solar photovoltaic and onsite solar
energy systems in existing residential
development.
2,040 0.005 0.000 Medium Short-term Building Public
Works Agency
SCE, SoCalGas, SoCalREN,
Inland Valley Association of
Realtors (IVAR)
3 Onsite solar energy systems for nonresidential
development
Ensure new large non-residential development,
including City facilities, includes onsite
renewable energy to support the site's energy
needs by requiring solar photovoltaic panels or
other appropriate onsite renewable energy
generation systems for the following types of
projects:
• New commercial and office buildings, or
existing commercial and office building
expansions greater or equal to 45,000 square
feet in size.
• New industrial or existing industrial buildings
expansions greater or equal to 100,000
square feet in size.
26,480 0 0.066 0.000 Medium Short-term Building
SCE, SoCalGas, SoCalREN,
Greater Ontario Chamber
of Commerce, Ontario
Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce
4 Green roofs
Promote and incentivize residents and business
owners to install green roofs to conserve energy
and reduce surface water runoff.

Less than
10 Less than
10 0.000 0.000 Low Medium-term
Building
Public Works
Agency
SCE, Summertree Institute,
Greater Ontario Chamber
of Commerce, Ontario
Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce
1087
City of Ontario

6. Implementation

Strategy
No. Strategy
2030 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2050 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2030 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
2050 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
City Staff
Time Time Frame
Lead
Department(s)/
Agency
Community Partners
5 Urban cooling
Maintain and expand the City's existing tree
canopy, with a goal of planting 500 trees
annually through 2050 and promote the use of
pervious concrete and cool pavement for
pavement projects.
5,610 12,730 0.014 0.018 Medium Short-term
Landscape
Planning
Public Works
Agency
Inland Empire Resource
Conservation District
(IERCD), Inland Urban Forest
Council
6 Energy efficiency retrofits for low-income
households
Promote and incentivize voluntary energy
efficiency retrofits of homes to reduce natural
gas and electricity usage, with the goal of
retrofitting 9,000 low-income homes by 2050.

Partner with community services agencies to
fund energy efficiency projects, including
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, indoor
lighting, water heating equipment, insulation,
and weatherization for low-income residents.
940 1,440 0.002 0.002 High Short-term Housing
Building SCE, SoCalGas, SoCalREN
7 Energy efficiency retrofits
Promote and incentivize voluntary energy
efficiency retrofits to reduce in natural gas and
electricity usage. Partner with regional agencies
to expand access to existing energy efficiency
and conservation opportunities, incentives, and
technical assistance for residents and
businesses.
11,570 15,600 0.029 0.022 Medium Short-term Building SCE, SoCalGas, SoCalREN 8 Smart growth and infill
Encourage revitalization of neighborhoods
through higher-density, mixed-use, infill
development and creative reuse of underutilized sites within the urban core. - - - - High Short-term
Planning
Housing
Economic
Development
Downtown Community
Benefit District, Healthy
Ontario, Ontario Together
9 Transit-oriented development
Encourage development of compact, mixeduse, and transit-oriented development to improve the regional jobs-housing balance,
especially on corridors served by high-ridership
transit and bus rapid transit, such as Holt
Avenue.
330 1,440 0.001 0.002 Low Short-term
Planning
Transportation
Engineering
Omnitrans, SBCTA
10 Increase transportation ridership
Ensure a reliable and responsive transit system
with dedicated and secure funding and
resources to support increased ridership.
27,980 31,450 0.070 0.045 Medium Long-term
Planning
Transportation
Engineering
Omnitrans, SBCTA
11 Traffic signal synchronization and roadway
management - - - - Medium Medium-term Transportation SCAQMD, SBCTA 1088
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 81
Strategy
No. Strategy
2030 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2050 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2030 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
2050 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
City Staff
Time Time Frame
Lead
Department(s)/
Agency
Community Partners
Implement traffic and roadway management
strategies to improve mobility and efficiency
and reduce associated emissions.

Engineering
12 Community vehicle electrification
Promote and incentivize the adoption of
electric vehicles (EV) citywide, including lightduty and heavy-duty vehicles, for municipal, commercial, and residential uses.
62,880 465,140 0.157 0.658 Low Medium-term
Public Works
Agency
Planning
SCAQMD
13 Active Transportation Networks
Work with transit agencies, school districts, and
employers to facilitate an interconnected
transportation system that allows a shift in travel
from private passenger vehicles to alternative
modes, including public transit, ride sharing, car
sharing, bicycling, and walking.
1,800 3,840 0.0045 0.0054 Medium Medium-term Transportation Engineering
SCAQMD
SBCTA
14 Vehicle idling
Limit idling of heavy-duty trucks. Support the
SCAMQD and CARB anti-idling requirements
and provide signage in key areas where idling
that is not consistent with SCAMQD or CARB
requirements might occur.
1,950 1,780 0.005 0.003 Low Short-term
Public Works
Agency
Planning
SCAQMD
15 Parking policy and event parking
Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that
encourages carpooling and the use of
alternative transportation, including providing
parking spaces for car-share vehicles at
convenient locations accessible by public
transportation.
2,230 8,110 0.006 0.011 Low Medium-term
Planning
Economic
Development
Greater Ontario Chamber
of Commerce, Ontario
Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce, Ontario
Convention Center, Toyota
Arena
16 Electrification of construction and landscaping
equipment
Promote and incentivize the transition to electric
construction and landscaping equipment.
4,810 26,020 0.012 0.037 Low Long-term
Planning
Public Works
Agency
SCAQMD, Building Industry
Association of Southern
California (BIASC)
17 Idling ordinance for construction equipment
Limit idling of heavy-duty off-road construction
equipment to reduce air pollution and GHG
emissions from construction activity.
40 100 0.000 0.000 Low Medium-term Planning
Building
SCAQMD, Building Industry
Association of Southern
California (BIASC)
18 Methane capture at landfills
Support efforts to reduce methane emissions
from regional landfills.
22,410 57,370 0.056 0.081 Short Medium-term Public Works Barstow Landfill and Rialto Landfill
19 Waste diversion
Exceed waste diversion goals recommended by 14,490 38,670 0.036 0.055 Medium Short-term Integrated Waste San Bernardino County
Waste Management
Division
1089
City of Ontario

6. Implementation

Strategy
No. Strategy
2030 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2050 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2030 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
2050 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
City Staff
Time Time Frame
Lead
Department(s)/
Agency
Community Partners
AB 939 and CALGreen by adopting a citywide
diversion target of at least 75 percent of waste.
20 Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery
Ordinance
Increase the amount of waste recycled during
construction and demolition of buildings.
- - - - Low Medium-term Integrated Waste
Building Industry
Association of Southern
California (BIASC),
Integrated Waste
Management
21 Indoor water efficiency
Encourage water-efficient retrofits of new and
existing buildings by working with water
providers and regional agencies.
4,580 2,540 0.011 0.004 Medium Medium-term
Ontario Municipal
Utilities Company
Public Works
Agency
San Bernardino County
Water Resources Division,
Inland Empire Clean Water
Partnership, Building Industry
Association of Southern
California (BIASC), SCE
Annual Water Conference
22 Water efficient landscapes and water recycling
Promote drought-tolerant and fire-wise
landscaping. Encourage increased use of
reclaimed water for landscape irrigation,
agricultural, and industrial use.
3,400 0 0.008 0.000 Low Medium-term
Landscape
Planning
Public Works
Agency
Summertree Institute
23 Water system and wastewater operations
efficiency
Maximize efficiency at drinking water treatment,
pumping, and distribution facilities, including
development of off-peak-demand schedules for
heavy commercial and industrial users.
150 0 0 0 Low Long-term
Ontario Municipal
Utilities Company
Inland Empire
Utilities Agency
(IEUA)
San Bernardino County
Water Resources Division,
Inland Empire Clean Water
Partnership, SCE Water
Conference
24 Methane capture for dairy operations
Encourage and incentivize local dairy
operations to reduce methane emissions
through methane capture technology.
3,160 0 0.008 0 Low Long-term Planning Local dairies
25 Methane capture for wastewater treatment Work
with Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the local
wastewater treatment provider, to increase
methane capture rate.
960 2,280 0.002 0.003 Low Long-term
Ontario Municipal
Utilities Company
Inland Empire
Utilities Agency
(IEUA)
26 Climate change awareness and education
Promote climate change awareness and GHG
reduction community-wide through a variety of
mechanisms, including support of climate
change education in schools or community
colleges.
- - - - Low Medium-term
Management
Services Agency
Planning
Center for Community
Action and Environmental
Justice (CCAEJ),
Community Climate
Connection Inland Empire,
Huerta del Valle
Community Garden, Platt
College, SJVC Ontario,
1090
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 83
Strategy
No. Strategy
2030 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2050 GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
2030 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
2050 Per Capita
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
City Staff
Time Time Frame
Lead
Department(s)/
Agency
Community Partners
Cambridge College of
Southern California
27 Carbon sequestration
Establish a City-wide carbon sequestration
project and sequestration goal of 5,000 MTCO2e
per year.
- - - - Low Short-term
Landscape
Planning
Public Works
Agency
Center for Community
Action and Environmental
Justice (CCAEJ),
Community Climate
Connection Inland Empire
28 Green jobs
Support green job trainings and opportunities to
create sustainable, living wage, quality
employment opportunities.
- - - - Medium Long-term Economic
Development
San Bernardino County
Workforce Development
Board, Inland Empire Small
Business Development
Center (IESBDC)
1091
City of Ontario

6. Implementation

This page intentionally left blank.
1092
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page 85

7. GLOSSARY
Carbon neutrality: When carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by sources such as transportation, power plants, and industrial processes are less than or equal to the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored, both in natural sinks such as forests and mechanical sequestration such as carbon capture and sequestration. The State of California’s goal is to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045.

Climate change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

Community asset: A valued feature of a community that may be harmed by climate change.

Community assets may include buildings, infrastructure, community services, ecosystems, and economic drivers.

Disadvantaged communities: Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation, or with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. Criteria are determined by California legislation. .27,28 Equity: The state in which each individual or group is allocated the resources needed to reach an equal outcome.29
Exposure: The presence of people, infrastructure, natural systems, and economic, cultural, and social resources in areas that are subject to harm.30
Frontline communities: Term used by communities to self-identify as places that experience the impacts of issues such as environmental pollution, climate change, and the economic crisis first and most severely. These communities are most often communities of color and low income.31 Hazard mitigation: Sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to human life and property through actions that reduce hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.32 Impact: The effects (especially the negative effects) of a hazard or other conditions associated with climate change.
1093
Climate Action Plan

7. Glossary

Resilience: The capacity of any entity—an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system—to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience. Community resilience is the ability of communities to withstand, recover, and learn from past disasters to strengthen future response and recovery efforts.

Risk: The potential for damage or loss created by the interaction of hazards with assets such as buildings, infrastructure, or natural and cultural resources.

Sensitivity: The level to which a species, natural system, or community, government, etc., would be affected by changing climate conditions.33
1094
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page A-1
APPENDIX A. GHG TECHNICAL APPENDIX
This appendix provides details for the GHG emissions forecast and summarizes the data sources, assumptions, and performance metrics used to calculate the potential for GHG savings from the community-wide reduction strategies in the Ontario Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP).

Chapter 3 of the CCAP provides details of the GHG inventory and forecast. Chapter 5 of the CCAP provides the full list of measures to reduce GHG emissions.

Community-Wide Forecast
The community-wide forecast is a projection of future GHG emissions from the sources in Ontario’s GHG inventory. The community-wide forecast of GHG emissions is based on the results of the 2019 community-wide GHG emissions inventory combined with Ontario’s 2019 demographics and future demographic projections. These population, housing, and employment projections are based on the estimates of future buildout in TOP 2050. Table A-1 shows the demographic projections used to prepare the community-wide GHG emissions forecast.

Table A-1 City of Ontario Community-Wide Demographic Projection, 2019 to 2050 Metric 2019 2030 2050
Percentage
Change
2019–2050
Relevant
Sectors
Population 178,610 232,120 410,490 130% Off-road
equipment
Households 48,280 66,680 124,380 158%
Residential
energy, off-road
equipment
Residents per
household 3.70 3.48 3.30 -11% None
Jobs 128,640 169,600 296,000 130%
Nonresidential
energy, off-road
equipment
Service
population 307,240 401,720 706,500 130%
Solid, water and
wastewater, offroad equipment
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
(VMT)
2,151,423,590 2,631,468,770 3,504,276,490 63% Transportation Sources: 2019 demographic numbers are from US Census, the Department of Finance, and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). Future demographics are from TOP 2050 buildout projections.

Vehicle miles traveled are derived from Fehr and Peers (2019).

1. Service population is the sum of populations and jobs.

2. All numbers except residents per household are rounded to the nearest 10. 1095
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-2 Public Review Draft, May 2022
The forecast assumes that in 2030 and 2050 each person in Ontario will continue to contribute the same amount of GHG emissions to the community total as they did in 2019, so the amount of GHG emissions changes proportionally to the projected change in community demographics. Table A-2 shows Ontario’s forecast community-wide per capita GHG emissions through 2050.

Table A-2 Forecast Per Capita GHG Emissions, 2008–2050
Sector 20081 20161 20191 2030 2050
Percentage
Change,
2008–2050
Transportation 3.51 3.00 3.04 2.84 2.15 -39%
Nonresidential energy 2.77 1.80 1.29 1.30 1.29 -54%
Residential energy 0.72 0.55 0.50 0.53 0.57 -21%
Solid waste 0.28 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.27 -4%
Off-road equipment 0.17 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 23%
Agriculture2 0.63 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.00 -100%
Water and wastewater 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 -56%
Land use and
sequestration 0.01 Less than 0.01
Less
than

0.01 Less
than

0.01 Less
than

0.01 -81%
Total 8.25 5.95 5.54 5.30 4.56 -45%

1. Data shown for 2008, 2016, 2019 are the actual per capita GHG emissions. The data shown for 2030, 2040, and 2050 are GHG per capita emission forecasts, calculated based on projections from the 2019 inventory.

2. GHG emission projects for the agriculture are based on the assumption that, by 2050, all agricultural land will be developed and converted to other land uses, so agricultural emissions will decrease to zero by 2050.

Ontario’s residential population and worker population are both projected to grow by 130 percent between 2019 and 2050. During the same period, the city’s forecast per capita emissions are expected to decrease from 5.54 MTCO2e to 4.56 MTCO2e per person in 2050, a decrease of 18 percent (see Table A-3).

Relative to 2008 levels, the City of Ontario’s absolute community-wide GHG emissions are expected to increase by 89 percent in 2050. This projection accounts for emission changes from land use and carbon sequestration. This is a worst-case projection that assumes that no one at any level takes action, including state, regional, and local agencies. In terms of absolute emissions, the four sectors that are forecast to experience the largest increase in GHG emissions between 2019 and 2050 are the residential and nonresidential energy sectors, solid waste, and water and wastewater.

The growth in emissions associated with residential and nonresidential energy use would result 1096
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page A-3
the expected large increases in the city’s population and number of jobs over the next three decades. Similarly, the growth in emissions forecast for solid waste and water and wastewater are due to the anticipated large increase in the city’s service population—i.e., both residential population and employment.

The only sector that experiences a decrease in GHG emissions in the future is the agricultural sector, a sector that is rapidly disappearing in Ontario due to economic change, population growth, and urbanization. By 2050, all agricultural lands existing within the city limits are expected to be replaced by urban development.

The forecast assumes emissions scale proportionally to demographic growth, which means most of the sectors grow at a similar rate to the growth in demographics, as seen by comparing the percentage changes in Table A-1. However, some emissions, notably those from on-road transportation, grow at a slower rate due to the nature of the modeling process. As noted above, the overall community-wide absolute emissions are projected to grow 89 percent from 2019 to 2050, and Ontario’s service population is projected to grow 130 percent over this period. Since the rate of population increase is greater than the rate of GHG emission increase, the per-capita emissions decrease over time.

As the city grows, changes in activity across different sectors of the economy are also forecasted for 2030 and 2050. The two sectors that are expected to see the greatest increase in activity are residential electricity and residential natural gas. Residential electricity and natural gas use are both forecasted to increase by 158 percent between 2019 and 2050. Table A-3 shows forecast community-wide activity data by subsector between 2019 and 2050. 1097
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-4 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Table A-3 Ontario Community-Wide Forecast Activity Data Subsector Units 2019 2030 2050
Percent
Change,
2019-2050
Residential electricity kWh 316,529,750 437,202,640 815,532,580 158% Residential natural gas Therms 16,945,380 23,405,590 43,659,430 158% Nonresidential
electricity kWh 1,242,306,720 1,637,865,370 2,858,631,210 130% Nonresidential natural
gas
Therms 26,168,160 34,500,270 60,214,690 130%
Light-duty vehicles VMT 1,945,876,580 2,380,798,400 3,171,565,080 63% Heavy-duty vehicles VMT 205,547,010 250,670,370 332,711,410 62% Municipal solid waste Tons 287,980 376,530 662,200 130% Alternative daily cover Tons 2,670 3,490 6,140 130%
Transform Waste Tons 1,030 1,350 2,370 130%
Indirect water energy kWh 61,387,950 80,264,120 141,159,360 130% Indirect wastewater
energy
kWh 7,672,160 10,031,270 17,641,850 130%
Direct wastewater
plant emissions1 - - - - -
Enteric fermentation Head of
livestock 10,890 7,030 0 -100%
Fertilizer application Tons
applied 204 130 0 -100%
Manure management Head of
livestock 10,890 7,026 0 -100%
Off-road equipment
sector2 - - - - -
Land use change
(conversion of
agricultural to urban
land)
Acres 3,520 1,700 1,700 22%
Street tree biomass Acres 740 760 760 14%
All numbers except residents per household are rounded to the nearest 10.

1. There is no activity data for this sector because emissions are not correlated with volume of wastewater produced, but rather the treatment process

2. There is no activity data for this sector because emissions from off-road equipment are estimated from a model developed by the California Air Resources Board rather than from measurable metrics such as fuel consumption.
1098
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page A-5
State GHG Emission Reductions
California has adopted and committed to implementing policies to decrease GHG emission levels statewide, including from several of the major GHG emission sectors present in Ontario. Many of these policies are identified in the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan), which was originally adopted in 2008 in response to the California Global Warming Solutions Act. The Scoping Plan outlines several regulatory and market-based solutions to achieve California’s GHG emission reduction goals. Successive updates to the Scoping Plan in 2014 and 2017 revised these state-level actions and identified additional opportunities for GHG emission reductions, as applicable.

Though the Scoping Plan and related documents lay out several policies to reduce GHG emissions, the 2022 CCAP will focus on the policies that have the most direct and apparent benefits to Ontario. The PlaceWorks team assessed these efforts and their community-wide local GHG emission-reduction benefits to Ontario, allowing the community to receive “credit” for the state’s efforts. These efforts are:
• The Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires increases in renewable electricity supplies.
• The Clean Car Standards require increased fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles and decreased carbon intensity of vehicle fuels.
• The updated Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require new buildings to achieve increased energy efficiency targets.
• The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) mandates reduced carbon intensity of fuels used in off-road equipment.
• The short-lived climate pollutants law (SB 1383) proposes a comprehensive strategy to reduce methane and other emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases through regulations on dairy operations and urban landfills, including higher diversion rates of food waste from landfills.

State level actions have a significant impact on reduction of GHG emissions when analyzed on a per-capita basis. Table A-4 shows the per capita GHG emissions resulting from state actions, both community wide and by sector. Under the forecast presented above, per capita GHG emissions decrease by 18 percent from 2019 to 2050. However, when state actions are accounted for, per capita GHG emissions decrease by 57 percent from 2019 to 2050. 1099
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-6 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Table A-4 Ontario Per Capita GHG Emission Reductions from State Actions, 2019 to 2050 Description 2019
MTCO2e
2030
MTCO2e
2050
MTCO2e
Percentage
Change
2019–2050
Per capita emissions without state actions 5.54 5.30 4.56 -18% Per capita emissions reductions from RPS 0.21 1.13 -
Per capita emissions reductions from Clean
Car standards 0.53 0.69 -
Per capita emissions reductions from Title 24 0.19 0.28 - Per capita emissions reductions from LCFS
(off-road only) 0.01 0.01 -
Per capita emissions from SB 1383 0.06 0.06 -
Per capita emission reductions from all state
actions 1.00 2.17 -
Per capita emissions with state actions 5.54 4.31 2.39 -57% Technical Data for Existing and Planned Activities
Quantification of existing and planned activities are calculations that determine the GHG emission reduction potential of strategies recommended in the CCAP. They are based on four primary types of data and research:

The inventory and forecast of San Carlos’ GHG emissions, as discussed above, and summarized in Chapter 3 of the CCAP.
• The San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Tool
• California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing GHG Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity • Peer-reviewed reports and other credible research documents. • Case studies for similar jurisdictions.

The community-wide inventory and forecast serve as the foundation for the quantification of Ontario’s GHG reduction strategies, supplemented with additional data types and research. The inventory and forecast provide activity data, such as kWh of electricity used, or VMT. The project team combined the activity data with data sources that identify the potential for reduction and performance targets that estimate the level of implementation. This provides the total savings in activity data for the years 2030 and 2050. The project team then multiplied the activity data savings by the relevant emissions factor to determine the total GHG savings from the strategy. 1100
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public Review Draft, May 2022 Page A-7
This section discusses the data sources, methods, and assumptions for the quantification of the existing and planned local activities. Only some existing and planned local activities are quantified. Other activities, not included here, may have GHG reduction benefits but City staff cannot accurately determine the level of reductions.

Table A-5 shows the emissions factors used in the quantification. These emission factors account for the GHG reductions from existing state actions through 2050, such as RPS. Note that the quantification for many strategies, especially those that related to electricity, will use multiple emissions factors. Some sectors do not have specific emission factors, including direct wastewater and off-road emissions, and were calculated using formulae or models.

Table A-5 Emissions Factors with State Reductions
Sector Unit 2008 2016 2019 2030 2050 Source
SCE electricity MTCO2e/
kWh 0.000288 0.000219 0.000208 0.000149 0.000000 SCE
Natural gas MTCO2e/
therm 0.053816 0.007341 0.005272 0.005272 0.005272
US
Community
Protocol
On-road
transportation
(light and
medium-duty
vehicles)
MTCO2e/
mile 0.000421 0.000363 0.000348 0.000277 0.000253
California Air
Resources
Board
On-road
transportation
(heavy duty
vehicles)
MTCO2e/
mile 0.000979 0.001248 0.001256 0.001070 0.000734
California Air
Resources
Board
On-road
transportation
(total)
MTCO2e/
mile 0.001400 0.001611 0.001604 0.001348 0.001400
California Air
Resources
Board
Solid waste
(municipal
solid waste)
MTCO2e/
ton 0.473978 0.532831 0.286062 0.234502 0.473978 CalRecycle Solid waste
(alternative
daily cover)
MTCO2e/
ton - - 0.247191 0.246418 - CalRecycle
1101
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-8 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Existing Activities
Activity 1 Solar PV capacity
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance Standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 310 0 0.0008 0
Residential
installations 35 35 Total residential solar capacity (kW) 3,130 3,130 Nonresidential
installations 2 2 Total nonresidentialsolar capacity (kW) 2,571,130 2,571,130 Sources:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (n.d.). Monthly PV performance data: Ontario, California. PV watts calculator. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php
California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2022.) California Distributed Generation Statistics. https://www.californiadgstats.ca.gov/ National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx 1102
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-9
Activity 2 All electric and zero net energy buildings
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 90 110 0.0002 0.0002 There are no assumptions for this
existing action
Number of allelectric residential
units
100 100
Sources:

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx 1103
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-10 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Activity 3 EV charging stations
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 120 140 0.0003 0.0002 Number of EV
charging stations 30 30 Number of EV charging stations 30 30 Sources:

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.

Greenblatt, J.B. (2015, March). Modeling California policy impacts on greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley lab. https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/modeling-california-policy-impacts. 1104
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-11
Activity 4 G Street crosstown bicycle route
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 30 30 0.0001 0
Percent of
community-wide
light-duty VMT on G
St roadway segment
4% 4% Miles of bike lanes
on G Street 18 18
Sources:

City of Ontario. (2015, June 17). G street crosstown bike route and San Antonio avenue bike corridor. City of Ontario. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2015068332.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2018). California public road data. Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/california-public-road-data/prd-2018-a11y.pdf.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.
1105
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-12 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Activity 5 Outdoor lighting
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 300 0 0.0007 0
Percentage of
streetlights
retrofitted since
2019
65% 65%
Number of
retrofitted
streetlights
8,130 8,130
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx. 1106
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-13
Activity 6 Energy efficiency retrofits of municipal buildings GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 660 0 0.0016 0 There are no assumptions for this
existing action
Estimated annual
energy savings
from retrofits in
2020 (kWh)
5,571,640 5,571,640
Sources:

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx. 1107
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-14 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Activity 7 Tree planting
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 1,480 1,480 0.0037 0.0021 There are no assumptions for this existing action
Number of trees
planted since
2019
1,000 1,000
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. (2006). I-Tree planting calculator. I-Tree. https://planting.itreetools.org/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx.

Note:

The City currently has plans to plant significantly more than 1,000 trees per year by 2050. The quantification and assumptions for this activity are a minimum threshold and can be exceeded as City and community resources allow. 1108
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-15
Activity 8 Installation of efficient industrial water boilers GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 180 180 0.0004 0.0003 There are no assumptions for this existing action
Number of
industrial boilers
replaced since
2019
6 6
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf. 1109
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-16 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Activity 9 Increased supply of electricity from renewable sources GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 56,140 0 0.1398 0 There are no assumptions for this
existing action

SCE GHG
emissions factor
(MTCO2e/kWh)

0.000119 0.000000
Sources:

Combs, J. S. and Karlstand, C. A. (2020). SCE 2020 Integrated Resource Plan. Southern California Edison (SCE). https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M346/K291/346291781.PDF.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx 1110
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-17
Planned Activities
Strategy 1 Building electrification
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 10,310 102,640 0.0257 0.1453
Penetration rate for
electrification of
existing homes
10% 25% New all-electric
homes 5,520 45,660
Penetration rate for
electrification of
existing nonresidential buildings
5% 12%
Existing homes
retrofitted to be
all-electric
4,830 12,070
Penetration rate for
electrification of new
homes
30% 60%
New all-electric
square footage
for nonresidential
buildings
8,166,530 49,941,430
Penetration rate for
electrification of new
non-residential
buildings
25% 45%
Existing
nonresidential
square footage
retrofitted to be
all-electric
9,158,850 21,981,230
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.
1111
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-18 Public Review Draft, May 2022
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx PlaceWorks. (2021). TOP 2050, Buildout Projections: Demographic Forecast. PlaceWorks. 1112
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-19
Strategy 2 Onsite solar energy for existing residential development GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 2,040 0 0.0051 0
Percent of existing
homes with solar
panels installed
5% 25%
Number of existing
homes with solar
panels installed
2,410 12,070
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2021. “PVWatts.” https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. “Emissions & generation resource integrated database (eGRID).” https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
1113
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-20 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 3 Onsite solar energy systems for nonresidential development GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita
GHG reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 26,480 0 0.0659 0
Target percentage of
new industrial roof space
with electric needs met
by on-site solar
90% 90%
kW of solar
panels on new
industrial space
66,660 45,660
Target percentage of
existing industrial roof
space with electric
needs met by on-site
solar
10% 20%
kW of solar
panels on
existing
industrial space
52,290 12,070
Target percentage of
new nonindustrial
nonresidential
development with
electricity needs met by
on-site solar
15% 30%
kW of solar
panels on new
nonindustrial
nonresidential
space
4,520 49,941,430
Target percentage of
existing nonindustrial
nonresidential
development with
electricity needs met by
on-site solar
5% 15%
kW of solar
panels on
existing
nonindustrial
nonresidential
space
11,550 21,981,230
1114
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-21
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG Reduction Tool, GHG Reduction Tool, San Bernardino County GHG Reduction Plan. SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2021). “PVWatts.” https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021). “Emissions & generation resource integrated database (eGRID).” https://www.epa.gov/egrid.

San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG). (n.d.) “SBCOG analysis: Warehouse data.” SBCOG. 1115
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-22 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 4 Green roofs
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Less than
10 Less
than
10 0 0
Target area of
residential green
roofs installed in
Ontario (square
feet)
25,000 50,000
Installed square
footage of
residential
green roofs in
Ontario
25,000 50,000
Target area of
commercial
green roofs
installed in
Ontario (square
feet)
50,000 100,000
Installed square
footage of
commercial
green roofs in
Ontario
50,000 100,000
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan. SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx 1116
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-23
Strategy 5 Urban cooling
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 5,610 12,730 0.0140 0.0180
Total number of
trees planted with
urban forestry
program
4,000 10,000 Number of trees
planted 4,000 10,000
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx USDA Forest Service. (2006). I-Tree planting calculator. I-Tree. https://planting.itreetools.org/. 1117
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-24 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 6 Energy efficiency retrofits for low-income households GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 940 1,440 0.0023 0.0020
Penetration rate for lowincome residential energy
efficiency retrofits
30% 60%
Number of
retrofitted lowincome homes4,630 9,270
Anticipated savings in
electricity energy efficiency
from retrofit activities
20% 20%
Anticipated savings in natural
gas energy efficiency from
retrofit activities
32% 32%
Percent of existing
households in Ontario that
are low income (2019)
27% 27%
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf California Energy Commission (CEC). (2021). “2019 Residential Appliance Saturation Study.” CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/surveys/2019-residential-appliance-saturation-study.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.
1118
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-25
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2017). Comprehensive Housing affordability Strategy (CHAS). Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html#2006-2017_data. 1119
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-26 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 7 Energy efficiency retrofits
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 11,570 15,600 0.0288 0.0221
Penetration rate for
residential energy
efficiency retrofits
15% 30%
Number of
retrofitted
homes
(excluding
low-income
households)
4,920 9,270
Anticipated savings from
residential energy
efficiency retrofits
25% 25%
Penetration rate for
nonresidential energy
efficiency retrofits
5% 20%
Anticipated savings from
nonresidential energy
efficiency retrofits
40% 40%
Square
footage of
retrofitted
nonresidential
space
7,525,540 30,102,170
Target penetration rate for
residential LED 75% 95%
Target penetration rate for
nonresidential LED 60% 80%
Percent electricity savings
per LED light 75% 75%
1120
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-27
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2021). “2019 Residential Appliance Saturation Study.” CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/surveys/2019-residential-appliance-saturation-study.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). (2021, August 13). State renewable portfolio standards and goals. NCSL. https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). (2020). Adoption of light-emitting diodes in common lighting applications. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/09/f78/ssl-led-adoption-aug2020.pdf. 1121
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-28 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 8 Smart growth and infill
Smart growth and infill is not a quantifiable strategy in Ontario. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf. 1122
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-29
Strategy 9 Transit-Oriented Development
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

PlaceWorks. (2021). TOP 2050, Buildout Projections: Demographic Forecast. PlaceWorks.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.

GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 330 1,440 0.0008 0.0020
New TOD
households' share
of new citywide
VMT
3% 5% New housing units in
TOD areas 410 3,200
1123
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-30 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 10 Increase transportation ridership
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 27,980 31,450 0.0697 0.0445
Target participation rate
in Commute Trip
Reduction Program
4% 4% Number of
employees
participating in
commute trip
reduction
Percent of employees 6,780 11,840
eligible for Commute
Trip Reduction Program
or ridesharing
80% 80%
Target participation rate
in ridesharing program in
suburban areas
4% 4%
Annual West
Valley
Connector
ridership
25,927,840 25,927,840
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.

U.S. Census. (2019). Home area profile analysis. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) OnTheMap. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/.

Omnitrans. (2022). Route 83 service frequency. Omnitrans. https://omnitrans.org/routes/route-83/ U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Means of transportation to work, 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.
1124
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-31
Strategy 11 Traffic signal synchronization and roadway management Traffic signal synchronization is not a quantifiable strategy. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy.

There are no assumptions or performance targets.
1125
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-32 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 12 Community vehicle electrification
GHG Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 62,880 465,140 0.1565 0.6584
Penetration rate
for electrification
of municipal fleet
20% 40%
EVs in municipal
fleet 130 260 Estimated
percentage of
municipal vehicle
fleet that is lightduty vehicles
80% 80%
Estimated
percentage of
municipal vehicle
fleet that is heavyduty vehicles
20% 20%
Light-duty EVs
registered in
Ontario
24,510 173,400
Target for eVMT
share of
community wide
VMT (light-duty)
15% 60%
Target for eVMT
share of
community wide
VMT (heavy-duty)
10% 50%
Heavy-duty EVs
registered in
Ontario
1,490 14,450
Target number of
new charging
stations
15 30 Number of new
charging stations 15 30
1126
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-33
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Light-duty vehicle population in California. CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/light-duty-vehicle.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2018). California public road data. Caltrans. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/california-public-road-data/prd-2018-a11y.pdf.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.
1127
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-34 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 13 Active transportation networks
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 1,800 3,840 0.0045 0.0054
Percentage of
bicycle network
completed by 2030
and 2050
25% 75%
Miles of newlyinstalled bike
lanes
42 127
Miles of newlyinstalled
pedestrian
improvements
4 12
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

City of Ontario. (2021). Ontario Active Transportation Master Plan. City of Ontario. https://ontario-active-transportation-master-plancityofontario.hub.arcgis.com/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.
1128
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-35
Strategy 14 Vehicle idling
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 1,950 1,780 0.0049 0.0025
Compliance rate
with idling
ordinance

0.5 0.5
There are no performance metrics
associated with this strategy
Reduction in idling
time with
ordinance
40% 40%
Percent of total
fuel used when
idling
6% 6%
Reduction in idling
time with
ordinance
40% 40%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
1129
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-36 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 15 Parking policy and event parking
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 2,230 8,110 0.0056 0.0115
Current parking price $0.50 $0.50
Future parking
price $0.75 $1.25 Future parking price $0.75 $1.25
Default percentage of
trips parking on the street 75% 75%
Sources:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf.

California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (2018, December). Technical advisory on evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA. OPR. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.

Hermann, P. & Hayes, J. (2022). Draft memorandum: The Ontario Plan Transportation Impact Assessment-Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT).

Fehr and Peers.
1130
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-37
Strategy 16 Electrification of construction and landscaping equipment GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 4,810 26,020 0.0120 0.0368
Penetration rate of
electrification of
conventional
construction
equipment
20% 50%
Pieces of
electrified
construction
equipment
320 1,360
Penetration rate of
electrification of
conventional
landscaping
equipment
20% 50%
Pieces of
electrified
landscaping
equipment
1,070 4,120
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
1131
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-38 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 17 Idling ordinance for construction equipment GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 40 100 0.0001 0.0001
Reduction in idling
time with
ordinance
40% 40%
There are no performance metrics
associated with this strategy Compliance rate
with idling
ordinance
50% 50%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2019). Emission Factors model (EMFAC), Emissions inventory tool. CARB. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
1132
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-39
Strategy 18 Methane capture at landfills
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 22,410 57,370 0.0558 0.0812
Current methane
capture rate 75% 75%
Methane capture
rate 80% 85% Target for
methane capture
rate
80% 85%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf. 1133
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-40 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 19 Waste diversion
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 14,490 38,670 0.0361 0.0547
Waste diversion
target (AB 939) 75% 85% Estimated tons of
solid waste
diverted
267,010 532,190
Waste diversion
rate (BAU) 50% 50%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). (2019). Jurisdiction disposal and average daily coverage (ADC) tons by facility. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2018). ARB Landfill Tool v 1.3, MSW Waste Characterization for California. CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carbs-landfill-gas-tool. 1134
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-41
Strategy 20 Construction and demolition waste recovery ordinance Construction and demolition waste recovery is not a quantifiable strategy in Ontario. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets. 1135
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-42 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 21 Indoor water efficiency
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 4,580 2,540 0.0114 0.0036
Average reduction
in indoor water use
in new buildings
20% 40% Total community
water use
(million gallons,
excluding
recycled water)
10,770 18,630 Average reduction
in outdoor water
use in new
buildings
40% 60%
Average reduction
in water use in
existing buildings
25% 50% Total community
wastewater
generation
(million gallons)
3,880 6,450 Average reduction
in wastewater
generation in
existing buildings
25% 50%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2021). Handbook for analyzing greenhouse gas emissions reductions, assessing climate vulnerabilities, and advancing health and equity. CAPCOA. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/Handbook%20Public%20Draft_2021-Aug.pdf. 1136
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-43
Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). (2020). Urban water management plan. City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf. 1137
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-44 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 22 Water efficient landscapes and water recycling GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 3,400 0 0.0085 0 Percent increase in
recycled water use 72% 145%
Recycled water
use (million
gallons)
4,390 6,240
Sources:

Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). (2020). Urban water management plan. City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf.

California Energy Commission (CEC). (2019). Power content label 2019: Southern California Edison (SCE). CEC. https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3265.
1138
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-45
Strategy 23 Water system and wastewater operations efficiency GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 150 0 0.0004 0
Efficiency
improvement in
water treatment
and distribution
system
10% 25%
Electricity use of
water treatment
and distribution
system (kWh)
56,533,450 66,745,850
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). (2020). Urban water management plan. City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf. 1139
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-46 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 24 Methane capture for wastewater treatment
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction (MTCO2e
per person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 960 2,280 0.0024 0.0032
IEUA wastewater
methane capture
rate
70% 85%
Methane capture
rate at IEUA
facilities
70% 85%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

Ontario Municipal Utilities Company (OMUC). (2020). Urban water management plan. City of Ontario. https://www.ontarioca.gov/sites/default/files/Ontario-Files/Municipal-UtilitiesCompany/Final%20Draft%20Ontario%202020%20Ontario%20UWMP.pdf. 1140
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022 Page A-47
Strategy 25 Methane capture for dairy operations
GHG
Reduction
(MTCO2e)
Per capita GHG
reduction
(MTCO2e per
person)
Assumptions Performance standards
2030 2050 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 Description 2030 2050 3,160 0 0.0079 0.0000
Dairies using manure
management
systems with
methane capture
50% 100%
Heads of livestock
on dairies with
manure capture
3,520 0
Methane capture
rate of installed
systems
86% 86%
Sources:

San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). (2021). GHG reduction tool, San Bernardino County GHG reduction plan.

SBCTA. https://www.gosbcta.com/plan/regional-greenhouse-gas-reduction-plan/.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). (2021). Analysis of Progress toward Achieving the 2030 Dairy and Livestock Sector Methane Emissions Target. CARB. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/draft-2030-dairy-livestock-ch4-analysis.pdf 1141
City of Ontario
Appendix A - GHG Technical Appendix
Page A-48 Public Review Draft, May 2022
Strategy 26 Climate change awareness and education
Climate change awareness and education is not a quantifiable strategy in Ontario. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy. There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 27 Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration is not a quantifiable strategy in Ontario. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy.

There are no assumptions or performance targets.

Strategy 28 Green jobs
Carbon sequestration is not a quantifiable strategy in Ontario. There are no measurable GHG gas reductions for this strategy.

There are no assumptions or performance targets.
1142
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022

WORKS CITED

1. San Bernardino, County of. n.d. County History. San Bernardino County. https://www.sbcounty.gov/Main/Pages/History.aspx.

2. Ontario, City of. 2022, January. Draft Housing Element.

3. Ontario, City of. 2022, January. Draft Housing Element.

4. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Age and Sex. 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

5. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Hispanic or Latino origin by race. 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

6. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Language spoken at home. 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

7. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Language spoken at home. 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

8. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. Median income in the past 12 months. 2019 American Community Survey 5- year estimate data profiles. The Census Bureau. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.

9. County of San Bernardino. 2015. Analysis of impediments to fair housing choice. San Bernardino County. https://content.sbcounty.gov/uploads/CDH/Analysis-of-Impediments-to-Fair-Housing-Choice-2015- 2020.pdf.

10. Ontario, City of. 2021, June. The Ontario Plan 101. General Plan Workshop. https://www.ontario plan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/07/TOP_336_TOP_WS1_20210628_TOP101_final_English.pdf.

11. California State Senate. 2016, September 24. Senate Bill No. 1000. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000.

12. California State Senate. 2015, October 8. Senate Bill No. 379. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB379.

13. California Air Resources Board. (2022). Building Standards Code: Building Decarbonization. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/building-decarbonization/building-standards -code#:~:text=While%20the%20scope%20of%20the,in%20residential%20and%20nonresidential%20buildings.

14. California Energy Commission. 2021, August. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary.

California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/CEC_2022 _EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf.

15. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022, February 15. How Climate Change May Impact Ozone Pollution and Public Health Through the 21st Century. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/how -climate-change-may-impact-ozone-pollution-and-public-health-through-21st-century. 1143
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022

16. California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

17. California Air Resources Board. 2015, February 9. Overview of ARB Emissions Trading Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf.

18. Southern California Association of Governments. 2020, September 3. Sustainable Communities Strategy Technical Report. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal _sustainable-communities-strategy.pdf?1606002097.

19. California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

20. California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.

21. Climate Central. 2014. The Greenhouse Effect.
https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/the-greenhouse-effect.

22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte et.al. Cambridge University Press.

23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Edited by V. Masson-Delmotte et.al. Cambridge University Press.

24. Fehr and Peers. 2019. Daily VMT by Vehicle Class (RTAC Methodology).

25. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. Off-road mobile source research. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/off-road-equipment-research.

26. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). n.d. Methane Management: The Challenge. https://unece.org/challenge.

27. California Natural Resource Agency. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 231.

28. California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 2, Chapter 4.1, “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Investment Plan and Communities Revitalization Act,” Section 39711.

29. George Washington University. 2020. “Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?” Online Master of Public Health Program (MPH@GW). https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality.

30. Louise Bedsworth, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. 2018. “Statewide Summary Report.” In California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013.

31. California Natural Resource Agency. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 231.
1144
City of Ontario
Climate Action Plan
Public ReviewDraft, May 2022

32. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2018. California State Hazard Mitigation Plan.

33. California Natural Resource Agency. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 231.
1145
1146
1147
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
714.966.9220
www.placeworks.com
1148
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO.
2021070364) FOR THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 TECHNICAL UPDATE FOR FILE NO. PGPA20-002 PART A AND ADOPT ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

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

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 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”), for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update consists of the Draft SEIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR; and WHEREAS, the SEIR Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, File No. PGPA20-002, for The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update, have been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Ontario Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR consists of the Draft SEIR and the comments and responses to comments made on the Draft SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan was circulated for a 45-day public review period and a notice of its availability was published in a local newspaper, submitted to the state clearinghouse, and posted in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County; and WHEREAS, copies of the SEIR were distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, City departments, and federal, state, regional, local, and other agencies and individuals; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for the General Plan Amendment for The Ontario Plan has been prepared to address the environmental effects of The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update which establishes a Vision, Plan Governance Manual, Policy Plan, City Council Priorities, Implementation Plan and Tracking and Feedback for the City of Ontario; and 1149
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the SEIR was fully studied; and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR and concluded said hearing on that date, voting (7-0) to recommend certification of the SEIR and adoption of Environmental Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting, to the City Council, issuing Resolution No. PC22-040; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council of the City of Ontario conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the SEIR at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the SEIR was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Environmental Determination and Findings. As the decisionmaking body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and supporting documentation. Based upon the facts and information contained in the SEIR (SCH# 2021070364) and supporting documentation, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
(1) The SEIR contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project; and
(2) The SEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder; and
(3) The SEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.

SECTION 2. City Council Action. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the SEIR complies with CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) The SEIR analyzes the environmental effects of the General Plan Amendment and finds that, if The Ontario Plan 2050 Technical Update is adopted as proposed by this plan, and with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts will still be significant and unavoidable: air quality, cultural resources (historic), noise (mobile source, construction-related noise, construction-related vibration, noise compatibility), and transportation (increase in vehicle miles traveled); and 1150
(2) The City Council further finds that the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations demonstrates that The Ontario Plan’s benefits outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore the City would be justified in approving The Ontario Plan notwithstanding said significant and unavoidable impacts.

SECTION 3. Certification. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1 and 2 above, the City Council certifies the SEIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and that the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program also be approved by the City Council.

SECTION 4. 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 5. Certification to Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of the Resolution
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August 2022. _____________________________________
PAUL S. LEON, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________

BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP

CITY ATTORNEY
1151

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )

CITY OF ONTARIO )
I, SHELIA MAUTZ, City Clerk of the City of Ontario, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that foregoing Resolution No. 2022- was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Ontario at their regular meeting held August 16, 2022 by the following roll call vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
The foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 2022- duly passed and adopted by the Ontario City Council at their regular meeting held August 16, 2022. __________________________________

SHEILA MAUTZ, CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
1152
ATTACHMENT A:

PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021070364)
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
1153
ATTACHMENT B:

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACTS
AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
1154
ATTACHMENT C:

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Component of The Ontario Plan 2050
1155
July 2022 | Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2021070364
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050
City of Ontario
Prepared for:

City of Ontario
Contact: Thomas Grahn, Senior Planner
303 East “B” Street
Ontario, California 91764
909.395.2036
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Nicole Vermilion, Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
1156
THE ONT ARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
July 2022 Page i
Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR................................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................. 1-2

2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RESPONSES..................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Scenic Vistas.........................................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts.....................................................................................2-3

2.2.3 Environmental Justice Policies..........................................................................................................2-3

2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts.............................................................................................................................2-6

2.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COMMENTS ......................................................................................................2-7

2.4 RESIDENT AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS ............................................................................2-23

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 DRAFT SEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ......................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Revised Draft SEIR Figures
Appendix B. Environmental Justice Goals, Policies, and Actions 1157
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
1158
July 2022 Page 1-1

1. Introduction

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

This document contains responses to comments received on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for The Ontario Plan 2050 (TOP 2050) during the public review period, which began on Monday, May 9, 2022, and closed Thursday, June 23, 2022. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft SEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132.

1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR.

Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the Draft SEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number (A-1 through A-2 for letters received from agencies and Tribes, and R-1 through R-43 for letters received from residents and organizations). Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. 1159
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINA L SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

1. Introduction

Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the Draft SEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft SEIR for public review.

The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. The City of Ontario has reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft SEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5.

1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of Draft SEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
Written responses are prepared consistent with Section 15088 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

Pursuant to this section, the level of detail contained in the response may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. The responses will be forwarded with copies of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and will conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EIRs.
1160
July 2022 Page 2-1

2. Response to Comments

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Ontario) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the Draft SEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides written responses received on the Draft SEIR and the City of Ontario’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes.

The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Draft SEIR during the public review period.

Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.

Agencies & Tribes
A1 Quechan Historic Preservation May 14, 2022 2-7
A2 City of Chino June 23, 2022 2-11
Residents & Organizations
R1 Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer June 15, 2022 2-23 R2 Inland Equity Partnership June 23, 2022 2-27
R3
Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) de Inland Empire; and Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
June 23, 2022 2-31
R4 Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) June 23, 2022 2-63
R5 Robert Barragan June 14, 2022 2-73
R6 Vanessa Yambot June 14, 2022 2-79
R7 Ilianna Romero June 14, 2022 2-83
R8 Verlynn Gojit June 14, 2022 2-89
R9 Inmi Chao June 14, 2022 2-93
R10 Katie Crofford June 16, 2022 2-99
R11 Elvia Velazco June 16, 2022 2-105
R12 Aldo Velazco June 16, 2022 2-111
R13 Inez Cardenas June 16, 2022 2-117
R14 Caroline Lanspa June 16, 2022 2-121
R15 Daniel Lo June 16, 2022 2-125
R16 Eva Ramirez June 16, 2022 2-131
R17 Cara Butler June 17, 2022 2-135
R18 Antoinette Anderson June 17, 2022 2-139
R19 Jackie Deans June 17, 2022 2-145
1161
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Number
Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No.

R20 Danielle Martinez June 17, 2022 2-149
R21 Cynthia Serrano June 19, 2022 2-155
R22 Tina Silva June 19, 2022 2-161
R23 Jamie Ortega June 21, 2022 2-167
R24 Dessa D’Aquila Bentson June 21, 2022 2-171
R25 Malina Shaw June 21, 2022 2-175
R26 Lisa Collinsworth June 21, 2022 2-181
R27 Jarius Martinez June 21, 2022 2-185
R28 Raquel Alba June 21, 2022 2-189
R29 Jocelyn Dimacali June 22, 2022 2-193
R30 Amber Bound June 22, 2022 2-197
R31 Andrea Alvarado June 22, 2022 2-201
R32 Deborah Rodriguez June 22, 2022 2-205
R33 Amanda Wheeler June 22, 2022 2-209
R34 Dena Apodaca June 22, 2022 2-213
R35 Andrei Pitsko June 22, 2022 2-217
R36 Randy Bekendam June 22, 2022 2-221
R37 Elizabeth Rocco June 23, 2022 2-227
R38 Martha Lopez June 23, 2022 2-231
R39 Karen and Guy Caparelli June 23, 2022 2-235
R40 Elias Luviano June 23, 2022 2-239
R41 Nazareth Bracamontes June 23, 2022 2-243
R42 Estela Ballon June 23, 2022 2-247
R43 Rosemary Ramos June 23, 2022 2-251

2.2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL RESPONSES
Several common issues were raised in the comment letters, such as Letters R1 through R43, received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. This section provides a summary of general responses to recurring comments raised by responding agencies and the public. The summary of general responses provides a more comprehensive explanation and response to these common issues raised during the public review period.

2.2.1 Scenic Vistas
The Draft SEIR includes an evaluation of impacts to scenic vistas. Scenic resources within the City are identified on page 5.1-3 through 5.1-4. It should be noted that protected viewsheds are public viewsheds of scenic resources and not private viewsheds. As such, scenic vistas identified on page 5.1-4 include views of scenic vistas from the City’s formal and informal trail network. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Neither the 2010 Certified EIR nor the Draft SEIR identifies impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code, which, as described in Section 5.1.1.1, Regulatory 1162
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-3
Background, of the Draft SEIR and includes general development requirements for development density, screening and setback, signing, landscaping, lighting, height limitations, and other aspects related to the aesthetic of the City.

2.2.2 Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts
The Draft SEIR includes an analysis of conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract on pages 5.2-12 through 5.2-13. The baseline for the Draft SEIR is the current TOP. The current TOP does not have Agriculture land use designations.

Statewide concern over the rapid conversion of agricultural land to urban uses led to the enactment of the Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act. This Act enabled the County of San Bernardino to establish an Agricultural Preserve where property owners could contract with the County to preserve the property and quality for a property tax assessment based upon use and economic yield rather than the full market value of the property. With the annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999, the City of Ontario assumed responsibility for administering land conservation contracts on those properties.

A Land Conservation Contract (LCC) has a minimum term of 10 years and is automatically renewed each year for an additional year, thereby keeping the term of the contract to a period of 10 years. The perpetual contract continues until the City or the owner files a Notice of Non-renewal, which will then terminate the contract at the end of its remaining term, usually 9 years. When a Non-renewal is filed, the property tax assessment gradually reverts back to being computed based upon full market value rather than use.

The Draft SEIR identifies the current Williamson Act contract lands within the City in Figure 5.12-12. As identified in the Draft SEIR, any land held in a Williamson Act contract would have to be filed for nonrenewal, and the contract would have to be allowed to expire before any development occurs on it. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of these contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. As such, impacts from the Proposed Project in this respect would be less than significant.

2.2.3 Environmental Justice Policies
California Government Code Section 65302(h)(1)(A) requires jurisdictions when updating their general plan to identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.

The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. TOP 2050 includes policies that address impacts to disadvantaged communities and access to healthy foods (see Policy SR-1.2).

In addition to weaving environmental justice policies throughout TOP 2050 (see Appendix B), the City also conducted outreach with community. As part of its outreach strategy, the City of Ontario emphasized the topic of environmental justice through advertising materials, stakeholder interviews, survey materials, educational 1163
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

materials, and online and in-person outreach activities. The City also posted announcements of the outreach activities in English and Spanish through various social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram). As this effort was conducted during COVID, the City conducted a substantial amount of outreach online through virtual meetings, workshops, and office hours to maintain compliance with local and state regulations. Public input from the outreach activities led directly to the addition of new policies to TOP:
 Public Workshops. One online property owner workshop and two online public workshops were conducted on June 14, 2021, June 28, 2021, and July 29, 2021. At the property owner workshop, the City provided an overview of the TOP 2050 Update and land use designation changes. At the first public workshop, the City introduced and discussed the overall land use strategy and requirements and issues related to environmental justice and climate adaptation and resiliency. At the second public workshop, the City also presented areas that could be identified as environmental justice communities based on state modeling data and discussed aspects of the Environmental Justice Survey with attendees in order for them to reach out to their neighborhoods. Workshop materials were provided in English and Spanish, a Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions of the workshops, and recordings of the presentation (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after the workshops.  Environmental Justice Survey. The City conducted an online Environmental Justice Survey between July to September 2021. This survey was available in English and Spanish and was completed by 108 individuals.

The purpose of this survey was to gather the perspectives of local community members living in the City’s environmental justice communities. Survey participants were asked if they were exposed to certain pollutants, if they had access to healthy food, necessary resources, and amenities, experienced structural damages due to environmental hazards, to select TOP actions to improve current conditions, and their demographics. A summary of the results was presented at many of the meetings and is also provided below:
1164
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-5
 Environmental Justice and Community Health Stakeholders. Throughout June and July 2021, the City reached out to local organizations that serve as advocates and service providers on topics related to environmental justice, including Community Health Improvement Association (CHIA), Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), and Caramel Connections Foundation. Outreach was conducted via telephone, email, interviews, distribution of the survey, and during meetings (of the local organization or at an event held by the City). Information requested and obtained include the organization’s perspective on important EJ issues, current or potential programs and services, and potential new or revised policies and regulations. CHIA was the most responsive organization, providing additional door-to-door outreach TOP 2050 flyer distribution, while the others indicated priorities. Some organizations indicated that they were unable to respond, undergoing a transition in leadership, or had priorities in other communities. For those organizations that did not respond, the City repeated attempts through phone calls, emails, and other means as appropriate to ensure that these organizations were aware of the City’s activities and looked forward to hearing from any stakeholders that were interested.  Environmental Justice 101 Story Map. The City developed and published a bilingual (English and Spanish) “Environmental Justice 101” Story Map on its website. The Story Map contains introductory information about environmental justice, explains and illustrates what disadvantaged communities are, state laws, and CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0.
 Project Scoping Meeting. The City provided updated about the Supplemental Environmental Review (SEIR) and provided space for public input and comment on the scope of the environmental analysis. The meeting was held online on August 5, 2021 and was conducted in both English and Spanish. The meeting materials were presented in both English and Spanish and Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions of the meeting. Finally, recordings of the meeting (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after the meeting.  Office Hours. The City conducted Office Hours on a monthly basis in 2022 to provide the community with periodic updates and offer a low-pressure platform for the community to ask questions and provide 1165
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

their perspectives regarding the technical update, including the topic of environmental justice. The first three Office Hours were conducted online (3/31/22, 4/28/22, and 5/26/22) while the fourth was conducted in person (6/30/22). The Office Hours were conducted in both English and Spanish. The meeting materials were presented in both English and Spanish and Spanish translation was provided during the question-and-answer portions for each meeting. Finally, recordings of the online Office Hours (in English and Spanish) were published on the City’s website shortly after each meeting. The dates for all four office hours were advertised through the City’s social media accounts and through a bilingual (English and Spanish) insert mailed with the utility bill sent in February 2022 to every resident and business owner in Ontario.
 Teen Action Committee. The City held three meetings with the Teen Action Committee, which is the City’s largest community-oriented teen organization in Ontario and addresses a wide variety of community issues. The City held meetings on June 6, 15, and 16 in 2022 at the Dorothy A. Quesada Community Center, De Anza Community & Teen Center, and Westwind Community Center. The City facilitated discussions and obtained feedback concerning issues related to environmental justice and community health.  General Outreach. The City also attended outreach events to share the TOP 2050 Update with the community at two Concert in the Park events and the Taste of Ontario where the City displayed the Draft Land Use Plan and gathered input on what folks would like to see in their neighborhood. The City provided a variety of giveaways at the events and encourage participation in an interactive City building bloc activity.

It is important to note that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts
Air quality impacts associated with buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project (see Impact 5.3-1).

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project (see Impact 5.3-4). It should be noted that Policy ER-4.9, New Localized Air Pollution Sources Near Existing Sensitive Receptors, would ensure mobile sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs) not covered under South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD) permits are considered during subsequent project-level environmental review by the City of Ontario. Individual development projects would be required to achieve the incremental risk thresholds established by South Coast AQMD. However, implementation of TOP 2050 would generate TACs that could contribute to elevated levels in the air basin. 1166
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-7

2.3 AGENCY AND TRIBAL COMMENTS
LETTER A1 – Quechan Historic Preservation (1 page)
1167
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1168
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-9
A1. Response to Comments from Quechan Historic Preservation, dated May 14, 2022.

A1-1 The Commenter indicates that they do not wish to comment and defer to local Tribes.

Therefore, as the comment does not raise an issue with the analysis of the DEIR, no further response is necessary.
1169
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1170
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-11
LETTER A2 – City of Chino (5 pages)
1171
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1172
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-13
1173
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1174
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-15
1175
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1176
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-17
A2. Response to Comments from Warren Morelion, AICP, City Planner, City of Chino, dated June 23, 2022.

Intro
A2-1
A2-2
A2-3
A2-4
A2-5
Response to comments provided on behalf of the City of Chino are provided in responses A2-1 through A2-17 below.

At the request of the Commenter, the symbology on Figure 5.19-4 has been revised to show the City of Chino proposed storm drain (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Revised Draft SEIR Figures).

Comment noted. The parcels referenced are Chino-owned parcels in the City of Ontario.

This is a comment on the Housing Element, which was adopted in March 2022.

These three parcels are currently and are recommended to remain designated for LowDensity Residential (LDR). Additionally, these parcels are not listed in the Sites Inventory (Housing Element Tables B-1 and B-2) and are not shown on any of the maps showing the opportunity areas (see Housing Element Figures 5-1 through 5-11) of the adopted Housing Element. Finally, these parcels are not outlined as Housing Element Sites on the City’s Proposed Housing Strategy and Land Use Scenario (Draft) map that is posted on the City’s webpage for TOP 2050.

In 2014, City of Chino developed their Eastside Water Treatment Facility on the southeast corner of Schaefer Avenue and Campus Avenue. Since no permanent downstream storm drain was available, development of the Eastside Water Treatment Facility was required to detain stormwater on site. There is no proposed storm drain in Campus Avenue. The City of Chino site is accounted for in the tributary areas that drain to Line C-15 (BNVWXIV-1) in Bon View Avenue and Line C-16 (EULD-XIV-3) in Edison Avenue (attached is a detailed hydrology map that illustrates this). Development of the project included payment of required Development Impact Fees. The fulfilment of their Development Impact Fee obligation pays for their fair-share cost of the master plan facilities that would serve the property.

See response to Comment A2-3. The fulfilment of their Development Impact Fee obligation pays for their fair-share cost of the master plan facilities that would serve the property.

The Commenter was mistakenly reviewing the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and not the TOP 2050 SEIR. There is no table in the utilities section of the TOP 2050 SEIR that provides Ontario’s Chino Basin Desalter Authority (CDA) and the Water Facilities Authority (WFA) water supplies.

To the extent Chino intended to comment on the 2010 EIR, a subsequent CEQA review that addresses changes to the project is required to provide only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. It is not required to reconsider the analysis in the prior EIR (California Coastkeeper Alliance v. State Lands 1177
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

Commission (2021) 64 CalApp.5th 36, 58). The project impacts reviewed in the prior EIR are properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in a subsequent or supplemental EIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). The prior CEQA review for a project cannot be attacked in a case challenging the adequacy of a subsequent or supplemental EIR that is prepared to address changes to the project.

A2-6 The City’s proposed Official Land Use Map in the Policy Plan identifies utility easements with an Open Space – Non-Recreational land use designation. An easement for Southern California Edison high voltage (500-kV) transmission lines runs through the properties that contain the City of Chino Eastside Water Treatment Facility (Chino EWTF). Such easements must remain clear of obstruction to ensure free access to and the operation and maintenance of the transmission lines. Accordingly, this portion of the parcels referenced in the comment are appropriately designated as nonrecreational open space.

While open space facilities, such as unprogrammed grass areas, trails, or bikeways can be developed on these easements, the City of Ontario does not intend for the easement to support active open space, such as parklands, trails, or bikeways south of Shaefer Avenue (the parcels that contain the Chino EWTF are south of Schaefer Avenue), as shown on the City’s proposed map of multipurpose trails and bikeways (TOP 2050 Figure M-02) and the proposed map of park and recreational facilities (TOP 2050 Figure PR-01).

A2-7 The Commenter is mistakenly reviewing the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and provides a comment regarding the Municipal Water District (MWD) Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Update on page 5.17-3. TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section is Section 5.19 and not Section

5.17 and there is no discussion of MWD IRP on page 3 of the TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section.

A2-8 As stated previously, this comment refers to the 2010 EIR utilities chapter and discusses a DWR Reliability Report from 2008. There is no discussion of the DWR Reliability Report in the TOP 2050 SEIR utilities section and the long-term planning for water supply is extended to 2050 in the current utilities section.

A2-9 The Commenter references a table on page 5.17-12 that provides water demand calculations and asks for projections through 2050. Again, this table is from the previous 2010 EIR utilities chapter; the current TOP 2050 SEIR does provide water demand projections through 2050.

A2-10 The Commenter provides a comment regarding mitigation measure 17-3 from the previous 2010 EIR. This mitigation measure has been deleted from the current TOP 2050 SEIR.

A2-11 The City will continue to coordinate with the City of Chino on bike and pedestrian planning.
1178
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-19
A2-12 The City will continue to coordinate with the City of Chino on designation of Truck Routes.

A2-13 The roadway is being widening consistent with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways which designates Merrill Avenue as #11 with a 108-foot right-of-way (ROW) width and 84-foot curb-to-curb width. This allows for at least two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. The forecasting and capacity assessment included as Appendix K to the Draft SEIR determined four lanes are adequate to accommodate future growth. The roadway is also being designed as a truck route and designed to handle heavier loads. It should be noted that under the Senate Bill 743, vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-related metric(s) that evaluate the significance of transportation-related impacts under CEQA for development projects, land use plans, and transportation infrastructure projects are required beginning on July 1, 2020. The legislation does not preclude the application of local general plan policies, zoning codes, conditions of approval, or any other planning requirements that require evaluation of level of service (LOS), but these metrics may no longer constitute the sole basis for determining transportation impacts under CEQA. The Draft SEIR Section 5.17, Transportation, evaluates the VMT impacts of TOP 2050 compared to that of the Approved Project. As a result, LOS for roadway capacity and intersection delay is not utilized for evaluating impacts in the SEIR. However, TOP 2050 Mobility Element includes roadway classifications (see Figure 5.17-3, Roadway Classification), which are informed by the LOS Memorandum included in Appendix K of the Draft SEIR.

A2-14 Regarding Hellman Avenue, the model is a simplification of the roadway network and not all roadways are necessarily depicted in the model. Traffic volume that would be distributed to Hellman Avenue is otherwise distributed to nearby roadways, which are shown to operate at acceptable levels of service. This aggregation of minor roadways has no bearing on the SEIR’s conclusions.

The magenta line drawn on the Commenter’s map and reference to it as a "roadway" shown in the model roadway network is incorrect. The line highlighted in magenta is a ‘centroid connector’. This connector indicates all of the local roadways and driveways that would access Merrill Avenue from the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and is not meant to represent a roadway through the airport.

The Commenter is correct. The model incorrectly shows one westbound lane under future conditions. However, this lower capacity does not result in a shift in traffic to adjacent roadways as there is adequate capacity to handle the forecast traffic volumes.

Therefore, this error does not alter findings or conclusions.

A2-15 The comment regarding the increase in land designated as Industrial and Business Park associated with TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is noted. 1179
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

The City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds were adopted in June 2020. The City’s guidelines require use of the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) to evaluate how a proposed project changes VMT in the City of Ontario.

It is important to note that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) VMT Guidelines1, shifts the CEQA transportation metrics to promote outcomes that reduce reliance on automobile travel. Neither the Technical Advisory nor CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) directly address how to analyze transportation impacts associated with changes to goods movement, which is largely carried out by heavy-duty trucks. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) specifies that VMT to be analyzed is defined as the amount and distance of automobile travel (emphasis added) attributable to a project. The term ‘automobile’ refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks (emphasis added).2 SB 743 is not intended to require the inclusion of heavy-duty truck trips, utility vehicles, or other types of vehicles in the VMT analysis.3 In the case of trucks (other than light trucks), based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the state’s primary strategy for the goods movement sector is not in VMT reduction, but in advances in technology (zeroemissions [ZE] and near-zero-emissions [NZE] control strategies).4 This is consistent with observations that transportation demand management strategies (TDM) for VMT reductions identified by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPOCA) do not apply to truck VMT. However, the City’s VMT threshold conservatively includes VMT from both passenger vehicles and trucks under the origin-destination (OD) criteria.

The VMT methodology is described on page 6 of VMT Memorandum (see Appendix J to the Draft SEIR). The City of Ontario's VMT threshold for the General Plan under Project analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP5 (for the land use plan) exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions." VMT/SP means all VMT generated by all trips that either begin or end in Ontario, including trucks, divided by the City's service population, which consists of all people living and/or working in Ontario.
1 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 2 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 3 PlaceWorks coordinated with staff at OPR on January 12, 2021 to confirm how to address heavy-duty freight VMT in CEQA documents. OPR staff identified that the intent of SB 743 was to address passenger vehicle VMT impact and not freight VMT, as cited under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a). Therefore, lead agencies could exclude freight VMT from transportation VMT impact analyses under CEQA.
4 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 5 Service Population (SP)
1180
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-21
Under the Project-level VMT significance threshold, the proposed Plan reduces VMT/SP as compared to the current Plan. The City's cumulative VMT threshold for the General Plan analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions." Compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Plan is adding capacity for 25,399 residential units and 1,092,508 square feet of nonresidential square footage. This includes additional capacity for 5,189,888 square feet of Business Park (BP) and 8,099,949 square feet of Industrial (IND), and reduced capacity for 8,990,532 square feet of Mixed Use (MU) and 3,206,797 square feet of Commercial and Hospitality (NC, GC, OC, and HOS), which results in an absolute increase in VMT.

However, as demonstrated by the reduction in VMT/SP, this increase in residents and jobs results in less VMT per person. The Proposed Project increases both housing and jobs, pursuant to the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) of maintaining and improving the jobs/housing balance. The Proposed Project demonstrates that it accomplishes this goal because the VMT per resident and per employee decreases as compared to the current TOP.

Furthermore, the SEIR consider emissions from freight and freight-related VMT in emissions modeling conducted for TOP 2050 included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For example, modeling in Appendix C provides a breakdown of daily VMT for passenger vehicles, light-heavy duty trucks, medium-heavy duty truck, and heavy-heavy duty truck emission (see page C-17) as well as emissions by vehicle type (see page C-18 through C-25). Therefore, the SEIR considers the impacts associated with the increase in land designated for Industrial and Business Park. Despite the increase in truck VMT, Table 5.3-10, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, shows that NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would decrease compared to the Approved Project. Only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would increase compared to the Approved Project and the vast majority of those emissions would be associated with an increase in consumer product use. As identified in Section

5.3, Air Quality, this was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of TOP 2050.

A2-16 Section 3.4.2.3, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR, provides a detailed description of the land use changes of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP. Figure 3-6, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR also provides the location of the focused land use changes. As identified in this section, the majority of changes are concentrated in four growth areas and the Ontario Ranch.

A2-17 See response to Comment A2-16. The reduction in Industrial development would primarily occur in the four growth areas. At the request of the Commenter, a new Figure 7-1, Reduced Industrial Alternative Parcels, has been incorporated into the SEIR (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, and Appendix A, Revised Draft SEIR Figures). 1181
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1182
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-23

2.4 RESIDENT AND ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
LETTER R1 – Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer (1 page) 1183
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1184
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-25
R1. Response to Comments from Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer, dated June 15, 2022.

R1-1 Responses to the Critical Action and Social Advocacy (CASA) Pitzer’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R1-2 through R1-6 below.

R1-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute as substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R1-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R1-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R1-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R1-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R1-7 Responses to CASA Pitzer’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R1-2 through R1-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1185
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1186
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-27
LETTER R2 – Inland Equity Partnership (1 page)
1187
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1188
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-29
R2. Response to Comments from Maribel Nunez, Inland Equity Partnership, dated June 23, 2022.

R2-1 Responses to Inland Equity Partnership’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R2-2 through R2-4 below.

R2-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R2-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.

However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).

R2-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R2-5 The Housing Element is required to be updated on an eight-year cycle, as established by the State of California. The City’s 6th cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Update was recently adopted on March 1, 2022. Responses to Inland Equity Partnership’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R2-2 through R2-4 above. 1189
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1190
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-31
LETTER R3 – Susan A. Philips, Professor of Environmental Analysis, Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Randy Bekendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Ana Gonzales, Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Anthony Noriega, Director, District 5, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) de Inland Empire; and Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter (15 pages) 1191
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1192
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-33
1193
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1194
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-35
1195
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1196
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-37
1197
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1198
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-39
1199
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1200
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-41
1201
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1202
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-43
1203
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1204
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-45
1205
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1206
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-47
R3. Response to Comments from Susan A. Philips, Professor of Environmental Analysis, Robert Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College; Randy Bekendam, Executive Director, Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation; Ana Gonzales, Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice; Anthony Noriega, Director, District 5, LULAC de Inland Empire; and Kim Floyd, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter dated June 23, 2022.

R3-1 The Commenter requests additional time for the Draft SEIR review period of TOP 2050 and the Community Climate Action Plan, as well as a separation of 3 to 6 months between the two documents. The public review period of 45 days, beginning on May 9, 2022, and ending on June 23, 2022, met CEQA’s requirement of 45 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a) for Draft EIRs submitted to the State Clearinghouse for public review by State agencies. The request for additional time for TOP 2050 and the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) 2022 update will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. Additionally, see Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, for a description of the outreach conducted for TOP 2050.

R3-2 The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

See response to Comments R3-3 through R3-10 regarding emissions modeling for the CCAP and SEIR. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling conducted for the CCAP and Draft SEIR was conducted using agency-approved protocols, including the U.S.

Community Protocol and the Global Protocol. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR provides an accurate assessment of the existing, Approved Project, and Proposed Project GHG emissions in the City. No changes to the SEIR are warranted.

See response to Comments R3-14 through R3-16 and Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the CEQA baseline for this SEIR is the Approved Project. The Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050, including the increase in Industrial and Business Park designations, within Ontario Ranch and the Original Model Colony (OMC) of Ontario.

R3-3 The Commenter is incorrect that the CCAP excludes heavy-duty trucks that travel to Ontario’s warehouses. The CCAP is based on transportation modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers for TOP 2050. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) modeling is consistent with the City 1207
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, which was adopted in June 2020. The City’s guidelines require use of the San Bernardino Traffic Analysis Model (SBTAM) to evaluate how a proposed project changes VMT in the City of Ontario.

The SBTAM origin-destination (OD) modeling accounts for both passenger vehicle and truck traffic in Ontario that is generated by land uses within the City. As a result, the GHG modeling in the CCAP and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR accounts for emissions from both passenger vehicles and trucks generated by land uses in the City.

R3-4 The Commenter cites the CCAP storymap citation regarding industrial facilities. It should be noted that for air quality and GHG emissions modeling “industrial” sector emission specifically reference emissions that are regulated by an Air District. This is also known as permitted emissions and includes emissions sources such as boilers, emergency generators, gas stations, and other emissions from equipment that requires a permit from an Air District. Stationary source infrastructure does not include cargo handling equipment and truck idling emissions that are area source emissions, which are not directly regulated by an Air District.

The CCAP GHG emissions inventory and forecasts include warehouse/industrial mobilesource and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions from light-duty vehicles and heavy trucks associated with warehouse/industrial properties and activities are included under the on-road transportation sector emissions. Emissions from cargo handling equipment are included under the off-road equipment sector. The energy used by these facilities is included in the nonresidential energy sector emissions.

R3-5 The Commenter is requesting additional control measures for industrial development and truck VMT. See response to Comment R3-6.

See response to Comment R3-3. The Draft SEIR and CCAP include emissions from industrial/warehouse developments, including truck VMT. It should be noted that Appendix C-17 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed accounting of light-heavy duty trucks (LHDT), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and passenger vehicle VMT provided by Fehr and Peers and modeling with SBTAM. The primary driver for demand for new warehouse is e-commerce. E-commerce requires three times the warehouse space to carry a wider variety of goods expected to be delivered within two days to local consumers. Warehousing that is close to consumers conserves fuel and improve efficiency, and ultimately reduces VM. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Mobile Source Strategy6 outlines State strategies to reduce emissions from goods movement and trucks, this includes the Truck and Bus Regulation, Heavy6 California Air Resources Board. 2020, October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 1208
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-49
Duty Omnibus Regulation, Advanced Clean Truck Regulation, and the proposed Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation.

The CCAP includes control measures for warehouse development including requiring that most new warehouses will use electricity as their sole energy source for building appliances and equipment, and that this electricity will be generated by on-site solar panels. The CCAP also considers energy efficiency retrofits, fuel switching, and on-site solar panels for some existing warehouse developments. This is in addition to state policies that are applicable to warehouse developments, including increased supplies of electricity from renewable sources and stricter building codes requiring new buildings to be constructed to meet higher energy efficiency standards. It should be noted that in the South Coast AQMD region, warehouses that are 100,000 square feet or larger are subject to South Coast AQMD’s Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program (Rule 2305). Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would also ensure that new warehouse development consider additional mitigation measure that would reduce emissions below the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds including electric truck charging.

The Draft SEIR and CCAP considers an increase in warehousing in the City of Ontario.

Emissions forecasts are based on the land use statistics included in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft SEIR. The Draft SEIR considers the increase in warehousing between the current TOP and TOP 2050. Table 3-3, TOP 2050 Proposed Land Use Summary, includes a detailed summary of the nonresidential square feet and jobs for Business Park (BP) and Industrial (IND) land uses in the City. The CCAP considers the increase in emissions from existing conditions to buildout of TOP 2050.

R3-6 The SEIR is a programmatic, plan-level analysis of impacts of the City’s general plan, TOP 2050. The SEIR evaluates impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the impacts associated with the current TOP in accordance with evaluates the physical environmental impacts associated with Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines.

It should be noted that the SEIR and CCAP evaluate emissions within the jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario. Permitted sources of emissions (i.e., emissions that are regulated under the California or Federal Clean Air Act) are outside of the City’s jurisdictional control. Furthermore, such sources are subject to increasingly stringent emissions reductions programs outline in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The SEIR evaluated impacts associated with TOP 2050. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial and Business Park land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Specifically, the Reduced Industrial Alternative evaluated an alternative that would reduce Industrial development on 338 acres in the City. This reduction in Industrial development would primarily occur in the four growth area and Ontario Ranch, as identified in Section 1209
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

3.4.2.3, Areas of Change, in the Draft SEIR. As a result, the SEIR considers a plan that reduces industrial emissions activity in the City.

R3-7 As identified in the SEIR and CCAP, the emissions inventory and forecast consider the following sectors within the jurisdiction control (see response to Comment R3-6) of the City of Ontario: On-Road Transportation, Energy, Solid Waste, Off-Road Equipment, Agriculture, Water and Water, and Land Use and Sequestration. This methodology is consistent with the U.S. Community Protocol and Global Protocol. Freight trains are not within the jurisdictional control of the City of Ontario.

Buildout of the land uses in the City of Ontario associated with the Approved Project or Proposed Project would not directly result in an increase in trains or air traffic. The Proposed Project does not result in a change in land use associated with the Ontario International Airport or railroads in the City. Freight traffic is managed independently by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and Union Pacific Railroad. Interstate freight trains and airplanes are subject to Federal Regulations and exempt from regulation by CARB and South Coast AQMD. CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy7 provides the State’s strategy to reduce emissions from airplanes and trains in California. Additionally, the Commenter hasn’t provided evidence that there would be an increase in trains or airplanes as a result of the increase in Industrial use in the City.

The City does have land use authority associated with warehouses in the City. Warehouses are allowed in the Industrial and Business Park land use designations. The SEIR does consider emissions from freight and freight-related VMT in emissions modeling conducted for TOP 2050 included in Section 5.3, Air Quality, and Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For example, modeling in Appendix C provides a breakdown of daily VMT for passenger vehicles, light-heavy duty trucks, medium-heavy duty truck, and heavy-heavy duty truck emission (see page C-17) as well as emissions by vehicle type (see page C-18 through C-25). Therefore, the SEIR considers the impacts associated with the increase in land designated for Industrial and Business Park. Despite the increase in truck VMT, Table

5.3-10, City of Ontario Regional Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Forecast, shows that NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) would decrease compared to the Approved Project. Only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) would increase compared to the Approved Project and the vast majority of those emissions would be associated with an increase in consumer product use. As identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, this was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of TOP 2050.

R3-8 Modeling of passenger vehicle and heavy-duty truck VMT is based on SBTAM. This is consistent with the City of Ontario Resolution Adopting Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds, which were adopted in June 2020. The Commenter claims that warehouse square footage has 7 California Air Resources Board. 2021. October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 1210
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-51
doubled since 2008, therefore diesel VMT has also doubled. This is an unsubstantiated claim that is counter to the traffic data collected to calibrate/validate the City's transportation demand model (a focused model based on SBTAM), and inconsistent with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The data referred to by the Commenter as "a radical underestimation" is based on both a regionally and federally approved regional transportation plan model, the SCAG RTP/SCS. It should be noted that the figure referencing truck traffic counts on SR-60 includes pass-through traffic that does not have an origin or destination in the City of Ontario. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15163, the CEQA baseline for the SEIR is the Approved Project not 2008 conditions or 2019 conditions.

Table 1 in the CCAP shows a 19 percent decline in the GHG emissions per mile from light-duty vehicles and a 25 percent increase in GHG emissions per mile from heavy-duty vehicles, translating to an overall 9 percent decline in GHG emissions per mile from the average vehicle. As illustrated in Tables 2 and 5, both heavy-duty and light-duty VMT increased from 2008 to 2019.

GHG emissions modeling conducted for the CCAP and Draft SEIR was conducted using agency-approved protocols, including the U.S. Community Protocol and the Global Protocol. The webtool cited by the Commenter is not an agency-approved tool for estimating GHG emissions in a GHG reduction plan or EIR. Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft SEIR provides an accurate assessment of the existing, Approved Project, and Proposed Project GHG emissions in the City. No changes to the SEIR are warranted.

As described on page 1-4 of the Draft SEIR, the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project are defined as the incremental impacts between the current TOP and TOP 2050. To accurately assess the incremental impact, this SEIR analyzes the difference between the buildout of the current TOP to buildout of TOP 2050 (i.e., compares “buildout” to “buildout”). Impacts are assessed for the net land use changes under the Proposed Project, as described in Section 3.4.2.3, Areas of Change. While warehouse square footage in the City has doubled since 2008, this growth is associated with the Approved Project and not the Proposed Project. Therefore, the comments regarding the increase in truck traffic in the City and on State Route 60 since 2008 are noted.

This comment identifies the social cost of carbon and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No further response is necessary.

R3-9 The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1211
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

See response to Comment R3-4 regarding the inclusion of emissions from heavy trucks and cargo handling equipment from warehouses in the CCAP and Draft SEIR.

See response to Comment R3-5. Appendix C-17 of the Draft SEIR includes a detailed accounting of light-heavy duty trucks (LHDT), medium-heavy duty trucks (MHDT), heavy-heavy duty trucks (HHDT), and passenger vehicle VMT provided by Fehr and Peers and modeling with SBTAM. The truck VMT conducted by Fehr & Peers includes trucks from all land uses in the City including warehouses, grocery stores, hospitals, restaurants, the Ontario Mills Outlets, and more. It is not possible to disaggregate the magnitude of GHG emissions from warehouses in the energy, solid waste, and water/wastewater sectors as these are based on aggregated data sources, either with other nonresidential activities or with all other land uses in Ontario. However, since truck VMT was provided, it can be estimated that heavy-duty VMT comprises 28 percent of total 2019 on-road mobile source GHG emissions.

The measures put into place to slow the spread of COVID-19 resulted in significant changes in human activity and VMT. Most notable are the temporary reductions in both heavy-duty and light-duty VMT across the state’s highways and local roads, and the resulting temporary emission reductions. In California, VMT fell to its lowest point in early- to mid-April, with an approximately 25 percent reduction in heavy-duty VMT and 50 to 60 percent reduction in light-duty VMT. Since that time, both heavy-duty and lightduty VMT have steadily increased, with heavy-duty VMT returning to pre–COVID-19 levels in early June.8 Furthermore, VMT modeling conducted for the Proposed Project in TOP 2050 and the CCAP are based on SBTAM and counts were conducted in 2019 prior to the start of the pandemic, as identified on page 2 of the LOS Memorandum (Appendix K to the Draft SEIR). Forecasts were prepared utilizing traffic models that assume trends consistent with pre-pandemic conditions. No changes to the Draft SEIR or VMT analysis are warranted.

This comment identifies the social cost of carbon and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The CCAP and Draft SEIR consider the increase in GHG emissions from development in the City, include new warehouses. No further response is necessary.

See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources.

Environmental justice is not a CEQA issue, such that the comment’s claims about the 8 California Air Resources Board. 2021. October 28. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf 1212
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-53
minimization of environmental justice “impacts of logistics” are not comments on the adequacy of the SEIR. See also response to Comments R3-14 through 3-16.

R3-10 This comment is requesting additional data in the CCAP and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. Section 5.2, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR includes the results of CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 indicator results for the City of Ontario for pollution burden (see Figure 5.3-4) and asthma (see Figure 5.3-4). As identified in Figure 5.3-4, most of Ontario ranks within the 75th percentile or higher for pollution burden. Additionally, page 5.3-22 cites that most census tracks in Ontario rank in the 60th to 80th percentiles for asthma.

R3-11 The comment incorrectly states "the lack of independent traffic analysis specifically for the City of Ontario". The City independently developed a Request for Proposals and went through the appropriate procurement process for hiring a planning and environmental consulting team to update TOP. The selection process followed all State and City procurement requirements. The selected team consists of several expert subconsultants to conduct analyses required for each resource area. The City's Engineering Department developed the scope of work for the transportation analysis, including direction on the VMT analysis, provisions of assumed future roadway design and buildout for the consulting team to update in the City's focus model, which is a more detailed model based on SBTAM that provides more granularity for analyzing operations in the City, direction on future bus rapid transit (BRT) operations, and data and input on bike and pedestrian facility plans.

R3-12 A traffic analysis was conducted for TOP 2050 and is included in Appendix J (VMT) and Appendix K (Level of Service) of the Draft SEIR. No revisions to the Draft SEIR are warranted.

This comment is requesting additional information on the policies in TOP 2050 and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The Mobility Element of the Policy Plan provides additional detail on the purpose of the specific measures M-1.2, M-1.6, M-4.2, M-4.4, M-4.5, and M-5.2 cited by the Commenter. Measures M-1.2 and M-1.6 are applied upon receipt of development applications or initiation of a public works project. All other measures included in the Commenter's letter are on-going and intended to inform the community that the City works with regional partners (e.g., SBCTA, Caltrans, Ontario Airport, etc.) to achieve goals towards reducing impacts, notably emissions.

See response to Comment R3-9 regarding the effect of the pandemic on VMT. The traffic analysis utilized traffic data from 2019 (pre-pandemic), as identified on page 2 of the LOS Memorandum (Appendix K to the Draft SEIR). Forecasts were prepared utilizing traffic 1213
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

models that assume trends consistent with pre-pandemic conditions. No changes to the Draft SEIR or VMT analysis are warranted.

R3-13 The VMT methodology is described on page 6 of VMT Memorandum (see Appendix J to the Draft SEIR). There are two thresholds that are analyzed: project (OriginDestination approach) and cumulative (Boundary Method approach).

The City's cumulative VMT threshold for the General Plan analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project caused total daily VMT within the City to be higher than the no project alternative under cumulative conditions." The cumulative threshold is based on the Boundary Method, which considers all VMT within the boundary of the City regardless of whether or not the City has jurisdictional authority over these trips. Compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Plan is adding capacity for 25,399 residential units and 1,092,508 square feet of nonresidential square footage.

This includes additional capacity for 5,189,888 square feet of Business Park (BP) and 8,099,949 square feet of Industrial (IND), and reduced capacity for 8,990,532 square feet of Mixed Use (MU) and 3,206,797 square feet of Commercial and Hospitality (NC, GC, OC, and HOS), which results in an absolute increase in VMT. As a result, VMT impacts were identified as a significant unavoidable impact in Section 5.17, Transportation, of the Draft SEIR.

The City of Ontario's VMT threshold for the General Plan under project analysis states that "A significant impact would occur if the project VMT/SP (for the land use plan) exceeds the Citywide average for Service Population under General Plan Buildout Conditions." VMT/SP means all VMT generated by all trips that either begin or end in Ontario, including trucks, divided by the City's service population, which consists of all people living and/or working in Ontario. Under the project-level VMT significance threshold, TOP 2050 reduces VMT/SP as compared to the current TOP, which indicates that the Proposed Project is a more transportation-efficient plan. Likewise, Appendix J shows that VMT per employee and VMT per resident also would decrease with the Proposed Project. This is because the Proposed Project increases both housing and jobs and is therefore consistent with the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) of maintaining and improving the jobs/housing balance. The Proposed Project demonstrates that it accomplishes this goal because the VMT per resident and per employee decreases as compared to the current TOP. As a result, TOP 2050 result in beneficial impact relative the SB 743 goal of encouraging infill development and densification towards more efficient travel and lower VMT per person. As a result, while the Draft SEIR identified a significant unavoidable impact to VMT for cumulative VMT growth, TOP 2050 is a more transportation-efficient plan.

The Commenter has not identified additional mitigation measures that could be incorporated in the SEIR to mitigate the Proposed Project’s significant unavoidable VMT 1214
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-55
impact. In the case of trucks (other than light trucks), based on CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the state’s primary strategy for the goods movement sector is not in VMT reduction, but in advances in technology (zero-emissions [ZE] and near-zero-emissions [NZE] control strategies). 9 This is consistent with observations that transportation demand management strategies (TDM) for VMT reductions identified by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) do not apply to truck VMT.

See response to Comment R3-6. Limits on industrial development in the City is a Project alternative. Placing limits on heavy-duty truck travel is not a feasible mitigation measure as trucks are utilized for goods movement and a warehouse operator does not have the ability to restrict truck movements offsite. Likewise, placing limits on the amount of industrial construction or downsizing industrial development plans is not feasible at a general plan-level. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

R3-14 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

The City of Ontario complied with requirements in place for noticing in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-54-20 (April 22, 2020) and N-80-20 (September 23, 2020) in response to the threat of COVID-19, which expired on September 30, 2021.

TOP 2050 complied with the requirements of Senate Bill 1000. As part of TOP 2050 disadvantaged communities were identified using CES 4.0. See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. It should be noted that the Scoping Meeting presentation was translated to Spanish and posted on the City’s website.

R3-15 See response to Comment R3-15. As identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, long-term regional (Impact 5.3-3) and localized (Impact 5.3-4) impacts were identified as significant unavoidable impacts of TOP 2050. The MATES V results and the CES4 pollution burden map were incorporated into Section 5.3 (see Figure 5.3-1 and Figure 5.3-4, respectively).

For long-term regional impacts, the increase in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with TOP 2050 is primarily from consumer product use as a result of the substantial increase in housing units in the City. For localized impacts, impacts are 9 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 1215
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

associated with the cumulative increase in toxic air contaminants (TACs) associated with warehouse development projects in the City. To address this impact, the City incorporated a new Policy ER-4.9, which requires new developments that generate 100 trucks per day or more or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of a sensitive land use to conduct a health risk assessment to mitigate cancer and acute health risks as well as additional public outreach to residents within 500 feet of the project site.

No additional measures have been identified by the Commenter.

R3-16 See also response to Comment R3-14 regarding outreach conducted for TOP 2050, which occurred during the COVID 19 pandemic. The City of Ontario complied with requirements in place for noticing in accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-54-20 (April 22, 2020) and N-80-20 (September 23, 2020) in response to the threat of COVID-19, which expired on September 30, 2021.

The Commenter requests a delay of one additional year for the approval of the Proposed Project. See response to Comments R3-1 and R3-2 regarding the delay of approval. The request for additional time for TOP 2050 and the CCAP will be forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration.

See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies, regarding environmental justice policies in the Policy Plan. The City has opted for an “environmental justice in all policies” approach in TOP 2050 to ensure the topic is present alongside the multitude of issues and topics that affect our residents and resources. It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

See response to Comments R3-5 and 3-6. Alternatives which would restrict the amount of Industrial and Business Park land uses allowed in the City are evaluated as an alternative to the Proposed Project in Chapter 7, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

TOP 2050 includes Land Use Element Policy LU-2.1, Land Use Decisions, which requires new development to minimize impacts on adjacent properties, which could include green buffers as well as other site design measures such as placement of docking bays, sound walls, landscaping, and other setback requirements.

The request for an industrial/warehouse mortarium within Ontario will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

Section 5.17, Transportation, Figure 5.17-1, Truck Routes, of the Draft SEIR illustrates the existing truck routes in the City of Ontario as well as connections to truck routes in adjacent cities. As identified in the Policy Plan, to mitigate impacts the City is committed to building grade-separated rail crossings, designing and locating industrial and warehousing land uses, and developing truck routes to protect our neighborhoods from truck traffic (see Policy M-4.1).
1216
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-57
R3-17 The request for the City to conduct a Shade Equity Tree Analysis for the neighborhoods south of Holt Boulevard will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

R3-18 The Draft SEIR and the CCAP included GHG emissions from the agricultural land uses in the City. As noted in response to Comment R3-2, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the CEQA baseline for this SEIR is the Approved Project. As a result, for the SEIR, there are no changes in the agricultural sector emissions of the Proposed Project compared to the Approved Project since the current TOP does not have agricultural land use designations. However, both the Draft SEIR and the CCAP include the existing agricultural sector emissions estimates and the reduction in emissions from this sector.

The GHG analysis in the Draft SEIR and the CCAP do not treat agricultural land uses as a sink for GHG emissions. While crops do sequester carbon due to the growth in biomass, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s guidance10 on the topic notes that for annual crops, the increase in biomass is equal to the loss in biomass from harvest and crop mortality, and thus there is no net accumulation of carbon in agricultural biomass. As more than 90 percent of the crop activity in Ontario is estimated to be annual crops, there is no substantive increase in agricultural biomass in Ontario. Additionally, agriculture does generate GHG emissions from nitrogen used for fertilizer, enteric fermentation and manure management associated with livestock, fuel use from agricultural equipment, and other activities.

The GHG analysis does consider that an amount of carbon is sequestered in the soil of agricultural lands, but as this does not change annually, this source only shows as an increase or decrease in GHG emissions if the agricultural land is expanded or developed.

Loss of this sequestration from the development of agricultural lands is accounted for in the “Land Use Change” emissions shown in Table 14 of the CCAP.

This comment is requesting nature-based solutions to offset the carbon footprint of industrial land uses. GHG emissions were not identified as a significant impact of the Proposed Project and this comment does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. Since agricultural land uses are often a source of GHG emissions and not a sink, a regenerative agricultural preserve would not offset the carbon footprint of warehouses in the City.

R3-19 An evaluation of the environment impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is included in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Commenter’s concerns 10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use; Section 5.2.1.1 https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol4.html 1217
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

about the loss of agricultural land are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

As noted in response to Comment R3-18, agricultural land uses in Ontario are not a net sink for GHG emissions.

As identified in the CCAP, the City has planted 1,000 trees in public property since 2019.

In fiscal year 2021-2022 the City has planted more than 6,000 trees in private and public property. Urban tree planting is a component of the CCAP. Table 14 in the CCAP notes the decrease in Ontario’s GHG emissions resulting from urban tree biomass.

R3-20 See response to Comment R3-19. The request to create alternative plans for open and working lands (including agriculture) will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

R3-21 TOP 2050 is a focused updated to the current TOP. Neither the current TOP nor TOP 2050 envision agricultural land uses in Ontario Ranch at buildout of the Proposed Project, aside from the Farm Hub in the Great Park. As a result, the CCAP is consistent with the buildout assumptions of TOP 2050 and the current TOP.

Regarding agrivoltaics, the City has a Right-to-Farm Ordinance and the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) supports the installation of solar panels and solar panels are permitted within the City, including Ontario Ranch.

See response to Comments R3-2, R3-6, and R3-18. The Proposed Project would not result in any additional land use changes to agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project. The request to analyze carbon benefits of retaining agricultural land will be forwarded to decision-makers for their review and consideration.

As noted in response to Comments R3-18 and R3-22, agricultural land uses in Ontario are not a sink for GHG emissions.

R3-22 An evaluation of the environment impacts of TOP 2050 compared to the current TOP is included in Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Figure 5.2-1 shows Farmland in the City of Ontario and Figure 5.2-2 shows the Williamson Act lands in Ontario.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino.

The Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project.
1218
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-59
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The 2010 Certified EIR included an Agricultural Land Preserve Alternative, which was considered and rejected during the scoping process. The 2010 Certified EIR found that overall continuation of agriculture in this area is likely not feasible, given the social pressures on these areas to meet the increasing population, and also because agricultural uses in this area are being driven out by competition from operations in other sectors. In addition, many of the support services the dairies rely on, including feed/hay for the cattle, have closed as a result of closure of many of the diaries, and few dairies remain. Additionally, this alternative did not meet the objectives of TOP of meeting demands for urban growth.

The Commenter’s concerns about the loss of agricultural land are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration.

R3-23 Discussion of the loss of agricultural farmlands has been added to Section 1.7, Areas of Controversy, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary (see Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR).

R3-24 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.

However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. As a result, no impacts were identified in the SEIR and no mitigation is required.

In the CCAP, GHG Reduction Strategies 4 (Green Roofs), 5 (Urban Cooling), 22 (Water Efficient Landscapes and Water Recycling), 26 (Climate Change Awareness and Education), and 27 (Carbon Sequestration) all make use of nature-based solutions to reduce Ontario’s GHG emissions. The California Air Resources Board’s Draft 2022 Scoping Plan identifies that the natural and working land are a source of GHG emissions and not a sink of GHG emissions in 2045.11 The land use types considered in the natural working lands sector include cropland. However, agricultural use is a source, not a sink for GHG emission. The 2022 Scoping Plan identifies implementation of smart agricultural practices to reduce GHG emissions from cropland, such as improving water use efficiency, increasing pollinator habitat, and reducing synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use.

R3-25 See response to Comment R3-22 regarding alternatives identified in the 2010 Certified EIR. This comment identifies a request to create an agricultural preserve in the Ontario Ranch and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. The request for creation of 11 California Air Resources Board. 2022, May. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix I – Natural and Working Lands Technical Support Document. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp-appendix-i-nwl-modeling.pdf 1219
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

the Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation Agricultural Heritage and Innovation (AHI) zone within and/or adjacent to the Great Park will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. The 340-acre Great Park allows for continues agricultural use and existing agricultural use is allowed to continue under the City’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance. Additionally, the Great Park envisions creation of a Farm Hub as well as potential agricultural uses.

R3-26 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, identifies that Ontario has eight historic districts, and four proposed and five potential historic districts are deemed eligible for listing (see Figure 5.5-1). The Proposed Project would result in an increase in land use intensity compared to the Approved Project but would not result in development in areas of the City that were not planned for development under the Current TOP.

The 2004 document cited by the Commenter identifies two potential districts based on their associated with the mechanization of the dairy industry and building type. However, significant alteration of land and regional context has occurred since this 2004 study and the 2004 study identified that additional evaluation would be necessary prior to making the determination that dairies qualified as a historic district. The request for the City to evaluate the potential value of dairies as a historic district will be forwarded to the City for their review and consideration.

See response to Comment R3-24 regarding smart agricultural practices.

R3-27 The Commenter’s concerns about the loss of agricultural land and request to create an agricultural preserve are noted will be forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. It should be noted that the City of Ontario is not a participant in the San Bernardino County Proposition 70 implementation. The Southern California Agricultural Land Foundation managed 200 acres of farmland within Ontario Ranch through a 1988 Park Bond Act with San Bernardino County. The County of San Bernardino deed restrictions remain in effect until either a conservation easement is recorded or until the County of San Bernardino sells or exchanges the property. For the City of Ontario, the City evaluated conversation of agricultural land to non-agricultural use as part of the 2010 Certified EIR and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino. However, the Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project (see Section 5.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the Draft SEIR).

R3-28 TOP 2050 SEIR will include findings consistent with the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines. As identified in response to Comment R3- 22, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR evaluates the 1220
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-61
potential impacts from the change in land use designations and policies of the current TOP compared to TOP 2050. While there is currently agricultural use in the Ontario Ranch, the planning framework to convert the land to nonagricultural land already occurred as a result of adoption of the current TOP in 2010, and prior to that as a result of annexation of the New Model Colony in 1999 from the County of San Bernardino.

The Proposed Project would not result in any additional conversion of agricultural land in Ontario compared to the Approved Project.

The Supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The 2010 Certified EIR considered and rejected an alternative that would result in the creation of an Agricultural Land Preserve Alternative.

See response to Comment R3-16. TOP 2050 includes Land Use Element Policy LU-2.1, Land Use Decisions, which requires new development to minimize impacts on adjacent properties, which could include green buffers as well as other site design measures such as placement of docking bays, sound walls, landscaping, and other setback requirements.

Additionally, TOP 2050 includes a new Policy ER-4.9, which requires new developments that generate 100 trucks per day or more or 40 trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) within 1,000 feet of sensitive uses to conduct a health risk assessment to mitigate cancer and acute health risks as well as additional public outreach to residents within 500 feet of the project site.
1221
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1222
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-63
LETTER R4 – Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) (7 pages) 1223
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1224
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-65
1225
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1226
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-67
1227
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1228
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-69
1229
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1230
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-71
R4. Response to Comments from Victoria Yundt, Lozeau │ Drury, LLP, representing the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), dated June 23, 2022.

R4-1 Responses to the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility’s (SAFER) comments are addressed in response to Comments R4-2 through R4-5 below. The City of Ontario will determine the appropriate CEQA approach for future discretionary projects based on the CEQA Guidelines and discretionary action involved. It would not be appropriate to identify the type of future environmental analysis that may be required for future discretionary projects in TOP 2050 SEIR.

R4-2 This comment describes the framework of TOP 2050 and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No response is warranted.

R4-3 This comment identifies that future project-level CEQA review may be necessary for future discretionary projects and does not raise any issues related to the Proposed Project or the Proposed Project’s impact on the physical environment under CEQA. No response is warranted. The City of Ontario will determine the appropriate CEQA approach for future discretionary projects based on the CEQA Guidelines and discretionary action involved.

R4-4 See response to Comment R4-3 above. Comments regarding statements on air quality impacts identified in Section 5.3, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR are noted. Mitigation Measure 3-1, AQ-1, and TOP 2050 Policy ER-4.9 would require future discretionary projects to prepare site-specific technical studies to mitigate air quality impacts below the South Coast AQMD thresholds.

R4-5 See response to Comments R4-2 through R4-4 above. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, a Draft EIR is required to be recirculated only when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after circulation of the Draft EIR. The Proposed Project’s Draft SEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The Draft SEIR comprehensive assesses the significant environmental effects of the project, provides a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project, and feasible mitigation measures to reduce and avoid potentially significant environmental impacts. No “significant new information” has been added to the revised Draft SEIR; and therefore, the Draft SEIR are not inadequate and does not need to be recirculated.

R4-6 Responses to SAFER’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R4-1 through R4-5 above.
1231
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1232
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-73
LETTER R5 – Robert Barragan (3 pages)
1233
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1234
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-75
1235
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1236
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-77
R5. Response to Comments from Robert Barragan, dated June 14, 2022.

R5-1 Responses to Robert Barragan’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R5-2 through R5-6 below.

R5-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R5-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R5-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R5-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R5-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R5-7 Responses to Robert Barragan’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R5-2 through R5-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1237
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1238
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-79
LETTER R6 – Vanessa Yambot (1 page)
1239
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1240
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-81
R6. Response to Comments from Vanessa Yambot, dated June 14, 2022.

R6-1 Responses to Vanessa Yambot’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R6-2 through R6-6 below.

R6-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R6-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R6-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R6-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R6-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R6-7 Responses to Vanessa Yambot’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R6-2 through R6-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1241
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1242
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-83
LETTER R7 – Ilianna Romero (3 pages)
1243
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1244
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-85
1245
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1246
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-87
R7. Response to Comments from Ilianna Romero, dated June 14, 2022.

R7-1 Responses to Ilianna Romero’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R7-2 through R7-6 below.

R7-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R7-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R7-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R7-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R7-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R7-7 Responses to Ilianna Romero’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R7-2 through R7-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1247
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1248
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-89
LETTER R8 – Verlynn Gojit (1 page)
1249
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1250
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-91
R8. Response to Comments from Verlynn Gojit, dated June 14, 2022.

R8-1 Responses to Verlynn Gojit’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R8-2 through R8-6 below.

R8-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R8-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R8-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R8-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R8-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R8-7 Responses to Verlynn Gojit’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R8-2 through R8-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1251
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1252
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-93
LETTER R9 – Inmi Chao (3 pages)
1253
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1254
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-95
1255
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1256
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-97
R9. Response to Comments from Inmi Chao, dated June 14, 2022.

R9-1 Responses to Inmi Chao’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R9-2 through R9-6 below.

R9-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R9-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R9-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R9-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R9-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R9-7 Responses to Inmi Chao’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R9-2 through R9-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1257
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1258
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-99
LETTER R10 – Katie Crofford (3 pages)
1259
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1260
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-101
1261
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1262
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-103
R10. Response to Comments from Katie Crofford, dated June 16, 2022.

R10-1 Responses to Katie Crofford’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R10-2 through R10-6 below.

R10-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R10-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R10-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R10-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R10-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R10-7 Responses to Katie Crofford’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R10-2 through R10-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1263
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1264
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-105
LETTER R11 – Elvia Velazco (3 pages)
1265
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1266
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-107
1267
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1268
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-109
R11. Response to Comments from Elvia Velazco, dated June 16, 2022.

R11-1 Responses to Elvia Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R11-2 through R11-6 below.

R11-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R11-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R11-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R11-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R11-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R11-7 Responses to Elvia Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R11-2 through R11-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1269
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1270
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-111
LETTER R12 –Aldo Velazco (3 pages)
1271
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1272
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-113
1273
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1274
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-115
R12. Response to Comments from Aldo Velazco, dated June 16, 2022.

R12-1 Responses to Aldo Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R12-2 through R12-6 below.

R12-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R12-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R12-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R12-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R12-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R12-7 Responses to Aldo Velazco’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R12-2 through R12-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1275
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1276
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-117
LETTER R13 – Inez Cardenas (1 page)
1277
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1278
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-119
R13. Response to Comments from Inez Cardenas, dated June 16, 2022.

R13-1 Responses to Inez Cardenas’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R13-2 through R13-6 below.

R13-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R13-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R13-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R13-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R13-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R13-7 Responses to Inez Cardenas’ comments are addressed in response to Comments R13-2 through R13-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1279
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1280
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-121
LETTER R14 – Caroline Lanspa (1 page)
1281
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1282
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-123
R14. Response to Comments from Caroline Lanspa, dated June 16, 2022.

R14-1 Responses to Caroline Lanspa’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R14- 2 through R14-6 below.

R14-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R14-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R14-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R14-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R14-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R14-7 Responses to Caroline Lanspa’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R14- 2 through R14-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1283
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1284
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-125
LETTER R15 – Daniel Lo (3 pages)
1285
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1286
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-127
1287
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1288
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-129
R15. Response to Comments from Daniel Lo, dated June 16, 2022.

R15-1 Responses to Daniel Lo’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R15-2 through R15-6 below.

R15-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R15-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R15-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R15-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R15-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R15-7 Responses to Daniel Lo’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R15-2 through R15-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1289
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1290
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-131
LETTER R16 – Eva Ramirez (1 page)
1291
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1292
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-133
R16. Response to Comments from Eva Ramirez, dated June 16, 2022.

R16-1 Responses to Eva Ramirez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R16-2 below.

R16-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.

However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).

R16-3 Responses to Eva Ramirez’s comments are addressed in response to Comment R16-2 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. 1293
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1294
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-135
LETTER R17 – Cara Butler (1 page)
1295
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1296
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-137
R17. Response to Comments from Cara Butler, dated June 17, 2022.

R17-1 Responses to Cara Butler’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R17-2 through R17-4 below.

R17-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R17-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R17-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.
1297
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1298
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-139
LETTER R18 – Antoinette Anderson (3 pages)
1299
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1300
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-141
1301
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1302
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-143
R18. Response to Comments from Antoinette Anderson, dated June 17, 2022.

R18-1 Responses to Antoinette Anderson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R18-2 through R18-6 below.

R18-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R18-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R18-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R18-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R18-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R18-7 Responses to Antoinette Anderson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R18-2 through R18-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1303
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1304
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-145
LETTER R19 – Jackie Deans (1 page)
1305
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1306
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-147
R19. Response to Comments from Jackie Deans, dated June 17, 2022.

R19-1 Responses to Jackie Dean’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R19-2 below.

R19-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts.

However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542).

R19-3 Responses to Jackie Dean’s comments are addressed in response to Comment R19-2 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decisionmakers for their review and consideration. 1307
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1308
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-149
LETTER R20 – Danielle Martinez (3 pages)
1309
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1310
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-151
1311
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1312
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-153
R20. Response to Comments from Danielle Martinez, dated June 17, 2022.

R20-1 Responses to Danielle Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R20- 2 through R20-6 below.

R20-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R20-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R20-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R20-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R20-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R20-7 Responses to Danielle Martinez’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R20- 2 through R20-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1313
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1314
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-155
LETTER R21 – Cynthia Serrano (3 pages)
1315
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1316
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-157
1317
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1318
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-159
R21. Response to Comments from Cynthia Serrano, dated June 19, 2022.

R21-1 Responses to Cynthia Serrano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R21- 2 through R21-6 below.

R21-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R21-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R21-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R21-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R21-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R21-7 Responses to Cynthia Serrano’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R21- 2 through R21-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1319
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1320
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-161
LETTER R22 – Tina Silva (3 pages)
1321
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1322
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-163
1323
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1324
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-165
R22. Response to Comments from Tina Silva, dated June 19, 2022.

R22-1 Responses to Tina Silva’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R22-2 through R22-6 below.

R22-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R22-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R22-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R22-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R22-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R22-7 Responses to Tina Silva’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R22-2 through R22-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1325
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1326
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-167
LETTER R23 – Jamie Ortega (1 page)
1327
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1328
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-169
R23. Response to Comments from Jamie Ortega, dated June 21, 2022.

R23-1 Responses to Jamie Ortega s comments are addressed in response to Comments R23-2 through R23-6 below.

R23-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R23-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R23-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R23-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R23-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R23-7 Responses to Jamie Ortega’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R23-2 through R23-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1329
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1330
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-171
LETTER R24 – Dessa D’Aquila Bentson (1 page)
1331
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1332
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-173
R24. Response to Comments from Dessa D’Aquila Bentson, dated June 21, 2022.

R24-1 Responses to Dessa D’Aquila Bentson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R24-2 through R24-6 below.

R24-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R24-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R24-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R24-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R24-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R24-7 Responses to Dessa D’Aquila Bentson’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R24-2 through R24-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1333
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1334
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-175
LETTER R25 – Malina Shaw (3 pages)
1335
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

1336
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-177
1337
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments

This page intentionally left blank.
1338
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments
July 2022 Page 2-179
R25. Response to Comments from Malina Shaw, dated June 21, 2022.

R25-1 Responses to Malina Shaw’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R25-2 through R25-6 below.

R25-2 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.1, Scenic Vistas. Development within the low-lying areas of Ontario would not have the potential to alter scenic views provided by the backdrop of the San Gabriel Mountains as the peaks rise to 7,000 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, future development under the Proposed Project would still be required to adhere to the City’s Development Code. Finally, the Commenter’s concerns regarding existing conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a potential environmental impact of TOP 2050.

R25-3 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, Section 2.2.2, Nonrenewal of Williamson Act Contracts, and Section 2.2.3, Environmental Justice Policies. Buildout of the Proposed Project, like the Approved Project, would most likely require the cancellation or nonrenewal of current Williamson Act contracts. However, because buildout of the Approved Project would have resulted in the cancellation or nonrenewal of Williamson Act contracts, the Proposed Project would not result in further impacts to Williamson Act lands. Further, the comment does not concern TOP 2050, but rather TOP 2010, which is not under consideration here. TOP 2010 was reviewed in the prior EIR and is properly treated as part of the environmental baseline in the SEIR (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 542). It should also be noted that environmental justice is not a CEQA topic, as social/economic issues are not environmental impacts under CEQA.

R25-4 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R25-5 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the buildout of TOP 2050 were identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R25-6 See Section 2.2, Summary of General Responses, and Section 2.2.4, Air Quality Impacts.

Cumulative health risk associated with buildout of TOP 2050 was identified as a significant unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

R25-7 Responses to Malina Shaw’s comments are addressed in response to Comments R25-2 through R25-6 above. The Commenter’s opposition to TOP 2050 has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their review and consideration. 1339
THE ONTARIO PLAN 2050 FINAL SEIR

CITY OF ONTARIO

2. Response to Comments